Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191

It has always been my understanding that the intended purpose for infoboxes is to provide a summary of key non-controversial data for an article. It appears to me however that with regard to one particular article topic - so-called 'micronations' - this has not been the case, and that instead they have been systematically misused. Specifically, it has been common practice to use 'infobox country' for in these articles, despite the fact that the entities they describe are essentially fictitious entities, invariably lacking diplomatic recognition, and almost always lacking any property of an actual nation-state whatsoever, beyond those existing in the fertile imaginations of those promoting them. It seems to me to be self-evident that the use of an infobox otherwise reserved for real entities is liable to be misleading to our readership, many of whom may not take the time to read the entire article, and to (hopefully) discover that the 'country' being described has no basis in reality.

The 'micronations' topic has sadly been plagued for many years by promotional editing, the citation of dubious sources, dishonest representation of content from more reputable sources etc, etc, along with associated sockpuppetry, off-Wikipedia canvassing, and general abuse of the platform, and in my opinion the manner in which the use of the 'county' infobox has seemingly become standard practice appears to be a remnant of that.

To give a specific example, the Liberland 'micronation' is one of the more well-known and systematically-promoted of these supposed entities, with the consequence that the presence and/or content of the infobox in our article has been the subject of multiple ongoing disputes. Over the years, it has at various times been graced with all sorts of unsourced and/or otherwise untenable claims regarding everything from the size of the population (which is zero, as far as any credible source has ever reported) to the existence of a whole slew of self-appointed government officials (at least one of which was added by said 'official' himself), claims regarding 'official currencies' and 'official languages' and even a specific 'calling code' - the last at least labelled 'proposed' and citing a source, though the source itself fails to provide any evidence that a proposal has actually been made to anyone in a position to act upon it.

At various times, those supporting the use of the infobox in this content have made various arguments in its favour, most of which have come down to the questionable assertion that since the article describes the subject as a 'micronation', it isn't necessary to explain anything further, nor to use them for any other purpose than to present the partisan claims of those promoting the entity described. This seems to be disingenuous at best, if not outright dishonest, given that it relies on the readers careful reading and/or prior knowledge to counter the inherent bias in presenting what is essentially fiction as fact. It shouldn't be necessary to have to read an article to discover that one is being misled by the accompanying infobox.

Given the above concerns, I would have to suggest that the appropriate course of action would be for WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc, etc to be properly enforced, and that the systematic abuse of infoboxes in this context be dealt with - by explicit change of policy if that is needed - and that this misrepresentation be dealt with by removing these boxes of disinformation entirely. Infoboxes for countries should describe countries, not fantasy worlds, and they don't belong in artices describing the latter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree. SportingFlyer T·C 15:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Some of them aren't even real micronations. Certes (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering… is the type of info someone would expect to see in an infobox for a micro-nation the same or different than what is standard in the country infobox we use for a recognized nation state?

I ask because I can see how having an infobox for these entities might be useful… but perhaps it should be a new, separate infobox, with different parameters. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Fictional locations should use Template:Infobox fictional location. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The name of the template is almost meaningless in this discussion. It's just a name used to let other editors know what type of content it should be used on. If you look at the template's redirects you will also find Template:Infobox micronation which has been redirecting to it since 2013. The discussion that resulted in the removal of the infobox was short sighted. If you have issues with the data entered, handle it like we do any other piece of information. Gonnym (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Normally, we deal with 'information' that violates WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc by removing it entirely. Which is what I am proposing. The problem isn't the name of the infobox (I never suggested it was), the problem is the way a convention normally used for non-controversial fact is systematically being used to promote fiction. This is dishonest, and would remain so regardless of how the box of fictions was renamed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If information added to the infobox is not verifiable or is not cited to reliable sources, that falls under policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. The name of the template of the infobox being used seems secondary. To use a parallel example, academic scholarship tends to regard the Book of Esther as being probably fictional, but the Esther (permalink) page's use of the "infobox person" template isn't a problem since the information it contains simply provides plot-and-analysis-relevant information about her in the narrative's setting. So if reliable sources don't say what Liberland's population is (to use your example), the Liberland infobox doesn't say it; if reliable sources don't say someone is part of Liberland's self-purported-but-unrecognized government, then they don't get added to the infobox.

I'm not seeing what policy needs to be changed. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV seem adequate for dealing with information added to infoboxes; the infobox and its name are secondary. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, here's a practical example: the infobox for Liberland stated that Vít Jedlička is 'President'. Is that verifiable? It is certainly verifiable that he describes himself thus, but should we be presenting such an unsupportable claim as if it is factual in an infobox? I'd say that it was a gross violation of WP:NPOV to present his claim that way - and that is essentially the only way these infoboxes are being used. Nothing they contain is uncontroversial fact, and given that empty boxes are useless, policy requires removal. Not endless arguments over sourcing, not endless addition of promotional BS. Removal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's verifiable (at least for 2015). Gonnym (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"...self-declared President Vit Jedlicka...". That doesn't make him a president. It makes him someone who calls himself one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Micronations are not fictional, in that they're not in the domain of fiction drafted up by some writer or alt-history person. They're real claims of land, almost always completely BS. Despite their lack of recognition, micronations still have concrete claims of land area and population (haters may claim 0 isn't a population). They also have flags, insignia, mottos, anthems, etcetera. Anything that fails verification may be removed, but my opinion is that it should still have infoboxes. Liberland, in its infobox, said its status was an "unrecognized micronation", which I believe is sufficient to convey it has no diplomatic basis. The infobox should stay.

As mentioned, unverifiable information must be removed per V, RS, and NPOV. SWinxy (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

But, micronations are fictional in that they are inventions of someone's imagination. Sealand did manage to create a physical (but not a legal) presence by squatting for a while on an abandoned defense tower, but micronations in general have no physical or legal existance. Our articles about micronations are not about things that exist in the real world, they are about fictitious entities, no matter what claims their proponents put forth, Donald Albury 20:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"But, micronations are fictional in that they are inventions of someone's imagination." Isn't that true of ALL nations? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

there are editors here who are peeved that people come from offsite to try to promote a microstate that they either like or maybe even have personal ties to, which is understandable. hitting upon the idea that the denial of a infobox somehow dilutes the legitimacy of the micronation status is just daft and petty. as long as it is clearly stated what they recognized/unrecognized status is, an infobox should be returned to the article. ValarianB (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of side points people are making but I think that a dedicated Micronation infobox would smooth much of the drama out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The other comments above have it exactly right. There seem to be a small cohort of editors who are just personally irked that a "fake" or "illegitimate" or inconsequential country can have a page of its own, let alone an infobox of its own. Of course, this is highly biased, especially when notability and reliability of sources guidelines have all been properly followed, and claims cited. Rather than recusing themselves of being editors of these articles, they're engaging in the opposite: starting proposals to remove infoboxes, etc.

Infoboxes are fundamentally summaries of basic information that one would find within the body of an article; plain and simple (it's in the name: it's a box with information that comes from the body of the article). They have no fancier or more stringent requirements than do the bodies of articles. Insofar as the body text of an article exists with properly cited sources, that same information can be summarized in an infobox, which is what is being done in every case on WP. Articles on micronations are no exception to this.

Regarding these arguments about "unsupportable claim": if the entire article is prefaced with the words "unrecognized nation" or the like, it's amply clear to anyone reading that the claims made by the entity in question in the article are disputed. This is hardly any different than the article on Taiwan claiming that it's a "country" when even the UN seemingly disagrees with them. There's variation in how much legitimacy there are to these claims, but insofar as these claims exist, what matters is whether they are notable and are verifiable (by way of secondary sources reporting on them); that's it—nothing else matters.

Finally, what's especially ridiculous is like the previous editor wrote, we're ultimately talking about a "Infobox micronation" template being used here. Why would there be a problem with a micronation article using an infobox made specifically for it? What other infoboxes should it be using if not the one tailor-made for it? Getsnoopy (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

While it would be a good thing if Wikipedia articles on 'micronations' made their unrecognised (and almost always entirely fictitious) status clear in the lede, there have been consistent efforts to prevent this (see e.g. this edit, and the edit summary ). And in any case, as I wrote above, it shouldn't be necessary to have to read an article to discover that one is being misled by the accompanying infobox. As for comparisons between Taiwan (population 24 million) and Liberland (population zero), I'd have to suggest the numbers speak for themselves. This isn't about diplomatic recognition, this is about entirely imaginary entities which have none of the attributes of a nation state at all. No population. No infrastructure. No economy. Nothing. Objectively, almost all are little more than websites with delusions of grandeur. Describing them as 'unrecognised' anythings is of itself misleading. They aren't 'unrecognised'. They are fictitious. Taiwan isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If there are problems with editors not including the per-verifiable-reliable-sources unrecognized status of a micronation in the lede, that seems like a content dispute matter about the lede rather than a policy question about infobox use. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If people would actually address the policy question I have described here, rather than looking for ways to avoid it, we'd maybe get somewhere. I have so far seen nobody offer any sort of explanation as to why any infobox (on anything) should be allowed to present fringe and/or fictional promotional bullshit as if it is objective fact. That is what I am objecting to. Not because of the name of the infobox. And not because of the presence or absence of words elsewhere in the article. The 'information' in the infobox is misinformation. It violates core Wikipedia principles. Or if it doesn't please explain why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven't satisfactorily explained how the information is misinformation. No one would actually be misled by the claim that Vít Jedlička is the president of Liberland, for example. Micronations are "made up", but so are all nations. Removing the infobox just makes the relevant information harder for our readers to find. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ditto; I couldn't have phrased it better. In the same way that the article on Middle-earth has an infobox that makes a bunch of claims without every one of those claims being prefixed with Warning: this is a fictitious claim, infoboxes about nations (whether micro- or not) do the same thing. The topic of the article might be fiction per se (but then again, all nations are fictitious like you said), but that doesn't matter; what matters is within the realm of that topic, whether the claims being made are true. This applies to literally every article that is about a human construct. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"Micronations are "made up", but so are all nations." This is exactly the facile drivel that has blighted the topic for so long. Yes, nations-states are social constructs. That doesn't make them all equivalent under Wikipedia policy. Or under common sense. Try getting through US immigration with a Liberland passport, using the same arguments. You'd probably do as well by proclaiming yourself a Sovereign Citizen and citing Admiralty Law. Social constructs become real things, when people sufficient people collectively act on them. And, in the case of nation states, when they have the power to back it up. That's what a state is. That is how one recognises one. Not something that people believe should be one, but one with the means to enforce such a belief. The United States is a social construct. The USS Nimitz isn't. If people want to concoct a fantasy world where the existence of the Nimitz doesn't come into such questions, good for them. Just don't do it on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you're flogging a straw man there. No-one is saying "Micronations are indistinguishable from internationally recognised countries". They are saying "There is no problem in stating the uncontroversial facts about a micronation using the same template as a country, provided that the infobox is clear about the status of the purported micronation". For what it's worth I wouldn't mind using Infobox: Country for Gondor or Narnia either, provided that it was entirely clear in the infobox what the status of the thing being described was. (I think it's also worth mentioning Transnistria, South Ossettia, SMOM, Northern Cyprus, even Taiwan against the idea that it's entirely clear and undisputed what is and isn't a country.) TSP (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

So how exactly is the infobox here "clear about the status of the purported micronation"? The only indication in the infobox is the word 'micronation'. Add 'unrecognised', it gets removed (and the same thing has happened repeatedly in the article lede for that matter). And the arguments are almost always the same 'all nations are social constructs', 'it is all sourced' (it is, to the people promoting it), 'it says micronation so that makes it clear' (which it doesn't, since expecting readers to know what 'micronation' is supposed to mean isn't appropriate in a general-purpose encyclopaedia). And round and round it goes. Any excuse to make these fictions look more credible than any legitimate application of Wikipedia policy would permit. It's been going on for years. It is systematic. And in some cases (e.g. Liberland) it is being done by people with a direct financial interest in plugging their imaginary territory, along with associate cryptocurrencies and the rest. These things matter. They aren't just concoctions for entertainment. Not while e.g. the Government of Egypt has had to put out warnings about social media posts plugging 'Liberland' as a destination for emigration. Wikipedia is being used to spread disinformation, for profit. And those being profited from are in such cases the most vulnerable, and worst place to take the loss. We don't plug snake oil. We don't plug Sovereign Citizen 'Admiralty Law'. Why are we plugging 'micronations'? How are they any different? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting that you mention "snake oil". The page for Medical uses of silver does have an infobox for colloidal silver, and there is an infobox on the Bates Method page. As with micronations, I don't quite see how summarizing information in an infobox constitutes "plugging", as you say. We aren't plugging books, politicians, or tropical storms by summarizing their data in infoboxes. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Then that's a totally different thing. I certainly was never against adding the word "Unrecognized" in the Infobox because it's right there in the lead of the article; it would be silly for someone to be against putting that information in the Infobox. That's an entirely separate point from whether the Infobox per se should exist, let alone on all micronation articles. This seems like a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• It's very clear that AndyTheGrump has a problem with micronations. There is nothing wrong with that. What however is a problem is the battleground attitude displayed above in attempting to impose that point of view on Wikipedia articles in multiple ways. We are not "plugging" micronations any more than we are "plugging" South Ossetia, Taiwan, Microsoft Windows, Book of Genesis, Kim Kardashian, Al-Qaida, Church of Scientology, Sovereign Military Order of Malta or anything else by having an article on them. If the subject is notable then we should have a neutral, factual article about it and there is no problem with having an infobox on that article. Which infobox to use is dependent entirely on which is best suited to display the appropriate information, nothing else. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I also have a problem with the way micronations are promoted on Wikipedia. There is an ongoing effort to treat micronations as equivalent to real nation-states. Yes, some micronations are notable, in that there is abundant, independent coverage, as is the case for Sealand or the Conch Republic, where there are/were real-world events, but one was a pirate radio, and the other is an ongoing publicity campaign to promote tourism. Many other micronations are fantasies, with "coverage" being largely self-generated or no better than "mainstream" sources repeating press releases. Micronations have no legal existance, and, in most cases, no real-world presence, yet their proponents have repeatedly tried to present them as real nation-states. Donald Albury 14:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Donald Albury puts it well. Using the country infobox helps validate those who want to believe that this bullshit is real and makes it harder to edit in an already contentious area. SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

So pointing out on WP:VPP that policy has been systematically violated is 'battleground behaviour' is it? Nice way to shut a conversation down... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles cannot be exclusively sourced to self-published sources, that is entirely clear. If there are instances of that, fantastic, please propose them for deletion. But if they're being picked up by mainstream media, sorry, we follow that, even if you believe that they're just repeating press releases. I'm not clear which policy you think has been systematically violated here.

I absolutely agree that these articles need to be clear on the status of the institutions depicted, but I'm not really sure what that has to do with use of infoboxes. It kind of feels like you're trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS here? There's no evidence in the Egyptian article you posted above that people believing Liberland is a recognised country has any connection to to do with Wikipedia - especially not English Wikipedia, as it's stated that most of the discussion is in Arabic.

On how to make status clear, This seems fine? 'Micronation' in the heading; 'Status: Unrecognized micronation' in the body; 'Area claimed' and similar in describing attributes; 'Liberland ... is an unrecognised micronation' and 'Liberland has no diplomatic recognition from any recognized nation' in the article lead. Looks good to me. TSP (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to quickly summarize key facts for the reader, and I agree that use of the Nation infobox results in a misleading outcome. What we include in the template listing micronations includes failed historical rebellions, municipal publicity stunts, and Liberland-style entities. It is not clear to me that the sources treat all of these things as of a kind, as we do. An infobox for the third type of micronation should indicate at the top that it is about an "Unrecognized Micronation" - arguably a bit redundant, but "Micronation" is not a commonly understood term, and too easily confused with "Microstate". I think the relevant fields would be "Claimed by", to identify the people or group promoting its existence, "Dates claimed", for the period it was promoted, and "Area claimed", with a map. Attempts to fill in the other fields in the Nation infobox invariably result in an infobox that misleads the reader more than it informs by leaving the reader with an impression that this is a genuine state, and puts undue weight on aspects that are trivial in this conext, like flags, mottos, and currency, in a way that is out of step with the body of reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If infobox country was forked to infobox micronation, or if infobox fictional location was used instead of infobox country, would the reader even know it? I don't think the name of the infobox matters to readers. Levivich (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The Sealand infobox below looks good to me. Using an {{infobox micronation}} with parameters that reflect the actual key components of micronations (which are not the same as the key components of countries), and that accurately label those components ("area claimed" etc) makes sense. Levivich (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No infobox. Using an infobox identical to that of actual countries is putting the micronation's unrecognized claims in wikivoice, which is not compliant with NPOV. Infobox country params were chosen because they are considered to be the most unifying, fundamental data and are reliably released through official government (or scholarly/NGO/tertiary) publications for all nations. They are inherently DUE because they are expected to be reported widely in high-quality RS.

These infobox country params for micronations can NOT be expected to have the same level of robust, official/RS sourcing, and in fact most would require attribution or context when in the article body. They are no more inherently fundamental to the topic than a glossary of trivia/maps at the end of any fantasy book, and there is certainly no expectation of uniform attention or treatment from sources across all of what we call "micronations". JoelleJay (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I can think of nothing more fundamental to a micronation than claims of location, area, population, founder(s) and leader(s) (flag(s) are also common to both but not essential to either) - i.e. the same information as for countries. Infoboxes, whether for country or micronation, simply state in wikivoice what the verifiable claims are, not how truthful or generally accepted they are. Absolutely all of your objections can be overcome by simply noting clearly in the article lead and infobox that the subject is a micronation - and we already do that. We even wikilink the term "micronation" so that those who are unfamilar with it can learn. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• 2 questions (not directed at any specific editor)… 1) Which parameters currently included in the country infobox would we have to remove if we created a separate micro-nations infobox? and 2) What parameters would we have to add if we were to create a separate micro-nations infobox? Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

An infobox treats the micronation as if such details are always reasonable to report at all. If a given detail would simply be primary-sourced trivia that doesn't belong in the body of the article, we should not be emphasizing it in the infobox. Different micronations will have different amounts and quality of sourcing for any of their claimed attributes; even if those attributes are verifiable, they may be nothing more than fancruft with strictly in-universe relevance to the topic. And yet if a parameter can be filled it will be. The fact that "micronations" is so similar to "microstates" just makes an infobox even more misleading. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If information isn't covered in secondary sources, aren't the policies for talking about that WP:N and WP:V? I don't really understand what's being asked for. If there isn't verifiable and due information that is due and can be summarized in an infobox, then an infobox can be foregone. If there is verifiable and due information in the body that can be summarized in an infobox, then an infobox is fine and even appropriate. Existing policies seem plenty sufficient, and I don't see a need for some explicit change in policy specifying micronation topics. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Editors very frequently see infoboxes as forms to fill in with anything remotely verifiable regardless of how relevant or BALASP it is to the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Then the “form” should only have fields that are “relevant to the topic” for the editors to fill in. What would those fields be for a micro-nation? Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Off the top of my head and in no particular order:

• Founder(s)
• Location(s)
• Capital(s)
• Area
• Population
• Dates active
• Website
• Leaders
• Form of government
• Flag
• Anthem
• Motto
• Official language(s)

Not every micronation has all of those things, they are all relevant (when they can be reliably sourced) for the ones that do. This is wholly a subset of the parameters of template:Infobox country and almost(?) all the ones that aren't included are things that (afaik) no micronation has (things like GDP, Gini, driving side, cctld, ISO codes, international calling code, patron saint, etc) so can't be included regardless of whether the parameter exists or not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

In the past there has been a similar debate about the amount of detail to add to churches. From the introduction to {{Infobox church}}: Churches vary from small chapels to large cathedrals; from corrugated iron sheds to architectural masterpieces of international importance. This template has to be adaptable to the worship locations of all religious denominations and as a consequence, it has many parameters. It is therefore important that editors exercise discretion in selecting an appropriate number of parameters. If the infobox for a particular church becomes excessive WP:BOLD applies and less significant parameters should be removed. Could a similar caveat to the talk page be applied here? We don't need more templates, we need more selective use of them. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If a given detail would simply be primary-sourced trivia that doesn't belong in the body of the article, we should not be emphasizing it in the infobox An infobox summarises the body of the article. If something is not in the body of the article, for whatever reason, then it shouldn't be in the infobox. Whether something is "trivia" is a matter of subjective opinion, if editors disagree then seek consensus on the talk page, seeking additional input (e.g. WP:30) if necessary. Whether something is primary sourced or not is irrelevant - primary sources are entirely unproblematic (and sometimes desirable) for simple factual information and WP:ABOUTSELF material (which covers most of what infoboxes cover). Secondary sources are required to demonstrate notability, but if the topic isn't notable it shouldn't have an article (with or without an infobox), if a topic is notable enough for an article then there is no reason for it not to have an infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is put better than I could've said it. I'm inclined to Thryduulf's sense of the matter. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I am arguing that which "simple factual and ABOUTSELF" material is actually encyclopedic enough for an infobox is far too variable and inconsistently relevant for micronations. There is plenty of factual, verifiable-in-RS info available for almost all members of some groups that still doesn't make it into infobox params because editors have determined it is not vital info on that topic. Like an actor's eye or hair color. Why shouldn't the considerations that led to those facts being excluded from a particular infobox be repeated here, for a group where it is not clear if any parameters are expected to be integral details for many members? A micronation's "national anthem" could have the same broad sourcing as that of a real country, or it could exist in name only sourced to an offhand comment in an interview and not actually represent a real song. JoelleJay (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Your problem is not with infoboxes, it is a content dispute with other editors. The way to resolve a content dispute regarding what should be in a specific infobox is to discuss the content with other editors at the article concerned and then abide by the consensus reached. Trying to remove infoboxes from all micronation articles because you disagree with the content of some of them is exactly the same as, and exactly as inappropriate as, trying to remove infoboxes from all articles about actors because you think eye colour and height are trivia that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether something is primary sourced or not is irrelevant - primary sources are entirely unproblematic (and sometimes desirable) for simple factual information and WP:ABOUTSELF material (which covers most of what infoboxes cover). The article still needs to comply with WP:ASPECT. The information given prominence in the infobox doesn't need to be merely verifiable, but should be presented in a way that "treats each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." For micronations, I think the fields that would generally be emphasized by sources are who promoted it, where it was claimed, and when it was claimed. Everything else, including the purported structure of its government, population, etc. is either not likely to meet WP:ASPECT or requires too much qualification and explanation to be easily summarized in an infobox field.--Trystan (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Everything about your comment is a matter for consensus among editors at the talk page of the individual article, because what weight is due will be different in every case (for example, location is a more important aspect of Liberland than Independent State of Rainbow Creek). It's not a reason to remove infoboxes from micronationa generally. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't suoport removing infoboxes from micronation articles. As set out in my comments above, I support the creation of an infobox for micronations that has fields and labels that are generally appropriate for micronations: "Claimed by", to identify the people or group promoting its existence, "Dates claimed", for the period it was promoted, and "Area claimed", with a map.--Trystan (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need to fork the country infobox given that fields relevant to micronations are a complete subset, and there isn't any promotion happening, no NPOV violation, or any other reason why we need to batter readers over the head at every opportunity that micronations are not countries. If they are reading an article about a micronation, that explicitly says its a micronation, that links to the article explaining micronations, etc, then its already clear enough without needing to insult their intelligence or fear that "proper" countries might get infected, or whatever other reason there is for the hate displayed here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

How do you think infobox parameters are chosen? JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Which parameters are chosen for the template or chosen to be filled in on a given article? For the former, template editors and maintainers tend to include all that are relevant for a substantial number in the relevant set. For the latter, a consensus of editors at the individual article. I don't get why you are asking that though? Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

template editors and maintainers tend to include all that are relevant for a substantial number in the relevant set. I am arguing that we have not yet determined the set of "which parameters are relevant" for micronations. If we are to have infoboxes for them at all, the parameters need to be chosen based on what has actually been treated as "fundamental" info by independent secondary RS, not what we assume would be fundamental through analogy with real countries. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Without wading into every side argument in this, I'm going to support the notion that this template should not be used for any fictitious country or for any alleged micronation that is not treated as a real country in numerous independent reliable sources. For disputed territories, break-away republics, occupied territories that were formerly countries, etc., there should be a criterion that it have (or at the time had - some of these will be articles on historical polities/nations) an actual functional government, not just a declaration of a rebellion or whatever. It's not WP's job to "label" things as countries/nations/states that the majority of pertinent RS do not treat that way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Using infobox country does not label the subject as a country, see for example Sealand and Austenasia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This is one of those issues where I really wish Wikipedia had some basic capacity for user testing. My strong suspicion is that a group of users shown those two infoboxes, and then asked to describe what they think those things are, would largely come away with the impression that they are real, functioning governments of places. Which would be clear evidence that the purpose of the infobox, to summarize the key features of the page's subject, is not being met.--Trystan (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you really believe that most readers, if shown an infobox that contains this image, with this caption, would largely come away with the impression that they are real, functioning governments of places?

If so, then I suspect that user testing for the opening paragraphs would produce equally disheartening results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Quick facts Principality of Sealand, Claimed by ...

Principality of Sealand
Unrecognized micronation
Aerial view of Sealand in 1999
Claimed by	Paddy Roy Bates, Michael Bates
Dates claimed	1967 to present
Area claimed	Offshore platform off the coast of England

Close

In that one case, the picture might well give them pause. At the same time, the presentation of the infobox is saying, "Here are the key features you need to know about this topic: this place has a flag, a coat of arms, a motto, an anthem, it's a constitutional monarchy, it's led by a prince...". By contrast, an infobox that summarizes the actual key points of the topic, as framed in the article and supported by the sources, would leave little possibity for confusion. Those fields are not the same as the available fields in Infobox Country, and that is true in general for micronation articles.--Trystan (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You mean the presentation of the infobox, with "Micronation" at the top equal in size to the title and titles such as "purported currency", no population figure and a size of "approximately 1 acre" might might not leave people with enough of an impression of how much disdain for the subject they should have or they might confuse it for a "real" country? I don't buy it. Remember that NPOV applies to everything, regardless of how real or important we personally think something should be. Thryduulf (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Does the infobox I proposed convey disdain? I don't see how. I think a NPOV approach requires us to highlight the unrecognized status (and often complete lack of de facto existence) of these entities as their single most important defining feature, but that is to comply with WP:ASPECT. I personally don't feel disdain for them.

But I'm happy to turn to addressing the specific points you raise, and why I think the infobox I have proposed presents a more accurate, neutral, and clear summary of these topics than the current application of Infbox Country. "Micronation" as a term is uncommon, recent, and easily confused with microstate. Readers can't click on every link in an article, so I don't think adding the clarifying word "unrecognized" is undue. For size, yes, Sealand is small, but most micronations are not distinguishable from microstates based on size. I don't think it is reasonable for a reader to be expected to notice that population is missing from the Sealand infobox, or to make any inferences from that fact. The notion of what is meant by "population" for a micronation is inherently unclear (c.f. Glacier Republic), so I don't think that is a meaningful field for micronations generally. "Purported currency" is probably the best field label in the current application of Infobox Country, but from reviewing several micronation articles, I haven't found one where the purported currency is actually a key feature of the subject. Clarifying that the currency is "purported" is good, but then why are we not similarly qualifying the statement that the organizational structure and various other aspects are also merely "purported"?--Trystan (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It certainly comes across as disdainful even if thats not what you intended. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:DUE applies here too. Putting the flag and crest of Sealand in an infobox isn't neutral. SportingFlyer T·C 14:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I don’t necessarily disagree that an infobox could be useful on these articles, but mimicking the trade dress of legitimate country infoboxes serves to mislead. I also find it misleading to fill in the “Government” fields like “President” and “Minister of Finance”. The people self-appointed to these roles are not at all what readers will understand a president or minister to be. Words have meanings. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What about a generic "People" or "Key people" category like we use with companies? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Who are we to decide who is and who isn't a legitimate holder of a title? Once we start doing that for micronations we also have to start doing it for states with limited recognition, and for "proper" countries where there are disputed claims to the legitimate government. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think this is a slippery slope... Sealand is not Kosovo and this wouldn't establish any sort of consensus or precedent for those vastly different categories of articles. I don't think its a question of legitimacy, we can still have the full title in the article after all, but a question of due weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sealand is not Kosovo, but it is all one continuum from serious but non-notable micronations through to micronations that actually control some tiny territory (e.g. Sealand), to nations that control non-trivial territory but are unrecognised by everyone, to those that are recognised by a few, to those that are recognised by most. Then there are entities like the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Holy See, that don't neatly fit anywhere on the continuum. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This is my concern as well. Much of the thread has circulated around emphasizing what is "official" and "real", but the "official" and "real" are not nearly so uncontroversial as implied. If "unrecognised micronation" in the lede isn't clarifying enough, then as another example is "Native American reservation" too unclear and unusual a term for Navajo Nation? Someone without familiarity with of U. S. history might plausibly not know what reservation means in the context of nation-state sovereignty. Should the "infobox settlement" of the Navajo Nation not resemble that of a country so much, with its capital, government, population, GDP, etc.? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Navajo Nation is a legally-defined entity whose governance and land claims are recognized by the US. There is no similarity here between it and an micronations which by definition do not have legal recognition. JoelleJay (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Except some micronations do have some legal recognition, as noted elsewhere in this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Where are these examples of micronations with legal recognition? Note that diplomatic recognition is limited to sovereign states. JoelleJay (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"Sovereign state" is not black and white. For example, Libreland has recognition from Somaliliand, which has recognition from Taiwan, which has recognition from multiple indisputably sovereign states. The Sealand article claims "de-facto recognition" from the UK and Germany. Where do you draw the line? Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that whole Taiwan extends legal and other forms of recognition to Somaliland they do not extend diplomatic recognition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that the Navajo Nation has no diplomatic recognition but does have legal recognition. No matter how hard you try, it is not simple. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I draw the line at "most recent sources call this a micronation"! It's not that hard. JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that legal and diplomatic recognition are completely different things, take for example Taiwan which enjoys legal recognition from far more counties than it enjoys diplomatic recognition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No it is not a continuum, the cutoff for what is a micronation is its designation as a micronation in RS. No one here is arguing about anything other than micronations, so entities that have not been widely described as micronations are irrelevant. However, the diversity you note among what have been classed as micronations is precisely why the country infobox is inappropriate to use, as there is too much variation in coverage and topic relevance of most of the parameters. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The point is that what is a micronation and what isn't is not black and white. There is no more variation among micronations than there is among countries and other entities that don't fit neatly into either category. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"Legal recognition as a state by sovereign states" is pretty black and white. And there certainly is far more variation among micronations in whether any particular infobox parameter can be filled and sourced to IRS coverage at all, let alone coverage demonstrating it is a fundamental aspect of the micronation. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Legal recognition as a state by sovereign states is very much not black and white - see the lead of Sovereign state. Everything else is irrelevant to whether there should be an infobox and if so what it should be called as explained by multiple people multiple times in this discussion already. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This doesn’t need to be complicated. If reliable sources don’t treat it as a real country, then us treating it as a real country would be undue promotion of a fringe perspective. The existence of a continuum does not seem to prevent sources from clearly distinguishing the things at the opposite ends of the continuum. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, what is the objective definition of a "real country"? Secondly, explain how us including information in an infobox (but not the article) about a "non-real" country is promotion but including the same information about a "real" unrecognised country isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that a real country is whatever reliable sources treat as a real country. We don’t need to get into any deep epistemological debate here - we just need to follow the sources. The due weight of reliable sources clearly treat micronations as something quite distinct from what the majority of readers will recognise as countries, and also distinct from other types of disputed regions.

I mentioned trade dress above because even completely factual information can serve to mislead if packaged in a form with a strong association with a thing that is clearly different. This is one of the reasons we wouldn’t use Template:Chembox on Dilithium (Star Trek). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly this. WP is not the arbiter of what is and isn't a country, let alone the extent of its legitimacy. Hence, it refers to them using neutral language and just presents the facts as they are: "hey, it's a country, but an unrecognized one according to so and so reliable sources." Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure why this discussion is veering toward "what will users think? will they think it's a real country?"

Just for context, Liberland has full diplomatic recognition from Somaliland, which is an unrecognized (though not micro-) nation itself but has a large land area with actual people living in it and such. It is an insult to all the people living there and their government (which, mind you, operates in basically exactly the same way as does that of Kosovo) to say that "WP doesn't think Liberland is a country, so that's what's real" when they obviously thought it is and decided to enter into relations with it. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No one is saying WP should decide what is or isn't a country. We are going by what the sources say, and if they designate an entity as a micronation then that means we do too. Micronations are definitionally not legally-recognized by sovereign states and thus are definitionally not classified the same as any of the other types of non-sovereign polities that have been mentioned so far. From our own article: Micronations are aspirant states that claim independence but lack legal recognition by world governments or major international organisations.[5][6] Micronations are classified separately from states with limited recognition and quasi-states, nor are they considered to be autonomous or self-governing as they lack the legal basis in international law for their existence.[7] While some are secessionist in nature, most micronations are widely regarded as sovereignty projects that instead seek to mimic a sovereign state rather than to achieve international recognition, and their activities are almost always trivial enough to be ignored rather than challenged by the established nations whose territory they claim
Sources do not treat them as "real" countries and neither should we. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It is my opinion that we will have another shouting match about the definition of a micronation if Liberand manages to get diplomatic recognition from the Javier Milei Government in Argentina, who had previously vocally supported Liberland.

Furthermore, if you search Liberland on YouTube and set it to show recent results, you will find dozens of videos of people settling Liberland starting from mid-August 2023. At the very least, one can see the Liberlanders permanently parked a houseboat on there, and selling accommodation for $100/night on said houseboat. (Check their website.) This brings the question, does Liberland really fit in the definition of a micronation presented above? 2001:4430:4141:7BBE:0:0:81D:C0A4 (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If Argentina formally recognizes Liberland and sources state it is no longer a micronation, we can revisit its classification on wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are some items related to how Croatia views Liberland, for future reference:

Document UP/I-216-04-23-01/1873 (expulsion of an EU national): “[Vít Jedlička] as the creator of the idea and the project of the parastatal entity [of Liberland]… . ”

Document: NK UP/I-216-04-23-04/192 (expulsion of a non-EU national): “The given area is claimed by a Czech citizen Vít Jedlička as the state of Liberland and the proponents of the parastatal entity…” 2001:4430:4121:E806:0:0:DE5:F0AC (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The following link contains the reply of the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs after a Liberlander letter-writing effort in 2023. One can say that this means that Croatia views Liberland a mere trivial project, or on the flip side that it warrants enough attention for an official reply.

https://liberland.org/en/news/522-liberland-responds-to-croatian-foreign-ministry 2001:4430:4121:E806:0:0:DE5:F0AC (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely disagree. When an organisation/similar has a visual emblem, displaying it in the article is absolutely DUE, and the infobox is a suitable place for that where one exists. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

When the organization is fictional, using visual emblems make it look like the organization actually exists. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly micronations are not fictional, but even if they were that wouldn't be a reason not to display their emblem in an infobox, see e.g. Umbrella Corporation, S.H.I.E.L.D., Department of Extranormal Operations, H.A.M.M.E.R., SPECTRE, ... Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Those aren't WP:FRINGE though. WP:PROFRINGE clearly applies here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would documenting the existence of an unrecognized micronation and its visual logo be promotion? It seems like a mainstream point of view that Sealand and Liberland exist as human phenomena, and they have coverage in relevant news media. The views that are fringe are their claims of sovereignty, and the pages don't promote those claims of sovereignty; the pages report that they have claimed sovereignty and report those claims have gone unrecognized. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. This would include flags and seals, I would imagine. SportingFlyer T·C 15:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If the existence of a micronation is unestablished by RS, then the quoted policy applies and we shouldn't have an article about it. If RS confirm the existence of the micronation, even if it's only as a micronation, then its graphical symbols should be usable even if they are only based on the micronation's own data. Animal lover |666| 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

On what grounds? WP:FRINGE explicitly disallows that. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

FRINGE does not disallow the neutral reporting of factual information about a fringe topic. Using an organisation's own symbols on an article about that organisation that explicitly puts the status of that organisation into context (and having "unrecognised micronation" in big letters does do that) is neutrally reporting the factual information about that organisation. Including such symbols in other articles will be UNDUE in almost every case I can immediately think of (List of micronations being an exception) but that's a different matter.

NAMBLA is a notable organisation that promotes a fringe POV (that could lead to real-world harm, unlike anything to do with micronations), yet there is no suggestion that using their logo in the infobox about them violates either guideline you quote (or the WP:NPOV policy to which it relates). Indeed not using an organisation's logo (where there are no venerability or copyright issues) could be argued to be contrary to NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh come on, NAMBLA's logo is infamous and widely reported in RS. In contrast, the various details and visual paraphernalia that can be associated with micronations in general rarely get mentioned anywhere besides the micronation's own website/publications. JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Mentions/inclusions of the flag of Liberland in reliable sources include: CNN, The Japan Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, EUObserver, and Vice. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I said in general, for the full set of params, not "specifically the logo of arguably the second-most famous micronation". JoelleJay (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

So what does "in general" mean then? What is the objective standard that defines when including a micronations symbols is "fringe" and when it isn't? Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

whoever added the infobox proposal to the right, i'd support that. restore a box, but redesign it so it doesn't copy the nation infobox style, layout, and fields. ValarianB (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it doesn't really matter, tbh, as long as the infobox conveys the info, the status of the entity in question. Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting issue, and one I had not previously considered. It appears to me that the essence of the discussion is whether the decision to use the country infobox at all is effectively a communicating non-neutral editorial viewpoint. I think that on balance I mostly fall in line with those concerned that the country infobox serves to give an inaccurrate impression of micronations. The modified box modeled on this page would be acceptable. I share the concerns voiced here that the infobox by its very nature is intended to summarize and convey the essential facts of the topic. For micronations, the most essential fact is that it lacks status recognized by any other entity and the box should instantly make this apparent to the reader. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s simpler than that … having an infobox in an WP article is simply a way to provide information about the topic in an organized format… it does not confer “legitimacy” on that topic.

That said… when it comes to micronations, while I do think having some information presented in infobox format is useful, I agree that there is a valid discussion to be had over what information should be provided in that infobox. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the point that several other editors that "micronation" should almost always be prefaced with "undrecognized." I don't think it's a fair expectation that a general readership inherently knows the difference between a micronation and the European microstates.

On infoboxes: like it or not, they are perceived a certain way by the general WP readership in my opinion. That perception being that it's the bare facts of a subject, and the ultimate form of wikivoice. So real care needs to be taken into consideration on what information gets included. I picked a random micronation I remember reading about, Principality of Hutt River, which also happened to be one of the more "real" ones before it was ended. I think it's overall okay at presenting information neutrally, but are things like an anthem, motto, ethnic groups, time zone essential to understanding an Australian's oddball tax evasion scheme (with apologies to the memory of HM Prince Leonard)? At best it's crufty, and at worst it adds to the presentation of the subject as "real" as the general readership perceives it. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why the |status= parameter isn't used more in these infoboxes. Something like |status = unrecognized micronation with links, or even a plain English summary like |status = failed attempt to start a new country would likely be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Such is stating unrecognized or generally rejected claims as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Should not be done. Infoboxes should only (explicitly or implicitly) include undisputed facts because they are too brief to include anything that needs explanatoin, calibration or attribution. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Use Template:Infobox fictional location for micro "nations" just like we presently do with Land of Oz, Camelot, Gotham City and 556 other fictional countries. This useful template gives information for micro nation believers and aficionados while making it clear to the general reader an article is not describing a real country. If this bothers them, said "nations" can send their navies to San Francisco to bombard Wikimedia's offices.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Micronations are not fictional though, so that would be completely inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@North8000 so why do the infoboxes for places like Taiwan, Northern Cyprus and Guyana present statements about the country's area that are the subject of disputes? Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate to use a different infobox or inappropriate to sortie their fleets and deploy their armies?

In any event, if they're real countries, they can get Interpol to arrest @AndyTheGrump for opening this libelous useful discussion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It is decidedly not NPOV to describe a non-fictional entity as fictional. Whether or not they are "real" countries (whatever that means) is not relevant - it is unarguable (at least in the cases I'm familiar with) that they claim to be countries and so we report those claims neutrally and report the status of those claims (i.e. who recognises them, etc) neutrally too. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Agree. And if that explanation / clarficiation / context won't fit in the info box, IMO the item should be left out of the info box. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't put the explanation of the status of claims about/by "real" countries in their infoboxes, indeed we're far more explicit about the status of micronations in the infobox than we are about places like Cook Islands, Northern Cyprus, Ingushetia, Wa State, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I would recommend changing all of those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Then, per List of territorial disputes you should be recommending removing the area from the majority of "real" countries. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course I don't have a recommendation that would be tidy. And degree of acceptence would also be a factor. But, as a note, specifying an area of the country is not directly weighing in on the disputes which affect the area.North8000 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

So if specifying disputed facts is not weighing in on the dispute for a "real" country, why is it for micronations? It is generally accepted as fact that Taiwan claims the area controlled by the PRC even though it doesn't have de facto control over that area, it is generally accepted as fact that Liberland claims the area not claimed by either Croatia or Serbia even though it doesn't have de facto control over that area, it is generally accepted as fact that the Hutt River Principality claimed 75km² of land on the Australian continent even though it is at best debatable whether it had any de facto control over that area, it is generally accepted as fact that Ukraine claims the area of Crimea even though it does not have de facto control over that area. The basis for the claims differ, as does who disputes them and why, but they are all disputed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not pretending to have a tidy answer, I'm just discussing considerations. Let's say that somebody claims that Rhode Island is an independent country and not a part of the USA. If in the USA article it discussed the State of Rhode Island, that is a pretty clear claim that Rhode Island is a part of the USA. And if in the Rhode Island article, there is an an infobox titled "Republic of Rhode Island" that is a pretty clear implicit claim that it is a country. But if in the USA article, the the listed total area of the USA includes the area of Rhode Island, thast is not such a clear claim/statement that Rhode Island is a part of the USA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I support the idea that vanity projects do not deserve to be treated (and infoboxed) the same way as real states. The Banner talk 09:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Compare the infoboxes of Israel (a real country with recognition by most, but not all, UN members) and Principality of Hutt River (a micronation). The former has fields "Area" (with footnotes due to the territorial dispute) and "Currency", while the latter has "Area claimed" and "Purported currency". And the latter says "Micronation" at the top, which the former doesn't. Animal lover |666| 14:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving forward

Based on the above discussion, it looks like there may be a consensus, but a formal RFC would be needed to test that theory. Would the options of keeping Infobox Country and adopting the micronation infobox proposed above be suitable? Does anyone have any suggested changes to the proposed infobox first?--Trystan (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose changes, because it's simply not necessary (micronation infoboxes and articles already make everything perfectly clear while maintaining NPOV) and the proposed version is less useful - particularly the "claimed by" field makes it appear that the claimants were working in partnership whereas in reality one is the successor of the other. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The "claimed by" label should read "initiators", "proponents" or "founders" or something to that effect. A "claimed by" label can be read to suggest that the initiators are claiming the territory for themselves, which not all of them do. Freetown Christiania for example, one of the only two or three micronations with real and lasting cultural significance, was very emphatically not "claimed by" anyone.

Renaming "area claimed" to "location" would generally lead to shorter descriptions and easier consensus.

A "type" label of sorts describing the raison d'être might be worth considering. Freetown Christiania was an intentional community; this is the most important thing to know about the project besides its location and approximate extent in time. Kugelmugel was an art project. The Hutt River Province was a political statement. The Kingdom of Elleore is a private leisure activity. The OWK is a business venture. The raison d'être is generally the most important property of any of the handful of micronations that actually matter. (The only possible exception I can think of is Sealand, whose most important property may have been the fact that it had a colourable (if ultimately insufficient) claim to independence.)

I believe it is important to make a clear distinction, on the infobox level, between micronations with real political or cultural impact on the one hand, business enterprises that just barely meet technical notability requirements on the other. People have already pointed out that many readers absolutely will read a country box as a low-grade certificate of legitimacy and that it therefore is a stealth NPOV violation to stick normal country boxes on sleazebag affinity scams like Liberland. A dedicated micronation box will help; a type label of some sort will help further. GR Kraml (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Proponents" and "Location" sound good to me. I agree that a "Type" field would be useful, as the subjects we describe as micronations variously include failed rebellions and self-described publicity stunts. In some cases, "Type" might be difficult to determine from available sources, but it could always be left blank on a case-by-case basis. What would you suggest for what I had as "Dates claimed"? Something like "Dates promoted"? Or just "Dates", but then it is potentially unclear whether we are talking about the period during which it was promoted or the period of its de facto existence (if any).--Trystan (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "type" would have to be left blank in some cases and I don't mind.

Either "dates claimed" or "dates promoted" should be fine. "Dates claimed" doesn't have the legal ambiguity issue that "claimed by" has, and if you're not the product of a formal claim of some sort you're probably not a micronation.

I agree that "dates" alone is bad. In micronations that have permanent residents or that come with long-lasting non-resident communities attached to them, the community as such can (and often does) start earlier and end later than the claim to sovereignty. GR Kraml (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are the different types of infobox side-by-side (hopefully my bodged formatting works, please fix it if it doesn't).

More information Infobox country with micronation parameter, Infobox country without micronation parameter ...

Infobox country with micronation parameter	Infobox country without micronation parameter	Proposed custom infobox
Principality of Sealand Micronation Flag Coat of arms Motto: E Mare Libertas (Latin) "From the sea, Freedom"[1] Anthem: "From the sea, Freedom" Aerial view of Sealand in 1999 Organizational structure Constitutional monarchy[2] Prince   • 1967–2012 Paddy Roy Bates • 2012–present Michael Bates[3] Establishment • Declared 2 September 1967; 58 years ago (1967-09-02)[3] Area claimed • Total 0.004 km2 (0.0015 sq mi) (approx. 1 acre) Purported currency Sealand dollar Website sealandgov.org	Principality of Sealand Flag Coat of arms Motto: E Mare Libertas (Latin) "From the sea, Freedom"[1] Anthem: "From the sea, Freedom" Aerial view of Sealand in 1999 Government Constitutional monarchy[2] Prince   • 1967–2012 Paddy Roy Bates • 2012–present Michael Bates[3] Establishment • Declared 2 September 1967; 58 years ago (1967-09-02)[3] Area • Total 0.004 km2 (0.0015 sq mi) (approx. 1 acre) Currency Sealand dollar Website sealandgov.org	Principality of Sealand Unrecognized micronation Aerial view of Sealand in 1999 Claimed by Paddy Roy Bates, Michael Bates Dates claimed 1967 to present Area claimed Offshore platform off the coast of England

Close

Given the clear distinction between the first two, and how much clearer they are, I simply don't buy the argument that people will confuse it for a "real" country. Labels, etc. can be tweaked if necessary (I actually prefer the header presentation of the proposed box as it makes it clear "Micronation" is not part of the name), but there isn't any need for major changes or for wheels to be reinvented. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

No offense, but this comparison is a great illustration of why standard country boxes are out of place in micronation articles: they improperly amplify and foreground a bunch of meaningless trivia. The fact that Sealand purported to be a "constitutional monarchy" is vacuous considering that the royal family never ruled over anyone but themselves. The number of readers whose attention needs to be drawn to the fact that Sealand's purported currency was the Sealand dollar as opposed to the Sealand drachma is zero. The number of readers who will profit from being able to recognize the Sealand flag next time they see it in the wild is also zero. The list goes on.

It is objectively bad editing to needlessly front-load an article with irrelevant factlets. No infobox at all is better than an infobox whose main effect is pushing meaningful information further down the page. GR Kraml (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Centering the trappings of countryhood, as in the first two examples, gives them undue weight. The flag, the anthem, the motto, the coat of arms… these are all calculated to confer legitimacy-by-association. Micronations are dressed up to look like a country, but this is essentially deceptive mimickry, and we shouldn’t participate, particularly for micronations that are enmeshed with shady cryptocurrencies. Calling the Sealand guy a “prince” is effectively taking a fringe claim at face value. Yes, I know there’s no mathematical objective definition of a prince, but just because something is a social construct doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean something. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not a micronation's claims are deceptive mimickry or are good faith assertions (that the rest of the world disagrees with) seems like a determination for reliable secondary sources, and something to be summarized on a case by case basis at each article. If reliable secondary sources report that someone is the unrecognized president or prince of an unrecognized micronation, how is it "participating" for Wikipedia to summarize that information? Or will we go through the articles for biblical figures and say it's "deceptive mimickry" to note the probably-fictional Esther is identified in the Book of Esther as queen of Persia, or to list the Tomb of Job in Job's infobox? Is the Goncharov infobox "deceptive mimickry" despite the body-text reminders that it's a meme? Is it "deceptive mimickry" to report that the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest had a government type of "consensus decision-making with daily meeting"s when it was never recognized as a "real" settlement, government, country, etc.?

I think these are fully contextualized, and it's possible for micronations to be contextualized as well. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to decide what is "real" and "not real"; Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources. If reliable sources say an unrecognized micronation has an unrecognized currency, or an unrecognized prince, etc., we summarize that. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with P-Makoto. It is not Wikipedia's job to say what is and isn't "dressed up like a country", "deceptive mimicry" or whether any given person, organisation or thing is "enmeshed with shady cryptocurrencies". We report what reliable sources say about the subject. Including a flag in the infobox at Azawad, Rojava, West Papua or Islamic State is not "participating" in anything, it's not "deceptive mimicry" or any other epithet you wish to denigrate the subject with. Anything else is a gratuitous failure of NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do policies like WP:UNDUE exist? That's right, because the choice to include something is unavoidably a choice to give credence to it. To pretend not to understand this is to pretend to be epistemologically illiterate. The path to making Mr. Sealand's claim to princeliness "fully contextualized" begins with not investing it with misleading distinction. GR Kraml (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Please explain what is "misleading" about presenting the facts neutrally. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying you disagree with WP:UNDUE? If so, why? GR Kraml (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that what is and isn't DUE can only be determined at the individual article level, that including things that are due is not giving it credence, engaging in "deceptive mimicry" (or anything else of that nature), and that everything discussed here (flags, coat of arms, etc) is potentially DUE on some articles about micronations. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If they're DUE for some micronations, they can be included elsewhere in the article, just like any other info that we don't put in the infobox. There is no indication any of these items is actually a core aspect for most of these topics, as evaluated by IRS sources. It is not NPOV to treat artistic endeavors or corporate promotion or cryptocurrency vehicles or protest communes or profit ventures as if we assume they all occupy a single point along the spectrum of "nationhood" and are all inherently likely to even have any of the above extra features from infobox country let alone place the same meaning on them.

Micronations are much more defined by what they are not than by what they are, which makes anything beyond a barebones infobox unacceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf remains more persuasive in making a case that hews close to Wikipedia policies. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Not according to the majority of commenters here, nor the text of INFOBOXPURPOSE the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content., nor other guideline criteria like Is the field of value? How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox? Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article? and Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all. and INFOBOXUSE The meaning given to each infobox part should be the same across instances of that type of infobox. Nor accessibility guidance that states Pages with excessive icons can also cause loading problems for some people. JoelleJay (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The majority of commenters here have expressed opinions that (in whole or in part) directly contradict core content policies and so the majority of their comments can and will be disregarded by whomever closes this discussion. Everything else you've written is either stating things that are not in dispute (the infobox should summarise key facts that are already in the article) or completely irrelevant (e.g. there are a grand total of zero icons across all three infoboxes). Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

What I quote directly concerns which parameters to put in an infobox template, which clearly should require some consideration beyond "if it's an important aspect for recognized countries it must be a key fact for micronations". And I'd love to know which "core content policies" mandate that infobox country or any infobox must be in certain classes of articles!

icons encompasses any small images – including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals, flags. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

As I've explained many times in this discussion, NPOV requires we treat subjects neutrally, which in this instance means treating a micronation and a non-micronation with the same coverage in reliable sources equally not going out of our way to denigrate micronations based on some editors' beliefs. If we have infoboxes for countries (and we do) then we need to have the same type of infobox for all countries, including unrecognised ones, and each infobox should have the fields relevant to that subject. There is no difference between what is relevant to micronations and what is relevant other nations (as classes). What fields should be populated on a given article can only be determined at the level of the individual article, because that's the only level at which you can determine due weight.

Regarding logos and crests, either they are fine accessibility wise on articles about all countries or they are problematic on articles about all countries. There are no "small images" in either infobox, and in terms of total images from the page title to the top of the references section (including prose and infobox) there are 8 images on the Sealand article and over 50 (plus an audio widget) on the Kosovo article. Of the two the Sealand isn't going to be the one with accessibility concerns. Thryduulf (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You are saying NPOV requires us to structure our articles on micronations as if they were legally recognized countries and, therefore, requires us to give them the same infoboxes because there's no difference in what is relevant to them. WOW.

You don't think it's just a little bit OR to consider, automatically, the thousands of online-only micronations (like this "hypothetical project" formed by some teenagers in the 90s, or this one designated as an extremist social network), or a one-man effort to become a new province under another country's rule, or advertising campaigns, or projects with the stated intent to start a micronation via crowdfunding, or admitted scams, or a documentary project with no intent to declare independence, or a "political and constitutional simulation" by law students, or an underwater libertarian paradise proposal/scam; or entities primarily known as art projects or cryptowebsites or migratory fraud schemes or non-profits or neighborhoods that happen to also be called "micronations", as being on equal footing with each other let alone comparable to "other countries", inherently deserving the same emphases and display of regalia? All because some RS or an editor characterized them as micronations, a term that has no basis in international law or shared criteria other than "not legally recognized by sovereign states"? You think any of this supported by NPOV? Really? JoelleJay (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

NPOV requires we treat subjects neutrally, which in this instance means treating a micronation and a non-micronation with the same coverage in reliable sources equally I think what you’re missing is that micronations and non-micronations don’t receive the same coverage. Consider, for example, this Wired article about Liberland: which takes a skeptical tone, uses “country” (their scare quotes), and describes it as a “crypto project”. Or, this paper: which ends with a quote that sums up the non-Sealand projects nicely: The rest of the virtual states do not have statehood, but only exploit the myth about it. They earn by selling souvenirs and coins, and at best they are a local landmark. The legal creation of new states by private people is no longer possible, and, therefore, the problem of virtual states is finally transferred to the virtual space, becoming one of the methods of conducting an entertainment Internet business. The myth of statehood has finally become a part of the digital civilization. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Or this one: Westarctica, Sancratosia, Slowjamastan, and other fake nations may have some things to teach real ones. We can ignore the title per WP:HEADLINE but the rest of the article does the job more than adequately: They replicate the symbols, documents, and acts of legitimate states. Micronations create flags, passports, and currency; establish constitutions; and hold elections or plan their lines of succession. and Their online citizenship applications have been known to accidentally deceive individuals who legitimately hope to immigrate. Framing micronations as the same type of thing as legitimate countries, when the sources go out of their way to explain why they are different, is not NPOV - it’s false balance. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Fine, one last time:

NPOV requires us not to take sides where there is a controversy. NPOV does not require us, and UNDUE expressly forbids us, to pretend there is a controversy where there isn't one. "Is Kosovo a country?" is a controversy. We are required to stay neutral on this. "Is the Kingdom of Elleore a country?" is not. We are required not to push the falsehood that the answer is up to meaningful debate.

In addition, as @JoelleJay has demonstrated, INFOBOXPURPOSE requires us to use infoboxes to summarize things that are key facts and to exclude any unnecessary content.

Readers come to any given article with the implicit assumption that the infobox will contain key facts, both because of the interface affordances involved and because this is what infoboxes do in every other article. They implicitly expect these key facts to be key in both senses: germane to understanding and contextualizing the subject on the one hand; well established and largely unassailable on the other. A picture of the flag of Liberland is neither: it tells you absolutely nothing useful; it's not even the flag they actually use; you would struggle to find so much as a single independent RS that clearly defines and describes it.

Actively lying to readers about the meaning and significance of what they are looking at strikes me as an NPOV violation of the first order. I mean seriously, if actively pushing all-but-unsourced random bullshit is not against the rules then what is. GR Kraml (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hold on...what do you mean "Is the Kingdom of Elleore a country?" is not. We are required not to push the falsehood that the answer is up to meaningful debate. While you might have a point about Slowjamastan, micronations such as Liberland have been acknowledged and/or recognized by other nations (e.g., Somaliland, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Colombia, Malawi, and even Croatia/Serbia). And what Thryduulf is referring to is that UNDUE applies at the article level, so whether the country is notable enough to be written about on WP is determined by at that level. Once you've decided that an article is DUE, then it needs to have some content in it that justifies having the article in the first place. That is exactly what's going on here. And besides, it's frankly silly to suggest that content is DUE when it's in the body, but suddenly not when it's summarized into an infobox.

I'm not sure what you mean by A picture of the flag of Liberland is neither: it tells you absolutely nothing useful; it's not even the flag they actually use; you would struggle to find so much as a single independent RS that clearly defines and describes it.. That's literally the flag that is used by Liberland, and is sourced in NYT; I'm not sure what you're on about. And if flags of countries are not useful, then we should remove them from all country articles? Getsnoopy (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

...it's frankly silly to suggest that content is DUE when it's in the body, but suddenly not when it's summarized into an infobox. Why would that be silly? Per MOS:INFOBOX, "...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article..." Per WP:ASPECT, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It logically follows that aspects of a subject not treated as key facts in the body of reliable sources should not be presented as such by including them in an infobox.--Trystan (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, but what the key facts are about a given subject can only be determined at the level of the individual subject. Based on a skim of sources, the flag of Liberland seems just as important to the topic of Liberland as the flag of e.g. Myanmar is the to the topic of Myanmar and more important than e.g. the flag of the Islamic State is to the topic of the Islamic State. We have (seemingly uncontroversially) included the flags of both Myanmar and Islamic State in the infoboxes about those topics, so there is no justification for excluding the flag of Liberland in the infobox about Liberland. In contrast I'm uncertain whether the Grand Duchy of Avram even has a flag (it has a coat of arms which might also serve as the flag but that's unclear). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are meant to hold key facts very common to a class of subjects, and which parameters to include when making a new infobox template necessarily requires looking at the class in general. The class of micronations is meaningfully distinguished, by secondary and tertiary RS, from all types of real countries.

We have numerous tertiary sources treating significant subsets of the real countries as a "complete" group (even when differences in sovereignty are noted and those members are separated from the main group), often accompanied by individual blurbs for each member of what those sources consider the most important facts for countries in general. This informs on which details are BALASP for countries in general and thus should go in the country infobox.

We do not have a solid body of RS treating substantial subsets of micronations as part of the same group as real countries. The variation among micronations is so substantial, and the appellation so informal and inconsistently applied, that any infobox aiming to represent key facts from IRS sources shared by most members of the class will be very small. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so that's a nonsense interpretation of DUE that doesn't warrant further discussion.

Something being verifiable in IRS does not make it a BALASP. Something receiving substantial coverage or description in IRS (which the flag does not receive whatsoever in the NYT article) does not necessarily make it BALASP. Something actually being BALASP for a page does not mean it should be in the infobox. And it certainly does not mean that thing should be a parameter for infoboxes in all pages of a certain class.

Whichever discussion determined the items that should be in the infobox for real countries decided that flags should be in there, probably because that's one of the standard pieces of info accompanying each country in academic/tertiary RS that address both the set as a whole and some details of each member. E.g. CIA Factbook. The same is not true for micronations. We do not have a comparably large body of high-quality tertiary RS, on micronations as a set, demonstrating which aspects of a micronation are considered fundamental. Almost every recognized country will have IRS sources discussing or at least describing its flag (and most other major parameters in the infobox). The same is not true for even every notable micronation, therefore being included in an infobox cannot be supported, per INFOBOX. JoelleJay (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That's literally the flag that is used by Liberland, and is sourced in NYT; I'm not sure what you're on about. As I explain in this edit, the Liberlanders use the flags of Croatia, Serbia or Hungary in places where flags have actual significance, e.g. when the boats in their "official" "state fleet" need to be equipped with ensigns. Their videos are staged and edited to hide this fact, but they do.

They are generally very careful to avoid claiming sovereignty or nationhood in any context or forum where such claim could potentially matter. As the very same NYT article shows, for example, they do not challenge the presence of Croatian cops in "their" "country", nor do they attempt to evict the Croatian civilians who (continue to) use the beach for summertime leisure activities. Their web sites and communiqués keep going on about bona vacantia and whatnot, but when they get dragged to court for criminal trespass to land they meekly plead unrelated jurisdictional issues. The fact that the purported state of Liberland never, ever, under any circumstances actually uses its purported state flag is just one of the things that tell you they do not believe what they say they do.

And if flags of countries are not useful, then we should remove them from all country articles? Flags from real countries obviously are useful, but then again you know that, and you also know that nobody claims otherwise. GR Kraml (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see a clear distinction between the first two, just subtle wording differences. The side-by-side presentation convinces me that the proposed custom infobox is better for readers. Schazjmd (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

i like the 3rd one. the flags and coats of arms aren't real, toss em. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What a shocking disregard for NPOV (and WP:V). They are as "real" as any other coat of arms or flag. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the header "Unrecognized micronation" is a good change, but all else in the third infobox seems if anything a reduction of information. Why not have the flag? Recognized nation-state status seems hardly like the hurdle we expect for whether or not a logo is pertinent and informative. We don't require companies, sports teams, or NGOs to be sovereign before we include their imagery, flags, logos, etc. Why wouldn't a reader be interested in knowing what flag an unrecognized micronation flies, if it does fly one? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the less trivia we emphasize in an infobox, the better. If a flag or coat of arms actually has significance in secondary sources then an image of it can be put in the article, it doesn't need to be an infobox parameter. And definitely agree with everything @GR Kraml said. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The third infobox is clearly the best and minimises the amount of trivia proponents might be able to add. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Now we're getting into failures of WP:AGF as well. We don't neuter the encyclopaedia because non-neutral editors might add things which may or may not be trivia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

they are not as real as the coat of arms and flag of say Great Britain or Wales, the idea that anyone would suggest they are raises issues of competence here, tbh. something that has centuries of reliably-sources tradition a and coverage has no comparison to a thing created in Photoshop in a day. retaining an infobox for these articles is a good idea, but lessening their likeness to a real nation inbobox is preferable. ValarianB (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

They are not as respected and they have none of the heritage or prestige, etc. but that doesn't make them somehow not real. Unless you are claiming that the new Flag of Kyrgyzstan or Flag of Afghanistan (the Islamic Emirate one) are not real? Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that many people here are engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT while trying to masquerade it as legitimate WP policy.

Why does England get to have its own flag?

- Because it has centuries of heritage and tradition. So why doesn't Liberland get to have its own? - Because there are very few articles citing it. How many articles does it take for a flag to become "real"?

- ...

Maybe we should take down Somaliland's flag, and hell, even South Sudan's flag, since it's only been around since 2011, which is a mere 13 years. Getsnoopy (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. It's not centuries of tradition that bestow notability and due weight. It's not even "reality" (contestable as that is with social constructs) that bestows either; the fictional Gondor quite appropriately has its coat of arms in the infobox as a quick and way for viewers to identify the topic, and Rohan, Middle-earth has its flag. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

References

1. [1]
2. [2]

   "Principality of Sealand" (PDF). Amorph!03 First Summit of Micronations. Artists' Association MUU. 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 October 2014. Retrieved 3 September 2023.
3. [3]

   MacEacheran, Mike (5 July 2020). "Sealand: A peculiar 'nation' off England's coast". BBC Travel. BBC. Retrieved 23 September 2020.

I like the third one, with the suggested changes of "proponents" and "location" etc. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

So I think we have a clear question. "Should articles on micronations (a) use Infobox Country with the micronation parameter, or (b) use an infobox with the label "Unrecognized micronation" and the fields: type, proponents, dates claimed, and location?" If someone wants to start an RFC on that, I think that would be the best way to resolve this issue.--Trystan (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone know how many there are? Micronation infoboxes, that is. Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There are approximately 159 articles and redirects categorised in (subcategories of) Category:Micronations (I say approximately as my de-deduplication wasn't rigorous). Not all of them are going to be suitable for an infobox (e.g. Kickassia) so see that figure as an upper bound (unless and until there is a new notable micronation of course). Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

+1, that seems like a good way forward. Levivich (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there should also be the option for no infobox, considering there are several that are primarily known as other things or are not called micronations in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Arguably if an entity is not primarily described as a micronation in RS, then it wouldn’t be in scope of this RfC. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The question could be phrased as "Where articles on micronations use an infobox, should they use...".--Trystan (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

+1, this seems just about ideal. GR Kraml (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. JoelleJay (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 Levivich (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Is the RfC suggested above open yet? 211.251.171.197 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No, but feel free to participate in the discussion which may lead to an RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC: micronation infoboxes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(1) Principally, consensus is for option B. This option is widely preferred as being distinctive from the regular country infobox, and having better parameters. Regarding certain parameters:

(a) Consensus is against generally including the flag, coat of arms, and other purported symbols of the micronation, though it may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The ultimate conclusion is that these symbols are often not recognized or reliably verifiable, and could easily mislead a reader; that they are not used in the same way as countries, and so should not be treated in the same way. Certain symbols which are recognized or reported by reliable sources may be appropriate to add, as important information.

(b) There is no consensus about the inclusion and use of certain other parameters, which are subject to the claims of the micronation itself. For example, key officials or currency, which are not easily verifiable by reliable sources, and therefore run afoul of WP:V. Though the provided option B does not include these parameters, there is a meaningful amount of discussion regarding it. Participants are generally at an impasse about the propriety of including these parameters when they hold no outside recognition or verifiability. Otherwise, the parameters are in accordance with the original option B.

(2) Consensus is against the idea that it is a WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE violation for micronations to receive infoboxes. This argument is similar to the "trade dress" problem addressed in paragraph (1)(a): it is an endorsement and legitimization of their claims, in violation of WP:NPOV. But the consensus is that it is appropriate to state verifiable claims, which are identified as such, even within infoboxes.

(3) Consensus is for including "unrecognized" to clearly identify micronations as not being the same as a "true" country—this is echoed in the choice to use an infobox which is distinctive from the country infobox. The primary motivations were avoiding at-a-glance mistakes, and preventing a reader from having to do further research, in accordance with MOS:NOFORCELINK.

(4) Consensus is against any reference to micronations as "fictitious" in the same sense as "literary fiction". To do so would contradict WP:NPOV and substitute editors' views for reliable sources'. In that vein, it is wholly inappropriate to use the fictional location infobox.

---

Closed by TW 03:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Where articles on micronations use an infobox, should they use

A. infobox country (with the micronation parameter)

B. a custom infobox with the parameters type, proponents, dates claimed, and location; and image options limited to images of the country and/or its geographic location on a map

C. a different custom infobox

If C, please specify which parameters should be included. JoelleJay (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Mockup of infoboxes for Sealand (refs removed):

More information Infobox country with micronation parameter, Proposed custom infobox ...

Infobox country with micronation parameter

Proposed custom infobox

A. Principality of Sealand Micronation Flag Coat of arms Motto: E Mare Libertas (Latin) "From the sea, Freedom" Anthem: "From the sea, Freedom" Aerial view of Sealand in 1999 Organizational structure Constitutional monarchy Prince   • 1967–2012 Paddy Roy Bates • 2012–present Michael Bates Establishment • Declared 2 September 1967; 58 years ago (1967-09-02) Area claimed • Total 0.004 km2 (0.0015 sq mi) (approx. 1 acre) Purported currency Sealand dollar Website sealandgov.org

B. Principality of Sealand Unrecognized micronation Aerial view of Sealand in 1999 Claimed by Paddy Roy Bates, Michael Bates Dates claimed 1967 to present Area claimed Offshore platform off the coast of England Type [type determined by page consensus]

Close

Note that parameter order and styling (e.g. font size) in B are not necessarily settled. JoelleJay (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Pinging: @AndyTheGrump, SportingFlyer, Certes, Blueboar, InfiniteNexus, Gonnym, P-Makoto, SWinxy, Donald Albury, ValarianB, Horse Eye's Back, Getsnoopy, Elli, TSP, Thryduulf, Trystan, Levivich, Martin of Sheffield, SMcCandlish, WhatamIdoing, Barnards.tar.gz, Animal lover 666, Selfstudier, Xymmax, Seltaeb Eht, North8000, A. B., The Banner, GR Kraml, and Schazjmd: JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Only one problem with the proposed infobox I see: "Unrecognized micronation" is redundant, micronations are unrecognized by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does one example say "Unrecognized micronation" and the other say "Micronation"? I don't think there's necessarily a problem with pointing out that it's unrecognized (it's true that it's part of the definition, but that doesn't mean that 100% of readers already know that), but I'm concerned that the comparison may not be fair as a result of this and other differences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

We link it, anyone who hovers over it or click it will read "A micronation is a political entity whose representatives claim that they belong to an independent nation or sovereign state, but which lacks legal recognition by any sovereign state." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:NOFORCELINK. Articles should make sense to readers without requiring a link to be clicked and/or hovered over. It certainly isn't reasonable to assume that the reader knows what a 'micronation' is, and given that lack of recognition is a defining feature of the article subject, making it clear is unambiguously beneficial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Especially since it's particularly difficult to hover over anything on a mobile device, which is two-thirds of our traffic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

NOFORCELINK is about prose... By that argument we should also be explain what "type" means... As well as area claimed... Wouldn't actually be possible to craft an infobox with that particular interpretation of MOS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"Unrecognized micronation" is not redundant, since the word has multiple uses and often referrs to nations that are recongized, including the Vatican, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, the individual emirates of UAE, and various historical ones that no longer exist. WP's article at Micronation is entirely about the fictive-intentional, unrecognized sort, but WP is not a source for the reality of English language usage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing micronation with microstate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, the two are easily confused, and apparently not always used consistently. Which is why it is essential that we don't use the term in the article without making clear what we are actually describing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Within the literature I've always found their use to be consistent, at least with modern sources. If we want to make clear what we are actually describing we need a whole sentence, cherry picking a single part of that description is undue and just feels jerkish which we shouldn't be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to propose Wikipedia:Don't be a jerk, be misleading instead as a new policy. For now, it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks however is policy, and one I recommend you follow. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a straw man and is rather hurtful, is that really what you think I'm arguing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Um, you were the to first describe the position/result you don't like as jerkish. It's entirely reasonable to suggest in response that it isn't practical to not be jerk (your view not Andy's) at the specific cost of being misleading, which using confusing wording would be. No one called you a jerk. Thryduulf should have caught that as well. If the much, much more practical cost of not confusing readers (and editors using templates) is simply using cleaer wording (including perhaps some additional clarification), then that is perfectly fine; there's nothing "jerkish" about it to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"If we want to make clear what we are actually describing we need a whole sentence, cherry picking a single part of that description is undue and just feels jerkish which we shouldn't be." I'm the editor that proposed "Unrecognized micronation" as the header of the infobox, so I would like to explain my thinking in doing so. I proposed it in good faith and not with the motivation (or, I believe, the result) of being "jerkish". The main goal is clarity for the reader. Definitions of micronation tend to highlight three aspects 1) small 2) claims to be a nation and 3) unrecognized. I think the first two are evident in the term itself, while the third is not at all, so "Unrecognized micronation", while arguably somewhat redundant, better conveys the meaning. No additional wording is required to convey the core components of the definition. Because micronation is comparatively recent (only entering widespread use in the past 20 years or so), and because it is so similar to the much more common microstate, I think the additional clarification is warranted.--Trystan (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not confusing them at all. I'm stating that the usage of micronation overlaps with that of microstate. "I like a particular definition" does not equate to "everyone in the world uses that definition" (in this case it's very likely that a majority do, but that's immaterial). The broader use is attested enough that the term has confusion potential.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• B, please. We need to be clear that Micronations are not nations in the usual sense. Donald Albury 02:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• A or C. Option B unnecessarily excludes identifying information (e. g. the flag).

A "C" option that I would support would resemble A while adding a "Proponents" parameter, since knowing who declares a given micronation tends to be of interest and part of reliable source coverage of notable micronations.

I'll add that I'm not very clear on what this RfC says will be the outcome of each potential consensus. Will a new policy page be created? Will a section be added to the Manual of Style? Something else? "Should" suggests some kind of imperative, but how and where would that imperative be articulated (if at all)? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It'll just resolve the conflict of "what infobox should we use". If someone tries to change it, they will be pointed here. SWinxy (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A. I'd argue that keeping Infobox country allows for the inclusion of pertinent information that the alternative infobox leaves out. Despite being unrecognized, micronations still have claims that can be verified. I think excluding them lessens the usefulness of an alternative infobox. I prefer that the infobox include things like a flag, coat of arms, motto, etc. It's at-a-glance information that proper countries also make claims of. SWinxy (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option B. Per MOS:INFOBOX, "...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article..." Per WP:ASPECT, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Based on how sources typically cover micronations, Option B aligns with the governing policy and guidelines, while Option A places undue emphasis on aspects treated as minor by reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option B, with the additional parameter of a website, as a micronation's web presence is usually notable and a key aspect of their existence. B summarizes the actual key facts of the subject, without giving undue weight to the organization's claims. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Reporting the claims made in a neutral, factual manner is (as repeatedly explained in the pre-RFC discussion) not giving them undue weight. Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Reporting wildly implausible claims that are by definition fraudulent, jokes or artistic expression in a place and a manner that readers expect to be used for uncontroversial core facts absolutely is giving them undue weight. GR Kraml (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's not neutral to call Michael or Roy Bates the Prince of Sealand in wikivoice. Most of the secondary sources in the article seem to use scare quotes ("prince") or another way of downplaying it ("so-called"). I didn't see a single one that actually called it a "constitutional monarchy" in those terms. And Sealand is the most "real" type of micronation, so should be the least able to poke holes in. I'm convinced by Trystan's citing of MOS:INFOBOX, I think it hits it on the head. Is a key fact about Sealand that it's a Constitutional Monarchy, or that its motto is E mare libertas? The second fact isn't even cited or discussed in the article. It's surely verifiable, but is it what the majority of neutral, reliable, non-primary sources would consider a key fact about Sealand, or is it trivia? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A (but with the heading changed to the style of the custom one) per SWinxy, per P-Makoto, per NPOV and the extensive comments I and others made in the pre-RFC discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option B. Because a micronation is not a country or sovereign state (unlike a microstate), articles about micronations shouldn't use {{infobox country}}. Infoboxes are for giving quick key facts about the article subject, and the key facts about micronations will be different than the key facts about countries. A custom infobox, such as B, will avoid misleading the reader into thinking that a micronation is a country, and it'll better inform the reader about the key facts of a micronation. While I think "B" is a good start for a new infobox for micronations, I would support editors' continuing to improve/discuss/adjust the particulars of parameters, etc., as I'm sure it could be further refined and developed. Levivich (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• B. 1) Micronations are most definitely not a "type" of nation and do not occupy any space along the spectrum of legitimate claims to statehood. They are not included alongside real nations in even a small fraction of the high-quality IRS sources that aim to cover a large subset of nations (e.g. tertiary sources summarizing the "countries of Europe" virtually never include any micronations, even when they do include quasi-states and other legally-recognized non-sovereign polities).
  2) Micronations are far too heterogeneous in what they even are to justify more than the bare minimum of parameter options. There are essentially no defining features of micronations other than lacking legal recognition by sovereign states.(*)
  3) Our guidelines on infoboxes make it clear that fewer optional parameters is preferred and that options should not be included if they are not relevant to most of the affected articles. The availability of optional fields does not mean that all fields should be made optional and The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Regarding whether to create an optional field in an infobox: How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox? Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article? and If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all.
  (*)To revisit some examples I used previously regarding how extraordinarily different in basically every fundamental characteristic even the notable micronations are: they include thousands of online-only entities (like this "hypothetical project" formed by some teenagers in the 90s, or this one designated as an extremist social network), one-man efforts to become a new province under another country's rule, advertising campaigns, projects with merely the stated intent to start a micronation via crowdfunding, admitted scams, documentary projects that assert they have no desire to declare independence, "political and constitutional simulations" by law students, literal sarcasm, and underwater libertarian paradise proposals/scams; as well as entities primarily known for being art projects or cryptowebsites or migratory fraud schemes or non-profits or neighborhoods that happen to have been called "micronations" by someone at some point. These are not inherently deserving of the same emphases and displays of regalia as real countries, not least because most of them don't even have any independent secondary RS discussing those aspects at all. And that's just the ones that are actually called "micronations" in RS as opposed to being designated a "micronation" by some editor adding categories. JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  In response to your point 2, that's actually an argument for more parameter options so that the one relevant to the given micronation are available where they are relevant. In regards to point 1, this argument has been refuted (multiple times) in the pre-RFC discussion - there is a single continuum from micronation to fully-recognised sovereign nation (with entities such as the Holy See not fitting neatly on it) with no objective criterion separating micronations from unrecognised nations. Thryduulf (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Uh, no, the fact that there is some number of possible parameters that would only be applicable to various small subsets of the group "micronations" is exactly why our guideline finds it necessary to explicitly discourage including options that aren't widely relevant to the group. The availability of optional fields does not mean that all fields should be made optional, nor that large numbers of rarely used fields should be added without regard for the layout and ease-of-use of the infobox template.
  And I sure don't see where micronational status has been demonstrated as being along the same continuum. If you're referring to the claim that Liberland has "diplomatic ties" with Somaliland, then a) that is not legal recognition from a sovereign state, and b) the extent of that "diplomatic recognition" was described by the BBC as:

  The "president" of the unrecognised territory of Liberland, Vit Jedlicka, has been visiting another unrecognised republic, Somaliland, for talks about mutual recognition. The Somaliland foreign ministry tweeted that the two sides had discussed how to "strengthen cooperation".

  According to Somaliland and Liberland sources, this meant they "began the mutual recognition process", which is a far cry from legal recognition by a sovereign state. And even if Liberland eventually did gain recognition, that doesn't change the definition of a micronation, and it does not suggest progression to statehood is a natural or remotely plausible outcome for micronations in general or even for a tiny minority of them. JoelleJay (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  there is a single continuum from micronation to fully-recognised sovereign nation There is a single continuum from fictional character to well-documented historical head of state and T'Challa still doesn't get an officeholder infobox. GR Kraml (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  I learned recently that the definition of "country" is more diverse than I ever suspected. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign nation, recognized by dozens of countries, holds an observer post at the UN, issues the world's rarest passport (about 500 people hold one), and has no territory at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  The page you link literally says a sovereign entity does not have to be a country, and that the Order is an example of this. JoelleJay (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Sovereign Military Order actually was the ruler of Malta from 1530 until 1798 (after being kicked off Rhodes), and the order has had a continuous existence since then. Some international organizations also enter into diplomatic relations, but they have members that are themselves nations recognized by other sovereign nations. Are there any reliable sources that describe any other "sovereign entity" that is not an international organization and does not possess any territory, but is recognized by other sovereign countries? Donald Albury 17:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I dont believe that there is one currently, but the Holy See before the 1929 Lateran Treaty is the only one that I know of that has fitted that description. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Arguably it still counts, as the Holy See has diplomatic relations and no territory, Vatican City has territory but no diplomatic relations. For most (all?) practical purposes they are the same thing, but they are technically different. The European Union also conducts some foreign relations activities as a single entity (see Foreign relations of the European Union) - whether it has territory is not a question where either "yes" or "no" are completely correct answers. You can also get into things like the difference between Denmark and Kingdom of Denmark. These are not the same thing as the SMOM but does show that terms like "country" and "sovereign state" are complicated no matter how you choose to define them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  And there is deep history there, as well. The Pope was sovereign of the Papal States from the 8th century until 1870. So, we have one or two sovereign entities with deep history that have do not control any territory but engage in diplomatic relations with sovereign nations. I fail to see how that has any bearing on the topic of micronations. Donald Albury 01:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option B The use of the country infobox is misleading. It gives undue prominence to the flag, coat of arms, motto and anthem; it encourages the inclusion of inappropriate parameters such as "Demonyms", "Capital" and "Official languages" (eg. at Republic of Minerva and Ladonia (micronation)); and it gives the impression that the claimants form an official government. Per Levivich above, the parameters of the new micronation infobox should be open to further discussion, to ensure it can be adapted to every use case. I like "Unrecognized micronation" despite the redundancy, because a micronation is easily confused with a microstate, and readers won't necessarily click or hover on the link to discover their mistake. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option B per JoelleJay and Sojourner - the infobox country information is relevant for a real country, where currencies, flags, anthems, languages etc are actually used. Not so much for a micronation, where those are probably just words on a website. Galobtter (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option B. Infoboxes are intended to contain non-controversial facts only. They are not platforms for the promotion of fringe POVs regarding territorial status, sovereignty, or anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Out of the two presented Option A. I don't see how excluding valid information (which will be found in the article) is controversial. If it's controversial, it shouldn't be in the article. If it isn't, then it's valid to add to the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an argument for literally anything DUE in an article being valid as an infobox parameter. Our guidelines specifically discourage this. JoelleJay (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"If it's controversial, it shouldn't be in the article" is actually an argument for not having an article at all. There is nothing about micronations that doesn't constitute a minority (most often a microscopically small one) making claims for sovereign status regarding a territory. They only exist as 'controversial claims'. This in of itself doesn't necessarily prevent Wikipedia having articles, where they can be properly sourced (we have an article on Bigfoot, after all), but what it must do is present the claims as the claims of a fringe minority, rather than as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Our guidelines do not discourage this. You small group of editors which have this unclear obsession of micronations are against it. I'm perfectly fine using {{Infobox country}} for these. Just to make it more official, {{Infobox country}} -> Option A -> Never option B. Gonnym (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option B. Readers come to any given article with the implicit assumption that the infobox will contain key facts, both because of the interface affordances involved and because this is what infoboxes do in every other article. They implicitly expect these key facts to be key in both senses: germane to understanding and contextualizing the subject on the one hand; well established and largely unassailable on the other. A fictitious state motto that can only be cited to one blog post or a fictitious state flag flown by one handful of investment scammers is neither. The outward effect of a country infobox on a fictitious country is front-loading the article with meaningless trivia and pushing the real information down the page, which is objectively bad editing. The inward significance is that we're actively lying to readers about the meaning and substance of what they are looking at. GR Kraml (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option B. It's idealistic to suppose that, with option A, information that is not DUE can be excluded from the infobox via article-by-article consensus. We know that doesn't work, already, as there are just too many editors keen to fill in each and every available parameter. If you allow a government_type parameter, trivia-lovers will come by and fill it with Constitutional monarchy, quite regardless of DUE. Then you have to argue the case repeatedly for every article. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option B. I concur with the arguments set out in favour of this option so far, and add:

• An argument has been put forward along the lines of "who are we to judge what counts as a real country, because there's a continuum".
  • Firstly, it's reliable sources which have the job of judging whether something is a real country - and reliable sources that put micronations on an equal footing with countries have not been forthcoming. What we actually see in reliable sources is that micronations are clearly distinguished from countries, and also from microstates.
  • Secondly, this is a rather nihilistic argument that could be applied over-generally. There's a continuum between science and pseudoscience. There's a continuum between evidence-based medicine and faith healers. Continuums are beloved of cranks, who exploit the egalitarian instinct not to judge, in order to get their foot in the door. "Maybe it's not mainstream science, but it's a type of science, right?" they say. From there we progress to teach the controversy, then we hear "they're both just theories / they're both just social constructions / they're both valid in their own way", and eventually they end up arguing that black is white. The key point is that the existence of a notional continuum does not prevent reliable sources (and thence us) from clearly distinguishing the things at the opposite ends of the continuum.
• Why do we care so much about this? Because we must not allow Wikipedia to become the vehicle for fringe ideas to gain unwarranted legitimacy. Gaining a hint of recognition as a real country (or even as a type of country) from Wikipedia is a big win for these little projects, and at least some of these projects are outright scams. It would be negligent for us to play along. One might argue that labelling them as "unrecognised" is enough to guard against this, but I disagree that this is enough: the country infobox, complete with flags and coats of arms, has a legitimising trade dress effect on readers, that makes the subject look a lot more official than it is. Legitimisation is the intended purpose of all the regalia. Micronations dress up to look as much like countries as possible, but the lady doth protest too much, methinks, and sources don't give this aspect of micronations anywhere near the prominence that putting it top of the infobox would confer, so ultimately including all these trappings is undue.

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A. The infobox in option B leaves of pertinent details (for basically no obvious reason), and the reasons that the others provided unsatisfactorily substantiate why they should be left out (e.g., a flag being displayed for a micronation is just as relevant as a flag being displayed for a "real" nation). Also, see the discussion above for more reasons as to why.

Getsnoopy (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option B Option A clearly violates WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE and should not be implemented in any case. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't. WP:FRINGE clearly states that you can only have a fringe theory if it's in comparison to a mainstream view. What are the mainstream views for micronations? (By the way, the lack of knowledge about a micronation—i.e., ignorance— doesn't constitute a "mainstream view".) If a topic is notable enough (substantiated by reliable sources), then that's it. In a micronation's case, the entire article itself might be a relatively non-mainstream topic, but insofar as there are RS that warrant its existence, everything within it is per se not fringe assuming it's corroborated by RS. Only if there's a specific fact about them that is fringe would WP:FRINGE actually apply (e.g., Liberland being founded merely as a means to commit a pump-and-dump scam, etc.). Getsnoopy (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Of these, Option A strikes me as fine if consensus on the article's talk page is for it, or something generally similar. Adjusting the subheading to clarify without need for a click that "micronation" means its claims aren't taken seriously by anyone would be fine with me. But I find most of the vocal proponents of Option B seem to be trying to deny as much as possible that micronations "exist", but since they do get coverage in RSes they want to exclude as much as they can get away with from the infoboxes on an assertion that "someone" might somehow be confused if the infobox includes the micronation's claimed flag, motto, and so on. Anomie⚔ 12:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I note that various supports of option B do not seem to necessarily be compatible, for example this one seems to want to use a consensus for "option B" here to exclude adding any additional fields without another huge discussion, while several other option-B supporters are already calling for additional fields. Good luck to whoever closes this. Anomie⚔ 21:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

    I'm optimistic we agree on the fundamentals more than we disagree on the specifics. GR Kraml (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

    I didn't say "another huge discussion" would be required to add fields, I said consensus would be required to do so. I was responding to the claim that, if the Option B infobox is the consenus of this RFC, there would be nothing to stop anyone from coming along and adding all of the fields to make it look just like Option A, which I don't think would be in good faith. Option B was workshopped in the discussion above, and I expect such evolution would continue if it were implemented.--Trystan (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Options B or C - I agree that infobox country is inappropriate and that micro-nations should have a unique infobox… that said, I would include more parameters than are presented in option B. For example: I do think we should include the flags and coat of arms. HOWEVER, I would probably place them elsewhere in the box (placing them at the top does give them UNDUE weight… but including them somewhere in the box is DUE).

Still, which parameters to include (and where to include them) can be amended later. The issue NOW is whether to create a separate, new micronations box or not. And THAT I support. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

But why do you think using infobox country is inappropriate? Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar, I keep thinking about this and wondering whether it matters (to readers; the name of the infobox clearly does matter to some editors). Let's assume that we create a shiny new Template:Infobox micronation. What will happen next? Well, I think we'll expand the infobox until it is, for some articles, indistinguishable at a glance from Template:Infobox country. Oh, I need to add "my" parameter. Don't you think "your" parameter could be useful in this group? And they want "their" parameter. Who could object to including an WP:ELOFFICIAL link? We do that for far more dubious outfits (including spammers). The subtleties of layout difference will be lost on the reader, and some years from now, we'll be back at TFD with another merge proposal with editors like @Pigsonthewing and @Danlaycock presumably voting again to merge them, because they're basically duplicative.

For me, the bottom line seems to be a big old "Who cares?" What matters, as you say, is what gets shown to the reader. It does not matter to me what code the editor types to make that appear for the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I almost feel the same… but… I think there are enough differences in which parameters are appropriate (and their presentation within the box) that a separate box makes sense. Blueboar (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe that any of the options is reasonably appropriate. What I'm more concerned about is editors saying things like "Let's have a separate infobox, because I don't want to show their made-up flag", but once the separate infobox has been created, there is literally

• no way to prevent anyone from adding a flag parameter to the new template, and
• no way to prevent an editor from putting the flag in |image1= even if there's no specialized flag parameter.

If there is content that we do/don't want displayed, we should be talking about the content here. Instead, we're talking about details of technical implementation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Option B explicitly sets out what fields should be included. If this discussion results in a consensus in favour of adopting the Option B infobox, blatant attempts to subvert that consensus would be reverted. The infobox could of course be expanded in the future, but there would need to be consensus to do so.--Trystan (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Trystan, the text says "the parameters type, proponents, dates claimed, and location; and image options limited to images of the country and/or its geographic location on a map", and the displayed infobox shows "Area claimed", which isn't in the list. Which Option B is the One True™ Option B? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

As originally proposed in the discussion above, the parameters were "Claimed by" and "Area claimed". By discussion, it was proposed that those fields instead be labelled "Proponents" and "Location", respectively. That change is reflected in the wording of Option B but not the infobox presented. Because that change wasn't contentious in the discussion above, I am sure the discrepancy could be resolved by consensus if Option B is implemented.--Trystan (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option A is fine, it identifies the entity as a micronation, which is the key point. No point in an additional effort to differentiate beyond that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• B summarizes key aspects of the micronation in a way that better communicates to the reader the nature of the article topic. I showed both to three very casual readers (non-editors, only read wikipedia when it's top of their search results, had never heard of micronations, and one of them believes everything google tells them comes from wikipedia): when they viewed A, they were confident that it was a tiny country somewhere; when they viewed B, they weren't confident about what it was because people were just "claiming" it but they were pretty sure it wasn't a "real" nation (and intended to go look up "micronation" later). Anecdotal, but I found it interesting. To me, the two infoboxes are comparable to infobox_person and infobox_character. Schazjmd (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option B as clearly differentiation is needed. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Option A also provides differentiation, why is that not sufficient? Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Because it's clearly confusing to the lay community. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• @JoelleJay, why is the proposed specialized infobox so much smaller than the normal country one? Is this a key feature of the proposal (e.g., make the map half the size and make the infobox narrower, so it seems less important), or just an accident? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Some of this is an effect caused by my prefs, I think. I see the first infobox with images at 300px wide, and the second has been hard-coded to 200px wide. The current default is 220px, so if you are running default prefs, you will see an image that is maybe 20% smaller for the mockup. If you are running with 300px, then it's half the size. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't create these mockups, I just took them from the discussion above, but I don't think any size differences are intentional. We'll hammer out the exact technical specifications on B if it gets consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  I created the first side-by-side comparison (in the #Moving forward section). For the two {{infobox country}} variants I just copied the code from the Sealand article, I think they use default widths? The custom infobox (option B here) I copied from the one further up the page that I think @Trystan created. Thryduulf (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Template:Infobox country seems to use user-specified image size, and to adjust the infobox's overall width to accommodate it. The mockup has hard-coded the image width at 200 px (=noticeably narrower than the infobox). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing and JoelleJay: I've adjusted option A to make them both the same width, see note below. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• B per JoelleJay. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• B. It needs to be clearer that these "nations" are notional/fictive/intentional, not actual countries in the usual sense, and the wide panoply of parameters that apply in the case of recognized countries are not really applicable or encyclopedically useful for micronations (in this sense of that term). Use of them is apt to be misleading to readers, and is a PoV excercise towards legitimization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• B Micronations are a fictional constructs not countries and most of what appears in these infoboxes is simply made up by someone one day and have little independent coverage. Our presentation of these places should limit undue placement of self-proclamations and fantasy flags and only include actual key facts as reported by significant independent sources with appropriate context. Reywas92^Talk 18:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I keep seeing editors say that micronations are "fictional". (The article on Micronation makes no such claim, describing them as "a political entity" instead, and we seem to be agreed that it's not a Fictional country.)

  So I wonder: Are political parties "fictional"? Is a Corporation "fictional"? They're not tangible, and there are debates about how "real" some intangible groups are (e.g., Corporate personhood, Juridical person). It seems to me that a micronation's claim to be a sovereign nation is actually false (not "fictional"), but its claim to be a group of people is as true and non-fictional as any other social group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• B gets the point across that while it may be a physical area that exists, it is not an actual sovereign nation with genuine coats of arms, flags, currencies and the like. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  A does exactly the same thing. Although the flags and coats of arms are usually genuine - e.g. I'm not aware that anybody disputes that the flag and coat of arms of Sealand represent Sealand, regardless of whether they recognise Sealand as an independent nation or anything else. In order for a currency to be "real", it just has to be accepted as a means of exchange by two or more people - for example shopping vouchers, beer tokens, casino chips, etc. are all real currencies even if they are only usable in very limited circumstances. WP:N deals with things that are not real. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  this was your 49th comment in this discussion. ValarianB (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  The number of comments alone does not indicate bludgeoning or lack thereof. The simplest way to avoid someone pointing out that your !vote is based on a factual inaccuracy that has been pointed out multiple times is simple - don't make comments that have been noted multiple times as factually inaccurate. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Bullshit repeated endlessly does not become fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Which is why I keep calling out the bullshit. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  What an utterly infantile response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Personal attacks are not acceptable, even if you cannot refute the argument. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Feel free to raise my characterisation of your post elsewhere if you feel so inclined. Though note that I will use your above response as further evidence of the same. And while I'm at it, point to the ample evidence of bludgeoning already provided. WP:BOOMERANG isn't policy either, but it is sound advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  AndyTheGrump, please refrain from personal attacks against editors like Thryduulf. I've been watching the conversation, and Thryduulf has maintained politeness, focusing on behavior and policy issues. And please don't reply by 'daring' editors to report this somewhere; desiring to achieve a cordial editing environment without resorting to administrator intervention is part of attempts to assume good faith and gently redirect energies. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  now 52. that you're in the minority who disagree with my opinion doesn't make it wrong. if there's any takeaway from this subject for you, accept a loss gracefully. ValarianB (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Once again the number of comments alone is not relevant. You are entitled to your opinion (as is everybody) but this is not about matters of opinion, it is about matters of fact. The number of people agreeing with something is completely irrelevant to whether it is factual or not, and mostly irrelevant to whether it is compatible with policies and guidelines or not (the partially relevant part is that consensus can choose to disregard/not apply some policies/guidelines in the specific circumstance, NPOV and V are not examples of those though). Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  what we are dealing with here is the false representation of a bunch of squatters as a nation. the new infobox resolves that. really quite simple. ValarianB (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, no matter how many times you try and impose your POV on the world that's not what we're dealing with here (at least in the majority of cases). Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  54 AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I do believe that option B sorely lacks some important information A has. If an entity has obtained notability by imitation of a real state, then information relating what the entity has done related to said imitation must be included on Wikipedia, especially if it has been mentioned on multiple notable sources as such.

  Here are some things that I noted:

  -The flag is arguably the most important thing a micronation's identity hinges around, and to include it can be treated as incorporating the logo/emblem of a organization, not an actual state. If its still a tad bit misleading, add a disclaimer that says 'Unrecognized Flag' and something along the lines.

  -B does not tell who the current claimant of the micronation is. Having a history of claimants can be useful to readers, who might get confused, for example, on whether the late Paddy Bates is still the leader of the project.

  -Writing the micronation's area claimed and the date of claim in a more simplified form doesn't feel very neccesary. 211.251.171.197 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  what we are dealing with here is the false representation of a bunch of squatters as a nation. Hmm…that applies to the United States too, though I doubt you'd be saying the same about that. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• B. Much I agree with has been said for this option. The most important reason, to me, is that of Wikipedia not being misleading in appearance (as well as in text, of course). (As an aside, I think fictional (as in literary fictional, e.g.) countries' flags may be included in the corresponding articles' infobox, when these flags have become iconic; and hardly any readers will be misled into thinking that the Klingon Empire or Babar's Kingdom have anything to do with the real world they live in). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note I have adjust the infobox country example (option A) so that it is the same width as the custom infobox,^[a] originally it used the default image thumbnail size set in user preferences so appeared wider than option B for at least some editors. If option A is chosen it will (almost certainly) use the default size, whether option B would use default size or fixed width has not been discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. By omitting symbols like flags and coats of arms, Option B prevents us from displaying some of the most prominent and recognizable means with which a micronation portrays itself. This seems especially relevant for micronations – because they have minimal controlled land or ability to project power, the display of symbols is effectively the only way that most micronations make their claims; this means that, within the context of writing about micronations, a given micronation's symbols have a high level of encyclopedic value. Displaying a flag doesn't suggest that Wikipedia endorses the micronation's claim any more than displaying the Enron logo suggests that Wikipedia believes Enron to have been conducting legitimate business. As for the question of possible confusion, I don't feel that Option A risks any confusion beyond that which could be easily addressed with some small tweaks to parameters (for instance, I have no objection to adding "unrecognized" to the 'micronation' identifier, as has been suggested above). The existing Infobox Country fields already adjust themselves to use language like "area claimed" and "purported currency" that makes clear that the entity described is not a widely recognized polity. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  the display of symbols is effectively the only way that most micronations make their claims I don’t think this is the only way micronations make their claims, but I agree it’s one way - and so, ironically, this part of your rationale is a reason why I support option B: because we shouldn’t be in the business of helping them make their claims (when reliable sources don’t give prominence to the regalia). Displaying a company logo is much more neutral - it doesn’t help or hinder them. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think make their claims was supposed to be getting at the sense that micronations are most recognizable through their symbols. A photograph of Sealand doesn't help a reader recognize that they're at the right article; the symbol of Sealand is what they likely have seen before. I'm not sure I understand what makes a company logo more neutral—it's doing the same work of making the entity recognizable as an existing idea/organization. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'd actually argue that a company logo is less neutral. A company is in the business of selling things - they want your money. While a few micronations might want your money, most of them don't - and those that do principally just want it in the form of selling you branded merchandise, which is exactly the same as literally thousands of other companies. A small number of micronations would like you to visit - every tourist attraction wants you to visit and we don't regard putting their logos on the article as non-neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Replying to this thread a bit belatedly, but P-Makoto perfectly hits the nail on the head of what I was trying to express. It's not Wikipedia's role to advance a micronation's claims ourselves, but it's still useful to a reader to indicate the methods that the micronation itself uses to advance its claims, so that they can more fully understand its activities. Another useful analogy here might be the fact that Wikipedia displays the visual symbols of political campaigns despite not endorsing any candidate. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Really? The flag of Sealand is more recognisable than the picture of the sea tower thing? Where are the reliable sources that give it such prominence? Even Sealand’s own website leads with a big picture of the tower and a tiny picture of the crest. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  No way are micronations most recognizable through their symbols... JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  "We must treat them with extra deference because they're underdogs in real life" strikes me as an idea that is, um, orthogonal to the idea that we should be neutral and difficult to reconcile with the idea that we shouldn't be a soapbox. I'm not saying your motivation is bad but I believe it's extra-encyclopedic. GR Kraml (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Again, I don't believe that displaying symbols is any kind of endorsement or show of deference – that's what I'd hoped to illustrate with my Enron analogy. Let me try making my point from another angle: where there exists a notable organization or entity, I believe it benefits readers to have a visual representation of how that entity depicts itself. A micronation's flag, like any other flag (or logo, or coat of arms, or other visual symbol of an entity), is a symbol that readers might see in the real world and not necessarily recognize the meaning of. If that symbol has been covered by RS and shown to represent a notable entity, I don't see any reason to conceal that information from readers; instead, identifying the meaning of the image will increase readers' understanding of [an] article's subject matter, just as WP:IMGCONTENT calls for. This underlying principle holds just as true whether the "entity" being described is Sealand, Microsoft, or the United States. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• B. The structure and content of the default nation infobox contains a lot of things, and has a lot of emphasis and focus, that implies that something is a genuine country; it also is structured with the assumption that many of the things mentioned (symbols, mottos, etc.) are well-established, internationally-recognized, and not something someone made up on a whim. Symbols like flags and coats of arms are widely-recognized as significant for real nations but are not at all treated with the same respect or significance when it comes to micronations - they are marginal trivia at best, generally with barely enough WP:SECONDARY coverage to justify even mentioning in the article's text, let alone given a place of prominence in an infobox where we can't provide any context. According this regalia of a micronation the same significance that we would an actual nation carries a subtle bias towards the narrative of the people who claim to "govern" the micronation, which is a problem when that narrative is unambiguously WP:FRINGE. The digression about company logos above is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but even then, most companies worth writing Wikipedia articles on have enough recognition as companies that their logo lacks the same implications. Presenting the logo for Microsoft lets people know that Microsoft is a company, which is widely-accepted fact; presenting the regilia for Sealand in the way we would present the regilia for a nation implies that Sealand is an actual nation, which is a WP:FRINGE perspective and one that we should avoid. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• B AndyTheGrump said it well. Infoboxes are very bad at explaining contentious details, and Wikipedia shouldn't be implying that micronations are sovereign states. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not too concerned about infoboxes, as long as they don't imply that a micronation is a real country, but I'm more concerned with the number of articles that we have about micronations. Is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day not a guideline? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, if it was up to me we'd delete at least four fifths of them. They clearly fail the general notability guideline unless you lean very heavily into the presumption of notability and unless you judge significance of coverage exclusively by word count. Maybe there should be a purpose-built specialised notability guideline for micronations the way there is for other common vanity projects.

  What bothers me even more is the micronation navigation template. It lists a random assortment of things that have nothing in common except the fact that they technically fit the definition of "micronation", a dubious neologism that Wikipedia has uncritically accepted as useful and apposite. Freetown Christiania and the M11 link road protest were real, sincere and significant expressions of political opinion that randomly happened to involve facetious declarations of independence at some point of other. The Fredonian Rebellion was a sincere attempt at independence that was not entirely guaranteed to fail under the circumstances. The Kingdom of Elleore is an innocent private joke that was never meant to receive coverage. The Kingdom of L'Anse Saint Jean was a marketing gimmick. The Glacier Republic was an awareness campaign. Most of the others are one-person performance art projects on the part of unemployed narcissists with too much time on their hands. What is the point of pretending there is an encyclopedically useful ontological category that all of these naturally fit into? Seriously? How is this defensible? How was this allowed to happen?

  I've always hated Wikipedia's tendency to clutter up every article with as many cutesy little infoboxes and glorified webring shit and assorted other distractions as possible, like there is a LAW somewhere that says we're REQUIRED to aim for Daily Mail levels of angry fruit salad, but the micronations litterbox is definitely adding semiotic insult to the ocular injury. GR Kraml (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  What is the point of pretending there is an encyclopedically useful ontological category that all of these naturally fit into? Seriously? How is this defensible?

  Although Micronations are a very confusing category indeed, calling an entire category of articles built by wikipedians for over nearly two decades 'insult to the ocular injury' and denying a slew of reliable sources acknowledging its existence as an independent category seems a bit too far. 2001:4430:4145:26D3:0:0:1BDD:50A4 (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  "Built by Wikipedians" is the problem. Given that is such a confusing category, it would be quite reasonable to minimally enforce WP:V by requiring that reliable sources describe something as a micronation before we do ourselves. Many of the articles categorized as micronations and listed in the micronation template do not currently contain any such source, and have instead been added to the class by WP:OR.--Trystan (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  built by wikipedians for over nearly two decades Yeah, this place has always had weird epistemic excursions that were allowed to go on for staggering amounts of time. The German language version wasn't made to overcome its resistance to inline citations for five or six years. The Scots version was filled to capacity with script-produced rubbish for seven. In this here English version, large numbers of articles on European constitutional history have been horrifically stupid and wrong for a literal generation because Wikipedians (including European ones) stubbornly insist on Wikipedian (i.e. American) ways of conceptualizing these things. Wikipedia is delightfully thorough and conscientious, which of course means it can be delightfully slow. GR Kraml (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  “How is this defensible? How was this allowed to happen?” Because Wikipedians are people who are obsessed with oddly specific topics like radio stations or Indonesian politicians, and apparently none of those people care about micronations. Which is odd since as this discussion (and your comment in particular) demonstrates most Wikipedians also think simple informational and navigational templates are VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS. Dronebogus (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  You gave me an idea! I'm going to write a book in which I coin the term bluefolk, which I'm going to define as people whose social identities involve a cultural practice the discourse around which references the colour blue. Armed with my book as a WP:RS, I will then create a bluefolk navigation template that will list blues musicians, bluegrass bands, Italian football players, German expressionists, and the Virgin Mary. Nobody else because cohesion is important. It's the only way to beat "micronation" as Wikipedia's most realestmost ontological leaf clade. GR Kraml (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn’t even disagreeing with you, I was just making a humorous observation. But if you passionately hate this so much go and do something about the template instead of making up elaborate hypothetical situations to express your distaste Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't disagreeing with you either; I thought it was obvious I was joking. My apologies. GR Kraml (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The navigation template is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I think everybody can agree that whichever infobox we choose, it should only appear on articles that are about micronations. If there are articles that are ostensibly about micronations, but that description is not verifiable then that's a WP:V issue with the article that needs to be fixed, but it's completely independent of what infobox it does or does not have. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Quite so. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• B as these choices are configured currently. My chief objection to A is that it does not make it apparent to a casual observer that by definition mirconations are unrecognized, and I do not think that wikilinking the topic as in A is sufficient to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• B This sets out very clearly that all of the information are simply claims rather than reality. However, I would not be opposed to increasing the number of parameters to include some of the things that supports of option A say are missing. Number 57 17:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• B with aspects of A I think it should be mostly B with the flag, motto, anthem and coat of arms included since nobody really debates these are “real” aspects of the micronation any more than a private organization or a political movement having its own flag. However “kayfabe” details like “currencies” and “governments” shouldn’t be included in the infobox because they don’t meet the functional definition of those things (you can’t exchange MicroNationBucks for American dollars at the claimed exchange rate, for example). Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option A because option B excludes a ton of information. Micronations are, by definition, unrecognized. Both of these considerations lead us to option A. JM (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option B per Levivich. I agree completely with WhatamIdoing above as well that the name of the template doesn't matter. Rather I think option B is a more clear and focused summary of a micronation article's major points than option A. Ajpolino (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option B with no additional information per JoelleJay and GR Kraml. Additional graphics like the flag and coat of arms are most likely generally not DUE, perhaps barring those of a few more well-known micronations like Sealand. Even then, they don't have the same relevance as a proper national flag so it is no big deal to omit them to service the more common scenario. ― novov (t c) 04:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• B Agree with the gist of multiple comments above, B more readily informs the general reader, which is rather the purpose of an at-a-glance feature. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand how B more readily informs than A, which contains the same information and more? Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Infobox A, you see, has a lot in common with the comment you just posted.

  On the totally abstract factual-claims level, it's probably mostly true: I believe you when you say you "don't understand" the B side, even though I think you would if you tried. Pragmatically, it's misdirection: you absolutely do know why we think B is more informative; we've made the case multiple times and you've read every word of every reply. Your "question" adds nothing useful; it invites nothing but repetitiveness; its main effect is making the important bits harder to find.

  This debate could have been over weeks ago. We had all stated our theses and typed out our arguments by day 3 or so. Much of the rest of the "debate" is the A side accosting everybody who sticks their head out with faux-innocent demands for the fiftieth laborious restatement of this point or that.

  I know people in Wikipedia debates used to do this sort of thing strategically – muddy the waters; make it look like there is protracted substantive argument when there isn't; make it easy for admins to give up and retreat behind procedural default. I hope this is not what's happening here, and if it is, I hope the strategy has finally stopped working in the years I wasn't editing. GR Kraml (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Let's check ourselves a little and remember to regard each other as good faith interlocutors, rather than imply someone is strategically – muddy[ing] the waters. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Understanding how clearer, streamlined information more readily informs is no mystery, though, especially after the long forgoing discussion. Perhaps, understanding sometimes takes wanting to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• B, in line with several above; what i'm not sure about, however, is what it the result of this RfC? Do we add to the MOS? Is there a Law of Consensus laid down which will allow the successful infobox to be added to every micronation? Is it enforced by Project:Nations (i have no idea if such a thing exists)? I'm not fussed, just the statement of the RfC doesn't seem to clearly define the consequences of a result. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  It should be in the MOS. We don’t need projects making up their own rules. Every time that happens, it’s bad. Dronebogus (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  You don’t need a “rule” for everything. Once this RFC is closed, those who want to conform the relevant pages can simply do so. If questioned they can point to the closure (which will be saved in the archives of this page). Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option B. Per SMcCandlish and others, the difference between a micronation and a microstate -- one is recognized and the other is not -- is not obvious to laypeople. Jessintime (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. I read the above discussion with some confusion and bafflement. I realize that here on Wikipedia we like to think of ourselves as being engaged in highly serious business, but I really don't buy the line of reasoning that we have an editorial obligation to punish/reward people and organizations by giving them visually distinct infoboxes based on how important or serious they are. I think it is dumb to adopt a formal stance that the visual length of an infobox should be determined by how serious or important or deserving a subject is. For example: the Valley of the Drums (a couple of dozen acres in Kentucky where some guy illegally dumped some barrels of toxic waste in 1979) currently has a longer infobox than the Holocaust. Is this state of affairs offensive? Does it need to have a shorter infobox? Do we need to have a policy where every article about a tragedy or a crime has an infobox length strictly determined by how bad it was? If this is dumb (which it is), why should it be any different for countries? Carpatho-Ukraine existed for four months; do we consider it an offensive disgrace to the legacy of the Eternal City that it has a longer infobox than the Roman Empire? What about Vatican City, which -- I love it and all but it is not a real country, it does not engage with the international community in any meaningful way commensurate with being a country, it has a population of 900 -- it doesn't even meet the population requirement to be called a city in many states (e.g. Florida requires a minimum of 1,500). But it has a longer infobox than the continent-spanning Parthian Empire, which stood proud for about five hundred years. Is this unjust? No: it's just a box on the side of a web page. We do not need to stick it to the man Sealand by castrating its infobox. jp×g🗯️ 09:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  ...Did you read a different discussion or something? JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  That looks like a pretty accurate summary of this discussion to me. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well you would, you're both arguing against the same irrelevant strawman! JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Simply disagreeing with your non-neutral point of view does not make our arguments either irrelevant or strawmen. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, it's no surprise that the above is filled with strawmen and irrelevant other stuff exists, as not only does it seem oddly emotional, but is admittedly based in confusion and bafflement. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I honestly have no idea why someone thought this was a big enough deal to start such a massive discussion but we all know infoboxes are VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's infoboxes as such (on this occasion, unlike with e.g. classical music), but micronations - some people seem to think that neutral coverage of them is somehow extremely problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Serious what? Come on. The only thing this conversation is for is whether we should have another tailored infobox for a subset of articles. If some people are attached to just having one infobox that ship sailed long ago. It's hardly very serious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  It’s hyperbole. But yes it’s “serious businessing” to argue over whether micronations “deserve” three or eight different parameters. This mostly seems like a proxy debate on whether to delete a bunch of micronation articles +/- “let’s talk about how stupid and illegitimate these inherently stupid and illegitimate fantasy countries are”. Dronebogus (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't disagree that many discussions on Wikipedia involve about ten times the amount of verbiage needed to constructively explore and resolve the issue, this one included. But consideration of how to concisely identify and convey key facts for the reader is a fundementally important issue, and one that could probably use more attention and thought in general.--Trystan (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  For the purpose of maintaining a collegial environment, I tend to use language that gets the point across with a minimum of insult towards my interlocutors, but if you insist I clarify, the literal meaning of the words in the sentences people typed in the above discussion were not the part of it that baffled and confused me.
  
  

  I don't know what is supposed to be "filled with strawmen" (my post or Thryduulf's post or what). If it is my post, I'd be happy to go through the conversation and find some of the instances where people said the things that I disagree with in my comment, but I would appreciate a specific thing you disbelieve, rather than just saying "filled with strawmen" (which strawmen?) jp×g🗯️ 09:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not the one asserting the unsupported, non-neutral opinion that micronations are inherently comparable enough to recognized nations that a substantial proportion of infobox country parameters will be DUE in articles for a substantial proportion of all micronations. JoelleJay (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  We've been over this multiple times already and my explaining everything yet again will not convince you that reality is not the way you would like it to be, so I will not attempt to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  The reality is that the vast majority of micronations fall under Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and the articles only exist on Wikipedia because of a few silly season press articles. Most of them should be moved to Fandom, which seems to specialize in such trivia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hear, hear! Zaathras (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  How about MicroWiki? There are quite a lot of made-up-one-day micronations on there. Arcorann (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Reality does not treat micronations as if they were just some "type" of nation. RS treat them as websites, companies, art projects, scams, etc. and we should follow suit. JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• B Per the excellent "silly season" observation above. That they exist and are covered by high-level sources justifies an article, but to actually go along with their claims of sovereignty is WP:OR. Zaathras (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  You might want to reconsider how compatible that comment is with WP:NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  My Self-Claimed Nation on a Spit of Land is not actually a nation. Presenting it as such is an WP:NPOV violation. Zaathras (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Please see the extensive discussion above about how whether something is or is not a nation is not something for Wikipedians to determine, about how use of an infobox that reports the existence of verifiable claims does not promote or otherwise present those claims in a non-neutral manner, and about how there is no single simple definition of what is and is not a "proper" country. Thryduulf (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yea, I see the discussion above, and your extensive contributions. I do not share your conclusion on the matter, as it most certainly is for us to determine. We do it every day when discarding fringe p.o.v.'s. Good day. Zaathras (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  When dealing with notable fringe points of view, we neutrally report what that point of view is in context without attempt to editorialise or denigrate the POV - i.e we do what existing micronation infoboxes do in the manner that they do it. Thryduulf (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not neutral to give prominence (weight) to aspects of a subject that exceeds the prominence that reliable sources give those aspects. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, but given the existing infoboxes don't do that, and nobody is proposing to do that, that's not a rebuttal to anything I've said. Unfortunately some people are proposing to give significantly less prominence to aspects of the subject than reliable sources do, which is also not neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think that is the good-faith, policy-based core of the discussion: Which version of the infobox best reflects key aspects, as determined by the proportional weight in the body of reliable, published sources? It is perfectly reasonable for editors to have differing views on that question.--Trystan (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  No article is required to have an infobox, having or not having an infobox does not make a page less neutral, and having a smaller infobox does not make a page less neutral (while having a larger one can).

  Given that a) the infobox guidelines recommend the number of options in an infobox--not the size of the infobox on a given page, but the number of parameters in the template--be limited to those that are likely to be applicable to many or most of the affected subjects; b) it is extremely unlikely that most of the subjects in the category "micronations" have DUE IRS coverage of most infobox country parameters (meaning actual secondary coverage, not simply reprinting images of flags/coats of arms without prose discussion); c) micronations are virtually never grouped alongside recognized countries in RS that are about countries in general, while RS almost always do make clear distinctions between them and recognized countries; d) the micronation designation varies wildly within our category, with attestation ranging from routine to a mention in a single source to "random editor thinks it belongs in category"; e) many micronations are promotional outfits that materially benefit from legitimization on WP, so per policy (Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts) we must be careful that our coverage does not unduly emphasize aspects that are only reported by primary/non-independent sources; and f) most readers will not be familiar with the term "micronation" and so may be misled by option A. JoelleJay (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• B For those readers who don't immediately recognize the niche meaning of "micronation", presenting all the trappings of a recognized nation-state is misleading. In most infobox applications, the addition of "Unrecognised" is not an undue burden on the width. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option A: Gets the job done, is descriptive, to the point and has been used for years without incident. Wikipedia AFC is good enough to prevent any fictious 'hobby nations' from escaping Microwiki confinement. Otherwise, when I'm looking at an article regarding, for example, Sealand, and I would like a brief summary before moving on, Option A's infobox does so. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  And when I say 'summary' I mean a summary of what a micronation claims/aspires to be, not necessarily what it actually controls/does. I didn't look at the Sealand page 5 years ago and think 'No way! Why have I never heard of this country?', I looked at it and recognised it obviously didnt function as a state. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option B: I personally find option A confusing, in approximately the same way I find it confusing when articles about, say, German citizens born in the latter half of the 20th century who have infobox:nobility: if it's possible to come away from a quick glance at the Sealand infobox with the impression that Sealand is a country in the same way that Luxembourg is, something is very wrong. --JBL (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option A mostly per JPG. There's no reason the infobox for micronations should include less information than the infobox on countries: micronations do in fact have flags (etc etc) and saying what those flags are does not imply that we are endorsing the micronation's claims. The information to be included is largely the same in both cases. I don't find the WP:FRINGE argument very compellling because the recognition of a micronation is not related to whether the micronation has a flag. When it comes to other partially recognized or unrecognized states, like Taiwan, SADR and Rojava, we always use the country infobox, so why cut out a special exception here? Loki (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  (Also @Chipmunkdavis) Should we provide coverage of micronational flags in our articles when there is zero independent coverage discussing or describing the flag? The sources below simply briefly mention in passing that the respective micronations created such symbols (Its government granted visas and driver’s licenses, issued passports and currency, produced its own stamps, flew its own flag and The principality has its own constitution, flag, national anthem, and even issues its own passports and stamps), there's no indication that these are even particularly BALASP in our article at all, let alone the most key information about the subject. Does it matter if only a tiny fraction of subjects in the micronations category have any independent sourcing on these symbols whatsoever (many are only tenuously notable in general)? What about the various neighborhoods or websites or scams or art projects that have proclaimed themselves to be sovereign states; does a single news source calling them a "micronation" justify choosing the country infobox over other applicable infoboxes and essentially announcing in wikivoice that that's what they are most known for? Is Taiwan or Rojava really inherently comparable, due to only being "partially" recognized, to thousands of online-only micronations and art projects and money laundering schemes? Note that micronations are definitionally united solely by being unrecognized aspirant entities; there's no legal understanding of the term beyond that, which means a banking fraud group described as a "micronation" in one source and described as a "virtual country", as a "ruse", and as a "phony country" in many others is just as legitimate in having this designation as Sealand or Liberland. JoelleJay (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  All the issues you're bringing up are solved on an article-by-article basis and are already covered by RS, among other policies. Using those issues as reasons to come up with some special policy for micronations as a whole (when there are clearly myriad other topics/categories of topics that are in firmly in the realm of fiction that apparently don't fit this bill) is clearly a straw man. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Nope, it certainly does not solve the issue that our P&Gs for infoboxes explicitly discourage having options for parameters that are not summary information that is important to many of the articles that will use the infobox. These articles are only related to each other by their meeting the single criterion of "unrecognized aspirant state"; if that criterion is enough to qualify something as "a type of country"--and especially when numerous sources specifically call these subjects fake countries, and no other category-defining sources actually meaningfully group micronations with real nations--for which the country infobox is the most relevant infobox, then it absolutely should predict wide applicability of many of the infobox parameters to most of the set. JoelleJay (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  That doesn't seem to address anything I brought up. Almost all the summary information that is important to "real" nations is also applicable to micronations. The question is not about you or me (or anyone, for that matter) deciding what's important information for a nation and what's not (it's not even WP's place to do so); it's about whether it's verifiable or not. Insofar as there's not enough or satisfactory sourcing on certain pieces of information regarding micronations, that information can be left out. That's a decision to be made on a per-article basis, which is already covered by RS. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Almost all the summary information that is important to "real" nations is also applicable to micronations. According to what evidence?? Where are the independent RS demonstrating that flags etc. are, as a rule, key features of micronations specifically? Some micronations simply verifiably having a flag does not mean that independent secondary coverage of micronations affords it comparable cultural/political importance to that of real countries. Even if every micronation actually verifiably did consider its symbols integral parts of its identity, if independent RS do not regularly emphasize those features for either individuals or for the topic as a whole (e.g. with extensive SIGCOV of micronational flags as a topic), then they are not sufficiently integral enough to understanding a micronation to be in a infobox. Our guidelines say infobox parameters shouldn't exist--not just that they shouldn't be filled in if they aren't relevant for a particular page, but that they shouldn't be options in that infobox for any page--if they don't apply to many of the members of a group. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Showing an image of a flag in the infobox is a similar level of coverage to that of many sources. The flags presumably shouldn't have their own articles per the lack of coverage you note, but notability isn't a limit to the use of images. A single news source likely indicated a micronation shouldn't be covered with an article, but that is also a notability question rather than an infobox question. If there are enough sources that the topic is notable, covering the symbols used is helpful. CMD (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Virtually every single recognized sovereign country has an article on its flag, and of those I briefly spot-checked all of them were sourced to several secondary/tertiary, independent sources, supporting the assumption made by our MOS on infoboxes that parameters must represent real-world importance to many of the affected subjects. This is patently not the case for any(?) of the micronations with articles, let alone micronations in general.

  Additionally, I am very skeptical that commentary-less reproductions of symbols are ever acceptable as sources of BALASP coverage. It's one thing to illustrate an article with relevant images; it's another to assert that this image is such a key feature of the subject that it is discussed significantly later in the body or is at least a core fact as established by appearance in most RS on the topic.

  And what I mean by "single news source" is "notable subjects whose designation as a "micronation" is attested by only a single news source", which I'd estimate is actually more than what the average page in that category has. JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you think I'm objecting to articles on notable flags, as we should have articles on notable topics. Conversely, we should probably have very few subtopic articles for micronations, be that on flags or any other topic, as the subtopics are unlikely to be independently notable. Nonetheless, information that is not notable by itself can and should be used on articles, and any infobox on micronations will contain plenty of information which doesn't have its own article. I am not sure what you mean in the last paragraph, if a subject is notable but not called a micronation outside of a single source, we probably wouldn't call it a micronation in our article would we? CMD (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  What I'm trying to say is that flags are demonstrably very important aspects of all recognized countries and subnational entities, which is why there is a parameter for it in the country infobox. However, no such relevance, as demonstrated through independent RS, has been established for micronations. The vast majority of our articles will only be able to source an image of a micronation's flag to primary, non-independent, unreliable sources, which means that material is likely not DUE in the article at all, let alone in its infobox. The same can be said for almost every other infobox country parameter when it comes to micronations. So I am arguing that we cannot assume, based on the relevance these symbols have to real nations, that they represent comparably fundamental enough features of micronations to justify designating them inherently encyclopedic for that class. There is also the important fact that micronations are essentially never treated as just another "type" of country in RS; they do not, as a rule, appear in general lists of countries (even when those lists do include partially-recognized states, non-sovereign subnational polities, and de facto governed breakaway regions), and this is in no small part due to their being considered, by definition, completely distinct from every category of "nation" and "government" that is meaningful. Wikipedia should not be assigning novel membership criteria to classification schemes that already have well-defined bounds and expectations in real-world RS, but this is exactly what using the same set of infobox parameters for both recognized states and micronations does.

  Re: the last paragraph: a large proportion of our articles categorized and treated as micronations either have no mention of "micronation" in their text, or their designation as a "micronation" is unsupported by any source. Many of the remainders are only described as such by one or two RS. Few micronation articles have comprehensive coverage calling their subjects "micronations", but even those that do do not usually emphasize their symbology. JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  We aren’t implying legitimacy by using a commonly recognized symbol of an entity to represent that entity. Political parties have flags, companies have flags, clubs have flags, and the same goes for coats of arms— you don’t need to be a country to use them. The images are almost certainly going to be included in such an article anyway, so why bother specifically excluding them from the most obvious place? Dronebogus (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  And there is ample secondary independent coverage in RS demonstrating the importance of flags in political parties, companies, sports clubs, and real countries/subnational governments. Where is the evidence the same is true for micronations as a group? It's not like IRS widely group them in with recognized states when discussing "countries", so they don't just get to inherit the presumption that certain aspects are important that we afford to other infobox country topics. And it's also certainly not the case that IRS cover individual micronations' flags to the extent that they are even worth mentioning in our articles at all, much less in the most visible spot of the page. If they are to be included in an article at all, they should appear adjacent to the text that discusses them. JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Mention of the symbols of state made to imitate real states are common coverage of micronations as a group. It's part of the topic, like mascots to sports. Flags are an ubiquitous symbol, see for example how often they are mentioned in Micronations: A lacuna in the law (2021) as one of the items used to define each micronation, along with currencies, athems, etc. One of that paper's authors also wrote in Cyber Micronations and Digital Sovereignty "most micronationalists invent and rewrite histories and national narratives; they design flags, medals of honour, passports, and currency...It is through the performative utterance of ‘I claim this land’ or ‘I secede from Canada’ (Austin, 1962), coupled with the sustained repetition of these mimetic acts (raising flags, singing anthems, pledging allegiance, etc.) that micronations declare their sovereignty and sustain their existence." On the overall approach, that real country articles have X and Y does not seem to be a reason to include/exclude X and Y from other types of articles. These are individual articles, not groupings. They are certainly not included on any of our country lists. CMD (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lean towards A reading the discussion above. The symbols etc. are a common part of RS coverage (eg. ), their inclusion/lack of does not imply legitimacy. That the infoboxes sometimes bloat is a way that provides undue weight to this and that is a common issue with infoboxes, not something related to micronations. Also odd to discuss potential misleadingness and use "unrecognized micronation", which heavily implies there is a category of reccognized micronations out there, providing far more legitimacy to the concept than the previous infobox. CMD (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps a quick definition of the term 'micronation' and said lack of recognition by sovereign states can be included in the infobox itself, if the original draft of A causes confusion for potential readers. 211.251.171.197 (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option B, for the reasons above which have been (re)stated ad nauseam at this point. Theknightwho (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome let's make sure we have a notice and link to this conversation so this template doesn't get merged again..... mergerist love this kind of thing.Moxy🍁 02:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Notes

1. [a]

   Because I couldn't work out how to make Option B the same width as Option A)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When the 2017 RfC ending the presumption of notability for verifiable secondary schools was closed, the four joint closers made the following comments:

Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search. It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special. We would expect an RFC asking "Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" would be closed quickly and with snowballs. The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling. [emphases mine in all cases]

Furthermore, WP:PROD states: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. While this language is ambiguous, I don’t believe it endorses And while many if not most PROD nominations are fine, there is a consistent minority of articles which either would pass AfD, or would be contested at AfD, and I tend to view the use of PROD for such articles, particularly when the nom only looks at the tags without actively searching for sources, as disruptive or even abusive of process. Another very common practice is to say “oh well it doesn’t pass WP:NXYZ” even when GNG itself turns out to be satisfied.

While I am by no means an inclusionist, I am tired of checking CAT:ALLPROD, doing a web search, finding GNG to be clearly met by the first page of results, and having to object to a nomination that never should have been made.

In particular, secondary schools, per the RfC close, would benefit greatly from the greater scrutiny of a proper deletion discussion, rather than the say-so of a single editor on random patrol who often is not sitting down and searching for sources as prescribed by policies and guidelines.

Therefore, I believe at a minimum it would be appropriate to prohibit secondary schools from being nominated for PROD, and instead mandate that AfD (or speedy) be used. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• To be honest, I would always send secondary schools to AfD rather than PROD anyway. But there is no reason why clearly non-notable secondary schools could possibly exist. After all, I could found a free school in the UK tomorrow, and I can guarantee all the coverage it would have would be minor, routine, local news. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
• As "secondary school" is a rather broad topic area and includes many fairly small businesses as Black Kite has pointed out, I don't think there should be any specific prohibition to PRODing schools beyond what is already at WP:PROD. In particular there are WP:ATDs for most American high schools making them ineligible for PROD. —Kusma (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  AtDs don’t stop some noms… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  If there are people who routinely make PRODs against the rules, how would changing the rules stop them? —Kusma (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Then topic bans for those noms are in order, if the issue is behavioral the remedies most likely are too. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but I believe in WikiKarma for some reason. People bear grudges. Making waves always has to be weighed against potential harm. And given WP’s disturbing recent tendencies to eat its own children, too much punitive justice, however deserved, hurts the project. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Proding is the most easily reversed deletion nomination....I see no reason to rule that particular one out. On another note, I'm a bit biased towards school articles because they border on ngeo or can be ngeo which is much more lenient. That said, I see very few that clearly meet GNG, and so I'm somewhat skeptical of that part of your post and related criticism of the nominators. More typically they have some "1/3 GNG" sources and when kept or passed it's usually due to being "almost GNG" maybe combined with leniency from being a bit NGeo. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Admittedly my mental samples are heavily skewed because I ignore anything I assume to be a valid prod when I’m patrolling, but I’m not sure what you mean by not passing GNG. Maybe we have different standards for WP:SIGCOV? Local news is perfectly valid for GNG so long as it’s WP:INDY.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• When the nom only looks at the tags without actively searching for sources should disbar any PROD. I don't see why secondary schools (the term has very different meanings in different parts of the world) should be a special case. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well to be honest, I’m salami slicing CCP style because I don’t feel ready to take on a possible deletionist cabal about behavior at prod (and I agree >85% of nominations are fine but it’s the rest that concerns me).

  See my forthcoming reply to Horse Eye’s Back.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• The idea that any article could be categorically immune to prodding simply because of its subject strikes me as absurd. I'm particularly concerned with the argument based on PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected - if I understand you right, you are arguing that there are people who will have automatic, knee-jerk opposition to absolutely any attempt to delete a page about any secondary school, without exception. I don't think that that sort of objection can be called good-faith, but even beyond that, allowing that sort of sweeping categorical objection to stand would break Wikipedia's entire structure - most individual edits are unopposed; we require procedures like WP:PROD to operate on that principle because otherwise vast amounts of time and effort by editors would be wasted in unnecessary AFDs, RFCs, and so on. By default, anyone can create an article at any time, with no need to obtain consensus in advance or perform a search; in order for that to work, it's vital that, by default, anyone be able to prod or nominate articles for deletion in the same manner, allowing WP:BRD to decide what happens. I also generally disagree with attempts to shift the burden of searching for sources onto people who want to remove material; WP:BURDEN is clear that it is always ultimately on the people who wish to add or retain material. I can understand that PRODs where sources are easily found are sometimes frustrating, but your ire should be directed at the people who created the article without such sources and who wandered off without responding to challenges themselves; ultimately, it was their sole responsibility to do that search and to find those sources. People who propose or nominate article for deletion have no responsibility - none - to make even the slightest effort to search for sources; some pages advise it, but none require it, because otherwise we would end up in a situation where someone could mass-create large numbers of articles without putting any effort into them, then demand that anyone who wants to nominate them for deletion do an exhaustive source search for each one. This isn't a hypothetical - it has happened, with editors mass-creating articles in an automated or semi-automated fashion and others then misinterpreting the suggestion in WP:BEFORE to consider such a search as a hard requirement in a way that made it impractical to keep up with their additions. --Aquillion (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Your point about mass-creation is already addressed by bulk AfD discussions. For example on multiple occasions something around a thousand lugstubs have been deleted each time after a single concise discussion.

  Apart from that:

  • Bad-faith prod objections are technically allowed.
  • I don’t believe the add/removal process has to be perfectly symmetrical. WP is an accumulation of information — useful, verifiable, ordered and sorted information, but without people writing articles there can be no encyclopedia to begin with.
  • Besides, it’s easier to PROD a page than to write even a stub. And often PRODders seem to be intentionally hunting for targets based on categories of cleanup tags.
  • Furthermore, your linking of PROD to BRD is strange because AfD is the one that involves a discussion phase.
  • And even so, most articles are created by people who aren’t permanently reachable thru WP. Most PRODs are by experienced editors.

  I’m not at all an inclusionist, as demonstrated by my AfD noms and votes; but I believe PROD is so easily abused that its rules must be strictly adhered to. If not for the thin blue streak tipped with steely mouse cursors of editors who take the time to patrol PROD, a fair diligent number of clearly notable articles would have been lost. And the loss of one notable topic would hurt The Encyclopedia much more than a dozen orphaned Lugstubs.

  • I’m not sure that WP:BURDEN applies in as broad a context as you stated it does.
  • Your assertion that People who propose or nominate article [sic] for deletion have no responsibility - none - to make even the slightest effort to search for sources is not supported by the sum total of relevant info in project space and is exactly what I am most concerned about. Prodding or nominating without looking for sources is really quite similar to WP:DRIVEBY tagging or any other action taken without sufficient checks.
  • I don’t believe my ire should be directed at hapless novice editors who create what they feel is a missing page without fully comprehending WP’s content and sourcing requirements. Experienced editors can reasonably be expected to understand that:
  • The requirement that a PROD be non-controversial implies that the nom should have done a little bit of work to ensure that there are no obvious grounds for objection.

  Lastly, thank you for expanding my horizons. I don’t agree with most of what you wrote, but it was very valuable to see just how much another reasonable individual’s interpretation of the guidelines and the deletion policy might diverge from my own.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, one more thing: The idea that any article could be categorically immune to prodding simply because of its subject strikes me as absurd — does the idea that any article could be categorically allowed to be renominated ad infinitum also strike you as absurd? Well, that’s exactly how WP:BLPPROD currently works.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And the loss of one notable topic would hurt The Encyclopedia much more than a dozen orphaned Lugstubs - I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. Articles about vital topics (ones whose deletion would be mean immediate irreparable harm to Wikipedia as a whole) have significant numbers of eyes on them and are at no risk of ever being successfully PRODed or even AFDed. Even if something is deleted that shouldn't have been, deleted articles can be restored or recreated; lost work can be redone, especially in areas like this that are rife with stubs containing nothing but information pulled from raw databases. PRODs may not always be fun, and may sometimes annoy editors or cause work to be wasted, but they are ultimately safe. And the reverse is not true; "orphaned lugstubs", as you put them, are not safe - they have the potential to do actually serious damage. All it takes is one article with something sufficiently wrong or problematic in it to slip through and attract the wrong attention at the wrong time to cause serious real-world harm to individuals or to irreparably damage Wikipedia's reputation. Think back to the incident that led to the creation of WP:BLP in the first place - all it took was one article (among our innumerable stubs and unwatched articles and other things) calling someone a Nazi without a source to do serious real-world harm to both them and to Wikipedia as a whole. There is no value in these stubs that could outweigh the risk of another incident like that. And every article that lacks people watching it - especially in sensitive areas, like BLPs; but the problem can occur anywhere, on any article - is a ticking time-bomb to repeat that sort of issue. A mere dozen? If nobody has an eye on them, I would accept the deletion of a thousand unwatched, potentially-notable orphaned stubs - ten-thousand! - if I thought that doing so would delete a single article that would otherwise have caused another incident like that. Our primary obligation as an encyclopedia isn't to indiscriminately catalogue as much as possible beyond our capability to maintain it; our primary obligation is to maintain our base quality in the form of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Every article that fails to do this, even the most obscure of stubs, ultimately erodes our ability to serve our core mission. And maintaining that quality requires that every article have at least a few eyes on it - there is a bare minimum level of attention and maintenance that is necessary for an article to exist, especially when it comes to WP:BLPs. Articles that don't have that level of attention are serious risks to the project as a whole. So, yes, obviously I believe that unsourced BLPs should be BLPPRODable over and over and over until / unless the problem is actually solved - the actual, demonstrable risk of serious harm to real people and to Wikipedia's reputation is an overriding concern. --Aquillion (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• The proposal seems to assume PROD is only used on the basis of notability. There are other reasons to suggest an article be deleted. In any case, no category of article should be exempt from the normal process, per Aquillion RudolfRed (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
• Prodding is massively misused in any case. It is indeed intended for uncontroversial deletion, but often seems to be used as a way of getting an article whose deletion is clearly not uncontroversial deleted without getting the publicity that an AfD will give it. I can only assume this gives deletionists some sort of perverse satisfaction. I usually check prodded articles every week and the vast majority of articles I deprod as not uncontroversial are kept if they are later taken to AfD. Which just proves the point. I usually deprod western secondary schools as not uncontroversial, and almost invariably they are then kept at AfD, but it has to be said that Indian and African schools are usually deleted at AfD so unless they clearly meet GNG I've given up deprodding them as a waste of time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• A secondary school should not be PRODed unless it is obviously unlikely to notable. Further to what Necrothesp said, this might depend on factors such as the geographical area the school is in, the newspapers that exist in that area, the size of the school, whether the school is an historically or architecturally important building, and perhaps whether the school is state owned or state regulated (and not some kind of scam), and so. James500 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Well, yes. That would apply to any article (apart from BLPs), not just secondary schools. "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, as I said above, we already have a special exemption in the rules for PRODs, so why not some restrictive categories to promote compliance with the applicable policies and guidelines? A significant minority of PRODs are already noncompliant and perhaps a tightening if the rules is just what’s needed.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, their is nothing in the rulebook that prevents a PROD. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people who think that every school is notable, no matter what. So while allowed, they will always attract objections. Straight to AfD is the more practical way. The Banner talk 00:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we could settle on a brief recommendation or ”best practice” to add to one or more of the relevant project-space pages.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

We have two inline citation styles: short and full. Looking at the examples in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_and_full_citations:

• Short: <ref>Miller 2005, p. 23.</ref>. An example for this would be Template:Harvard citation no brackets. This would later be linked to a full citation.
• Full: <ref>Miller, Edward (2005). ''The Sun''. Academic Press.</ref> An example for this would be Template:Cite book

Current policies say we should be consistent in inline citation format. However, it might be more optimal to use both. For example, for book sources that get cited multiple times in an article with different page numbers, it's better to use the short format. It's better for verifiability to make it easier that different page numbers are added for lengthy sources. Using the above example:

• Better: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.<ref>Miller 2005, p. 23.</ref> Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.<ref>Miller 2005, p. 39.</ref>
• Worse: No page numbers, or repeating full citation with different page numbers. Page numbers for full inline citation without repeating them, such as in the example here Help:References_and_page_numbers#Inline_page_numbers, do not look good. They look too lengthy.

For sources that get cited only once in an article, like a newspaper article, it's easier to use the full format and be done with it. For articles that use both formats, it could be tedious for editors to switch citations formats (unless there is a bot for this) Bogazicili (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. I should have asked this in a talk page first Bogazicili (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I frequently patrol RecentChanges, and a pet peeve of mine is users creating standalone talk pages, which I feel personally responsible for G8'ing. Is there any reason not to prevent them from creating abandoned pages? 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 15:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@JayCubby we don't have a technical mechanism to enforce this, and creating a "policy" forbidding it would just be ignored by these editors that would have no idea that there was a policy, and that they were expected to follow it. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've (hopefully) resolved a mild conflict on a page I was editing by adding additional sources to with Hell Gate links but this raises a larger question for me - how does worker-owned local journalism fit into the reliable source media sphere? Hell Gate has no physical presence, but neither does Gothamist, or The City. The main difference is that Hell Gate is a worker cooperative so it has a bit more of a "voice" than Gothamist, which has a top-down structure, does.

I have no idea if other cities have their own version of this, but I feel like this model may become more common as traditional journalism collapses in on itself.Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 19:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Computer-ergonomics you should ask this question at the reliable sources noticeboard, where you'll get a faster response Mach61 23:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the link! I had lost it and need to bookmark it. But there was no rush on the response, I just think it' a good conversation to have.Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 03:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I say use it with a bit of caution. It's still a new-ish organization and has a small newsroom. But this New York Times article has a favorable coverage of it, describing it as a "blog-style news site". It also employs professional journalists. Extremely local journalism carries WP:DUE concerns. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, in this case it was for coverage of Palestine protests in NYC which were also covered in Curbed, the NYT, the City, Hyperallergic, etc etc etc.Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 03:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This is better for WP:RSN (feel free to copy my response over if you move it). In terms of operations, The City is a good analogy, but not Gothamist, which is published by WNYC. In terms of content, there are several similarities between Hell Gate and Gothamist, though. No idea how it's doing financially with its atypical business model, but Hell Gate is surprisingly well known for how new it is. It's had several good scoops/stories/hot takes that have made the rounds and I've not seen any issues with its factual content. The authors' voices come through in the writing more than the big papers, and that can result in a bit of a blend of opinion and news, but the opinion part seems pretty easily distinguished. It's somewhere between a traditional news website and a group blog where all of the authors are experienced journalists and experts in the area of the blog (NYC politics, etc.). The upshot is I'd think it would be usable in general for the facts it presents, for its opinion with attribution, and if a claim is especially contentious, defer to sources with more established editorial processes. Also, great taste in images. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons § c-Aaron Liu-20240401154800-TheSpacebook-20240331201000. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Posting this announcement / discussion thread also here for visibility, as this is in a way a global policy matter. The other thread can be found here.

Hello! I am writing to you to let you know that the full draft of the Movement Charter has been published on Meta for your review.

Why should you care?

The Movement Charter is important as it will be an essential document for the implementation of the Wikimedia 2030 strategy recommendations. Participating in the Charter discussions means that you ensure that your voice is heard and your interests are represented in shaping the future of the Wikimedia Movement. As the English Wikipedia community is the largest of the Wikimedia movement, it is essential to have the perspectives from your community presented in the global conversations. I hope many of you will find time to provide feedback, share your thoughts and perspectives!

Community Engagement – April 2nd to April 30th

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) cordially invites everyone in the Wikimedia movement to share feedback on the full draft of the Movement Charter.

Let your voice be heard by sharing your feedback in any language on the Movement Charter Talk page, attend the community session today, on April 4th at 15.00-17.00 UTC, or email movementcharter@wikimedia.org. I will also be monitoring conversations on this talk page, to bring back the summaries to the ongoing global conversations.

You can learn more about the Movement Charter, Global Council, and Hubs by watching the videos that the Movement Charter Drafting Committee has prepared. Read the Committee's latest updates for more information about the most recent activities from the Drafting Committee.

Thank you again for your time and kind attention! I look forward to your input and feedback. Have a wonderful month of April! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the term "original research" is used, as in "no original research allowed on Wikipedia." There's nothing wrong with research—we all seek out, discover, consult, read, and cite various types of sources. We all conduct research. The problem is when editors analyze, interpret, or draw conclusions from the research they've done. The problem is "original thought" (a phrase I've seen used as well), not original research. I'm a new editor, so maybe I'm missing something with the terminology, but in my several months editing Wikipedia, it sure feels like I do "original research" all the time. I just have to be careful not to bring an agenda, opinion, or personal bias when I present the findings of that research by writing or editing an article on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone can clarify this for me, but even after that clarification, I feel the terminology is very confusing for new editors and I'm wondering whether the phrase "original research" should be used at all.

The policy about original research states: "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." That doesn't sound accurate to me. That's not original research, that's fabrication. It's not research at all, original or otherwise. Wafflewombat (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Cal Ripken Jr. has a streak of over 2000 consecutive games in MLB, and we have several reliable sources to outline this fact, so List of Major League Baseball consecutive games played streaks is supported well with sources for this record. We also have a list for Career stolen base leaders similarly well sourced. "Career stolen base leaders for players who played past 40 years old" could be a notable item to be included in a players article should a source exist, but as there's no reliable source I can point to for information to build an article, that would be more than likely be considered original research, and that's maybe the clearest I can break it down for an example. YellowStahh (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If you feel OR is conceptually convoluted, wait till you get to SYNTH... :) </facetiousness> Think of outcomes rather than process - what the prohibition on original reasearch is primarily concerned with is the end product. Is it conceptually something new or is it something *directly* attributable to reliable sources? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR certainly applies to substantive article content. But it's interesting in that I see a lot of original research done in pursuit of rigorous sourcing for articles. And I think most would agree that's a good thing that's made WP more reliable than most -- editors here sometimes go through extensive effort to separate substance from chaff, or suss out fabrication and myth that's been uncritically repeated in what might be superficially be considered reliable secondary sources. (For sources in history articles especially this seems to be an exceptionally important, and exceptionally difficult, task.)

This is why, when on Talk Page discussions about sourcing, I'm tempted to wp:trout those who accuse editors of violating OR by examining such issues in citations. That's not what the policy says or intends. To answer as to the term itself, no two-word term will adequately summarize a policy, since every policy here has subtleties and exceptions, so I think it's fine enough shorthand. It gets the important point across, especially for newer editors. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, all of you. YellowStahh and Goldsztajn helped to clarify the term. I had pretty much come to the same conclusion that Goldsztajn presented on my own, but it took me awhile. I think more appropriate guidelines would be no original thought, no original arguments, no original conclusions. I can see why it's handy to have a two-word term to summarize all this, but honestly I would have preferred a longer version, because I feel the term "original research" is misleading, and honestly I keep having to remind myself what it means. SamuelRiv, you may feel that the term "gets the important point across, especially for newer editors," but what I've been trying to say is that I heartily disagree. For me, it has been misleading, confusing, and frustrating. Only when somebody used the phrase "no original thought" in a talk page discussion did I begin to understand what the OR policy was actually about. Wafflewombat (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"we all seek out, discover, consult, read, and cite various types of sources" - That's not the kind of "research" the OR policy is talking about (well, except for original-research-via-synthesis, discussed by YellowStahh above). It's talking more about, like, observation of raw material / primary sources, the kind of thing that should be published in a journal article / book / blog post / etc. Citing a secondary source that example.com has the most toxic comment section on the Internet isn't OR. Examining example.com 's comment section yourself and coming to the conclusion it is the most toxic comment section on the Internet is OR - you should publish a pithy blog post about that, not add it to Wikipedia as a fact. Or for an even more direct example - say you're traveling the wilds of Alberta and take a picture of the Canadian T-Rex, long thought to be extinct. You need to go get that published in an academic journal first; you can't just come directly onto Wikipedia and say "According to my discovery, the T-Rex is not extinct." (As the example shows, this is really a defense mechanism against cranks - rather than argue with them over whether that was REALLY a T-Rex or not, we're just directing them to get it published in a reliable source first, which won't happen 99% of the time.) SnowFire (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I would further the above example of a T-Rex to a discussion recently I saw here, where the subject source may be notable but in the interview this user was looking to reference it turned out to be Original research and was an interview the user conducted himself looking to publish it to Wikipedia. Had this of been a Sun newspaper interview or a well known Book podcast it would've been fine to reference. YellowStahh (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Think of it through the lens of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. A secondary source reviews primary sources and does original research, then writes conclusions. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we summarize the secondary sources, or directly use tertiary sources that review all sources on a subject, and we avoid primary sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well said, thank you. Wafflewombat (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

Does this mean that local consensus cannot deviate from a guideline? Or, does said "community consensus on a wider scale" require a community consensus separate from the guideline, such as RfC? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find two guidelines that would be impossible to comply with at the same time. PAGs offer many competing principles. That's why we have local consensus. And we are allowed to consider factors not covered by guidelines, as I understand it, since guidelines can't be expected to cover every possible situation. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It's difficult to give a general answer, because while it is true that a consensus reached amongst a broader audience is presumed to be more representative of the community's viewpoint than the result of a discussion with a smaller number of editors, consensus can change. Additionally, specific circumstances can lead to different tradeoffs being made between competing guidance. If your question is with respect to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources regarding including links to archived versions of sources, then I personally feel the most collaborative approach is to seek to change the broader guideline to consider cases where articles have a large number of citations. isaacl (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd oppose that per CREEP, among other things. Local consensus is perfectly capable of handling exception situations. Anyway, I seek to clarify CONLEVEL vis-a-vis guidelines, which is a worthwhile clarification in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally, if a broad audience discusses a specific situation and a conclusion is reached, then a subset of that broader audience should respect that consensus. The result of that discussion can get captured on a guidance page. If the subset wants to put forth an argument that the captured result doesn't truly represent consensus, or that consensus has changed, then the editors in question can start a new discussion with the broader audience. isaacl (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

A very substantial part (most?) of our body of guidelines has been formed by unopposed BOLD edits on pages that relatively few editors have the time to follow on a regular basis. That does not constitute affirmative discussion by a broad audience. So it would be a mistake to assume discussion by a broad audience until proven otherwise (it would be prohibitively difficult to prove that a discussion doesn't exist). It makes more sense to assume the opposite until proven otherwise. In the specific case you mentioned, regarding including links to archived versions of sources, I've yet to see any community consensus—with or without discussion, let alone discussion by a broad audience—that things must be done that way. The guideline itself doesn't say that. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, like I said, specific circumstances affect what will be the best collaborative approach in a given case. However as per your request, I discussed the general approach: work with all interested parties to figure out the consensus view. isaacl (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem with that, provided said work is done at the article's talk page where it belongs, and with respect for any local consensus reached there (with the option of bringing in outside voices by posting notices in other talk spaces). I've been suggesting that since at least 1 April, and for some reason the other editor has refused to start said discussion. Starting it is the responsibility of the editor who seeks to change the existing consensus (I'm aware of only one), not those who support it. And we still lack clarification of CONLEVEL, which would inform said discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I have given my viewpoint on how broader levels of consensus supersede local discussions, and how if there is a dispute on whether or not a broad level of consensus has been achieved, then further discussion is necessary. Within English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, as mentioned by other commenters, inviting a broader set of interested parties (including the local participants) is the key aspect, regardless of venue. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

In the case of the specific dispute that sparked this discussion, there is no change to the guidelines required to accommodate the current situation, although it could be done. The relevant guideline language is "When permanent links aren't available, consider making an archived copy of the cited document when writing the article". Editors at the article's talk page have indeed considered it. And even making archived copies wouldn't conflict with what they decided to do, which was to not add them to the article itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note - This discussion stems from Talk:Donald_Trump#Discussion_pointer and Local Consensus #25 there, and it's conflict with WP:CITE. The most relevant discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Talk:Donald_Trump_and_using_WP:LOCALCON_to_disallow_citation_archives. Soni (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Such an absolute phrase is just idiotic, for lack of a better term. Of course everyone knows that what works for the community on a wide scale might not be the best choice every time. I think that, based on what ArbCom actually says, yes, local consensus cannot deviate from a guideline, but in practice that's stupid and dumb and editors need to use their brains. If a discussion or an RfC is able to show that slavish devoition to the tenet of some random PAG isn't a reasonable path, well, I would consider that an example of, per CONLEVEL, [convincing] the broader community that such action is right, which is enough to override any policy or guideline. Cessaune [talk] 08:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If ArbCom meant the principle to apply to guidelines lacking separate community consensus, nobody has shown me that yet despite my request for that. The passage attributed to ArbCom in the WT:CITE discussion is Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus, and that seems both cherry-picked and ambiguous to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the assumption is that all guidelines/policies were agreed upon by consensus, and such a consensus qualifies as a 'global' one regardless of whether or not the consensus actually had enough participation to be called a 'community' consensus? I don't know. Cessaune [talk] 08:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know either, but that would mean that all guidelines are bright-line "You must do this, per ArbCom." I find it very hard to believe that ArbCom would say that, hence my skepticism. We might as well convert all guidelines to policies. Not that all policies are 100% absolutes, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth reminding folks that this page is not for settling local content disputes, but for discussing larger, more important site-wide issues such as the meaning of CONLEVEL. That was my intent here, and it's why I avoided talking about the local dispute until it was mentioned by Isaacl. That local dispute is but one of the many potential future beneficiaries of this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but if CONLEVELS applies, then there is no local content dispute to settle as a single page cannot decide to deviate from community norms agreed upon in a wider forum (policy or guideline). Also consider WP:NOTANARCHY. The MoS is a guideline, should individual pages get to decide to ignore style choices made by the wider community at the MoS with a local consensus?

To how strict are guidelines enforced, I’d say about equal to policies. The difference isn’t whether or not a local consensus or a WikiProject can overrule a PAG, more that a policy change generally requires significantly more discussion (an RFC, or trips through VPP/VPR; sometimes combinations of all three) than a guideline change (which can be made as simply as a talk page discussion or even a BOLD change that goes unchallenged and has defacfo acceptance via WP:SILENTCONSENSUS). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

if CONLEVELS applies, then there is no local content dispute to settle as a single page cannot decide to deviate from community norms agreed upon in a wider forum (policy or guideline). Key word: IF. Until I came here, I was willing for that IF to be answered in a local discussion, with the belief that ordinary editors can be trusted to read and interpret policies, to fairly consider opposing arguments (and there was always the possibility of an outside closer, who would be allowed to override the majority if they deemed that the minority had a stronger policy position). Now I'm willing for it to be answered here instead. If it doesn't get answered here, I fall back to local discussion. One place it should NOT be answered: WT:CITE. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Key word: IF. Well to save you the trouble of waiting, ArbCom certainly thinks it applies. If a PAG has more strength than a WikiProject consensus (the example used by ArbCom) then surely a PAG cannot be overruled by a simple talk page consensus at a single random article. That way lies anarchy. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom certainly thinks it applies - As I've previously said, here and at WT:CITE: Show me. That doesn't mean repeating that one ambiguous sentence you've quoted so far, and then applying your personal interpretation to it. It means linking to something where ArbCom explicitly said that CONLEVEL applies to guidelines lacking separate community consensus. Or, for that matter, even something they said that clearly implies that's what they meant. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Words mean things. -fin —Locke Cole • t • c 11:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

-fin - If only! ―Mandruss ☎ 11:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Speaking generally, the purpose of guidelines is to provide general guidance that is expected to be interpreted with common sense and to which occasional exceptions may apply. A local consensus can determine that an exception should apply to a specific circumstance being discussed, but it needs to be understood that this is an exception that doesn't change the general guideline and it needs to be articulated why an exception is required for this case. If the feeling is that the guideline is wrong more generally than in occasional specific circumstance then broad community consensus to change the guideline is the correct way forwards - c.f. WP:IARUNCOMMON. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but I see only one way to decide whether an exception is required (which is itself ambiguous). To wit: local consensus with the possibility of outside closure. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf completely. There has to be room for local consensus, since guidelines by definition have some exceptions. If those arguing for an exception can't articulate a way in which the situation is exceptional, then the outside closer should find in favor of the guideline's proponents. We commonly see arguments for an exception that are obviously just disagreement with the guideline, and experienced closers often notice and act accordingly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind… the location where a consensus was reached matters less than the number of participants who reached it. A consensus reached on an article’s talk page with lots of participants should be given more weight than a consensus reached on a guideline’s talk page that only involved two or three participants. Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Changes to article A (beyond non-binding blue-sky talk) are discussed at Talk:A. Do you disagree? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Usually… but not always. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter where changes are discussed, as long as those who care about article A are notified, clearly pointed to the discussion and can participate. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Bad idea imo. Years later, when editors want to review the discussion that formed a consensus, how are they expected to know to look for it in the archive of a guideline talk page? Is it not difficult enough to hunt it down in the article's archive? That's the general case. In the specific case at Talk:Donald Trump, it's not quite so bad. Its current consensus list could link to off-page discussions, although that would break the eight-year precedent. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That’s what links are for. If there is a discussion on a policy/guideline page that relates to a specific article… we should post a notice at the article’s talk page linking to that discussion. Similarly, if there is a discussion at the article level that might impact a policy/guideline (say carving out an exception), we should post a notice at the policy/guideline talk page linking to that discussion.

Again, the important point to CONLEVEL is that a broad level of community involvement outweighs a limited level of community involvement. It’s not really about the specific location where that discussion takes place. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You haven't said whether you think any given guideline should be assumed to have that broad level of community involvement, merely by virtue of its existence. As I've said, plenty of guideline content did not arise from discussion, let alone broad discussion. If not, CONLEVEL does not apply to guidelines lacking separate community consensus. That's the point of this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The way to decide if it does have consensus or not is discussion, if no-one has ever objected to something it isn't possible to decide if it does or not. Editors could have never objected to it because they are in complete agreement, or because they never noticed that something had been changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then that answers my question. CONLEVEL cannot be asserted for a guideline without that discussion, and presumably among more than a handful of editors who happen to show up at a guideline talk page and care to jump in. And we've established that the subject article must be notified at the start of the discussion, not two months later following a massive wall of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It can be asserted, it can also be objected too. There isn't a simple answer to your question.
Absolutely more notification is always a good idea, and when taking a discussion to a more general location leaving a courtesy notification that you have done so is a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct - we have very few musts… but many shoulds. When it comes to consensus, Wikilawyering over venues and notifications is rarely productive. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

In my view, notification is important enough to be one of the few musts. There is no should about notifying the subject of an ANI complaint, for example; you do it, or you get dinged for not doing it and are expected to do it in the future. And I mildly resent having that W-word directed at me, if that was your intent. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Can be asserted, and has been asserted. When MEDRS was adopted as a guideline (through what was, at the time, a quite extensive and well-notified process; the WP:PROPOSAL process was based on what we did for MEDRS and MEDMOS), an editor claimed that the well-advertised RFC on its talk page was just a local consensus, and therefore the page couldn't be a guideline unless we changed it to say what he wanted (he wanted to cite more primary sources). But "you can claim it" isn't the same as "other editors will accept your complaint as legitimate". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. Anyone can object and raise the question of whether any particular piece of guidance is correct, whether anyone will agree with them is an entirely different matter. It's similar to the misuse of IAR. Just because a particular editor believes ignoring a certain policy or guideline will improve the encyclopedia, doesn't mean that other editors will agree.
Convincing other you are right through discussion may still be required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Enough people closely watch policy/guidance pages that we can safely assume they have broad consensus… especially because almost every policy/guideline begins with a statement that exceptions will exist. I assume that also has broad consensus.

The real question comes when an exception is proposed: does that exception have broad enough consensus to be accepted? If only two or three editors think so, then no… if lots and lots do, then yes. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your logic, Blueboar. Any discussion at an article's talk page, no matter the number of participants, will be seen only by users who watch that page. I think it would be very rare for such a discussion to have been seen by more users than a discussion held at a noticeboard, village pump, policy, or guidance page. Any discussion that seeks to deviate from established policy or guidance in more than a trivial way needs to be advertised to the community at large. Donald Albury 15:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is whether (and how well) it's been advertised. If it's held at a talk page, but has been widely advertised (noticeboards, village pump, projects, etc) then just because it's held at a talk page doesn't discount it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Meh… as a rule of thumb, yes… but a lot depends on the specific article and the specific guideline we are talking about. There are articles that have hundreds of watchers, and obscure guideline pages with only a handful of watchers.

That said, I would agree that advertising these discussions at related pages, noticeboards, village pumps etc is beneficial, as it will bring in a broader slice of the community. When seeking a consensus to make an exception to “the rules”… more is better. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The assertion that Any discussion at an article's talk page, no matter the number of participants, will be seen only by users who watch that page is not true (due to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and links posted at village pumps, noticeboards, and Wikiprojects) and secondly not always material (because there are pages with more than a hundred current/active/watching-using editors watching them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A consensus reached on an article’s talk page with lots of participants should be given more weight than a consensus reached on a guideline’s talk page that only involved two or three participants. I'd be careful going just off the numbers here. For example, Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has more page watchers than Wikipedia:Citing sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), however, the people watching Donald Trump are likely more concerned with the article subject (either directly, or broadly as a businessman/politician/etc) than people watching the project page (which is more concerned with presenting a consistent experience for readers in both appearance, verifiability, and so on). And that's where we get into the details here: people concerned about the persistence of our sources in the form of citations aren't going to go to each individual article to wait for a discussion by editors there to try and circumvent a guideline created by the wider community. The onus, as explained by ArbCom, is for those people wanting to circumvent a wider PAG consensus is to go and hold that discussion with editors of the PAG. Mandruss only quoted the first sentence of WP:CONLEVELS, but the whole paragraph spells this out more clearly:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus.

Generally speaking, a WikiProject would be expected to have a wider view of the community than a single article talk page. Just because an article is popular with the people editing it, doesn't somehow make a decision reached there any more valid than one reached by fewer editors concerned with a broader topic applied globally at a PAG. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that every local consensus that circumvents a PAG should be brought to the wider community? Just asking for clarification. Thanks! Cessaune [talk] 19:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If it’s something that already has a wider community consensus, yes, of course. WP:NOTANARCHY. We’re not a democracy either but that isn’t an open invitation to ignore wider discussions/consensus and pretend they’re irrelevant (or in this explicit example, never even consider the guidance at WP:CITE). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright. So, would you be willing to state that, in your opinion, for a group of people to invoke WP:IAR, they must first secure the approval of the wider community? Cessaune [talk] 23:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:IAR works if doing so improves the encyclopedia. If the invocation of IAR does not receive at least an lmplicit consensus that has done so (i.e., if other users object), then we fall pack on P&G and seeking consensus. What we are discussing is the proper venue for discussing overturning or ignoring a P or G. Donald Albury 00:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

If a group of users acting in good-faith come to a consensus against a PAG for whatever reason, they have effectively invoked IAR, right? Many, dare I say every consensus is, at least according to the editors involved, a representation of the differing ideals and opinions of editors, consolidated into a single, reasonable opinion that represents 1) the aforementioned opinions of editors and 2) the best interests of the article; it satisfies the improving or maintaining clause IMO. I can't think of a consensus, in real life or in theory, that doesn't/wouldn't satisfy that clause. IAR is fundamentally relevant to this discussion.

IMO the question at play here is: does the invocation of IAR require the approval (consensus) of more than just an article talkpage worth of editors? Once that question is answered, picking venues is simply a matter of applying the IAR answer. Cessaune [talk] 02:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:IAR is irrelevant in this specific instance for at least two reasons: It was not invoked in the discussions held at Talk:Donald Trump. And because WP:CITE/WP:DEADREF were not even considered, you cannot WP:IAR a rule you never even considered during the discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that we have moved on to a much broader topic, as evidenced by the OP's question posted at the beginning of this thread. Unless I'm missing something. Cessaune [talk] 04:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, but context is important and WP:IAR should only be used sparingly. If we're using IAR all the time, then there's something wrong with the broader WP:PAGs we have. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, maybe there is. And IAR is a policy. It should be used carefully, not sparingly. Cessaune [talk] 20:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No this is a mistake. A group of editors invoking IAR is fine, but that doesn't mean it can't be questioned. If a larger consensus goes against them then they are no longer invoking IAR but just "I don't like it". IAR is for improving the encyclopedia, if the consensus of a larger group is that you are not improving the encyclopedia than IAR doesn't count. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course it can be questioned. That's how consensus works. But I'm asking whether such a local consensus doesn't count unless brought to the larger group. Cessaune [talk] 19:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say it counts until it is questioned and brought to a larger group. Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Cessaune [talk] 22:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus among small groups of editors is outweighed by consensus of a larger group of editors, which could in turn be outweighed by a consensus of an even larger group of editors.
In general discussions should happen in places relevent to the issue, but they don't have to. If a discussion happens at a slightly odd location, but is widely advertised and well attended it shouldn't be discounted jusy because of it's location.
If there is disagreement about what should happen, then as with everything else the solution is discussion.
To the specific question, local consensus shouldn't deviate from guidance / policy that has general community support. Does it have general community support, or was it silently add and no-one noticed? Is the policy / guidance correct, or does it need to be updated? Yep you guessed it the solution is discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and you've reminded me that the "small group of editors" concept was at one time connected to WP:Consensus can change. Specifically, if a couple of editors make a decision on a talk page, that's fine (we do that all day long!), but if/when the "larger community" shows up to re-discuss it, then we may (or may not!) find that the second/larger group's decision is different from the first/smaller group's decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Basically, should a content-dispute concerning the Donald Trump page, be handled at that article's talkpage, thus getting local consensus? or at the appropriate Village Pump page, thus getting a broader consensus. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t matter… choose one and advertise the discussion at the other with a link. The venue (ie page) where a discussion takes place isn’t what makes a consensus “local” vs “broad”. That is determined by how many editors are involved in the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

See my reply above about why numbers shouldn't be a factor, but if numbers are to be the deciding factor, yes, such discussions need to be advertised to those interested in the topic (in this case, citations having archive links banned). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

1. WP:USEENGLISH says If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.
2. WP:DONTUSEENGLISH says It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few sources in English to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian municipalities etc.).

The status quo would be that we should follow WP:USEENGLISH, per WP:POLCON which tells us: If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so all the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence.

However, this conflict has been noted at the RM at Talk:Political Party for Basic Income#Requested move 28 March 2024, and it would be useful to resolve it.

@Tristan Surtel, 162 etc., Necrothesp, ModernDayTrilobite, and Andrewa: Notify editors who have participated in that discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence you quoted appears in Wikipedia:Article titles § Foreign names and Anglicization and not the page to which you linked. The section also contains the second sentence you quoted, with a "See also" link to the second page you linked, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) § No established usage in English-language sources, so all of it is nominally policy. Looking at a slightly broader excerpt, the page states: If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). For lesser known geographical objects or structures with few reliable English sources, follow the translation convention, if any, used for well known objects or structures of the same type e.g. because Rheintal and Moseltal are translated Rhine Valley and Moselle Valley, it makes sense to translate lesser known valley names in the same way. For ideas on how to deal with situations where there are several competing foreign terms, see "Multiple local names" and "Use modern names" in the geographical naming guideline. Such discussions can benefit from outside opinions so as to avoid a struggle over which language to follow. . . . In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.

Thus the overall context is to use established usage in English-language sources, and if there is none, follow the translation convention appropriate for the subject and language. If there is no established convention, then the name can be translated if it can be done without loss of accuracy and provides greater understanding for English readers. isaacl (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Rereading the relevant quotes and policies, I find myself agreeing with isaacl's interpretation. I think the confusion stems from the phrasing of follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about - some editors (including me, earlier) have parsed this passage as saying "use the language in which this entity is most often talked about", but on closer review I believe isaacl is correct that the passage intends to convey "follow the precedents for translating the names of other entities that with this language." To put it another way, WP:DONTUSEENGLISH doesn't necessarily tell us not to use English: it tells us to follow the lead of other analogous subjects that do have established usage in Anglophone sources, which may or may not be in English depending on the specific case.

To clarify this seeming mismatch in the policy language, I think the text currently at WP:DONTUSEENGLISH should be expanded with more detail on what "follow[ing] the conventions" entails. Copying over the Rheintal/Moseltal example from WP:UE, and contrasting it against an example such as the Brazilian-towns case, would probably be the best way to make the situation clear; this would show that using the native name may or may not be preferable, depending on general practice within the class of articles. (This approach would also be in conformance with the existing policy at WP:CONSISTENT.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Editors are sometimes paid to improve articles for their employer, or to remove false information from their competitor's articles. This is fine as long as these are following policy. A frustrating case is when a paid editor submits edit requests to fix false information about their competitors, but has no inclination to fix this exact same information in the articles for their employer. When asked to do so, they replied that they likely wouldn't ask they weren't compensated to do that. I am not linking the user here because they didn't do anything wrong according to our current policies. In order for Wikipedia to be free from promotion, paid editors should not turn a blind eye to information they have admitted is false if it benefits their employer to do so.

I think this suggestion is definitely in line with Wikipedia's mission, but enforcement might be difficult. I'm not suggesting that paid editors need to make their employer's articles perfect before they can change anything else; instead, I'm suggesting that when paid editors are arguing for specific claims to be removed from some articles, they should do due diligence to make sure that articles for their employer don't have those exact same claims. Mokadoshi (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

PAID (or COI in general) effects both the company/subject that they are associated with, but also potential competitors. We can't exactly suggest that any editor make changes (or, edit requests in this case) about any article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like the unidentified editor is a paid editor. If so, they are required to make the necessary disclosure. Once they have done so, they aren't really deceiving other editors when they make (or don't make) edit requests. Other editors are free to evaluate the edit requests in that context, and to approve/deny the requests based on what the correct editing decision is, regardless of who made the request. And if their pattern of requesting causes other editors to scrutinize their own company's page, those other editors are free to edit the company page for NPOV, regardless of whether the paid editor does it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No policy or guideline can compel anyone to edit. If an uninvolved editor wrote a Wikipedia biography claiming that I'd won ten Olympic golds and a Nobel Prize, you couldn't make me fix it, though I hope that someone else would soon do so. Certes (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It's more like if you were paid to correct articles with false claims to Olympic medals, and you've submitted requests to do so (which asks the community of their time to review them), but you're not interested in fixing any false claims that benefit you to ignore. It sucks when people only care about neutrality on Wikipedia when it personally benefits them, but maybe you're right that it's not a behavior that policy can or should change. Mokadoshi (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

In my experience with dealing with paid editing when reviewing articles, in unblock requests or at AN/I and WP:COIN, the vast majority of actual paid editors who engage in unconstructive, biased editing on Wikipedia do so without disclosing that they are paid editors, and are sanctioned on the basis that they didn't disclose their paid status properly. COI editors who comply by the letter of the relevant policies and guidelines are a non-problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I should be grateful that they are going through the proper channels instead of performing undisclosed paid editing. If making the policy more onerous makes even just one paid editor decide to not go through the proper channels, that would be a step in the wrong direction. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You can only even ask a PAID editor to fix errors in their employer's articles if you've already identified said errors... in which case, it's easier for you to fix them than to require the other editor to make an editing request which then may be fulfilled only with struggle. That, and the general belief that fixing problems is good and adding unneeded hoops to jump over in order to do so is bad, lead me to reject your suggestion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The present norms we have toward paid editors (ultimately falling back on our content policies as most important but usually with nigh-explicit contempt, as they fundamentally aren't here for the same reasons we are, while keeping in mind they may not want to be here either) is exactly the level of active time we should spend on them. Any more time other editors who want to build an encyclopedia have to spend conversing with or monitoring paid editors is certainly time better spent elsewhere. Remsense诉 00:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No. If an editor is improving the encyclopaedia they should be encouraged to continue doing so, regardless of how, why or which part of the encyclopaedia they are improving. Intonationally preventing other editors improving the encyclopaedia is disruptive editing and persistently doing so could (and imo should) lead to blocks. If you have identified problems in a different article then either fix them, or explicitly note them (tags, talk page and/or wikiproject) with enough detail that other editors know what the problem is, where it is, and why it's a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't this disincentivise the paid editors in question from reporting the errors in their competitors' articles in the first place? – Teratix ₵ 06:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This thread illustrates only one of the many reasons we should ban paid editing.--Chetvorno^TALK 07:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Examples of paid editors improving the encyclopaedia illustrate why we should ban paid editing? There are lots of silly things written about paid editing, but that is one of the silliest. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• No We can't ever compel editors to write about something they don't want to. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• No. At first glance this seems like a good idea, but, as well as what has been said above about compelling editors to do something, I can see more than one WP:BEANS concern. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it just me or does this template tend to get abused quite a lot? Not sure what the best way to bring up the issue is Trade (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Trade, how is it being abused? Could you link to some examples where you think it's been used improperly? Schazjmd (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Abused as in used when it's very obvious what changes the IP wants made to an article and yet it's still being treated as if the request is somehow unintelligible.

I don't have examples at hand since i only edit here sporadically. Still i'm interested to hear if other editors consider it an issue Trade (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That would be specifically {{ESp|xy}} Cremastra (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Trade, your issue seems not to be with the template itself, but with the fact that responders to edit requests are not usually familiar with the article topics themselves, but should know how to read sources to determine whether a request is valid. This is the ideal, but is not always true in practice because this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including you. I can't really say any more without an example - Wikipedia works best when people talk about real cases rather than abstact principles. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see the discussion I started at WT:COI#Should we upgrade this to policy? RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I wish to seek to change the wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE. Currently this states "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." in the section Responsibility for providing citations. I propose amending this with the additional sentence "Sources may be contained in a linked article."

RATIONAL FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE

I believe that requiring sources on every page brings a number of problems: 1) it is onerous and inefficient and discourages linking relevant articles to pages, especially for new editors: 2) the relevant article may include more sources, mentions of the article might only include one, so anyone looking for useful information might not see it; 3) in a rapidly moving field sources may be updated in an article but that might be missed on linked pages. In any case it is easy for anyone to click on the link to see the article with all relevant sources. Hewer7 (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggestion. If the same information is sourced in a different article, it's much less onerous for the editor to copy the source to the new article than to expect readers to go to other articles to verify the information. And we can't rely on other articles being properly sourced because, too often, they're not. Schazjmd (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It has been long established that we cannot cite other Wikipedia pages to support content in a Wikipedia article. It may be fruitful to review sources cited in other articles, but Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden states, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. That means that an editor who is using a citation to a source found in another article must have verified that the source does indeed support the content being added. You cannot change just the one policy point you targeting, other points in other policies and guidelines would all have to be changed. Donald Albury 14:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not proposing that wikipedia be used as a source. My proposal is that sources may be contained in a linked article. Hewer7 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

When you rely on another linked article to have the cited sources to support content, you are indeed using that other article as a source for that content. Donald Albury 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

An example of why we don't use WP articles as sources (or rely on sources cited in other articles without verifying their suitability): An article I'm drafting (User:Donald Albury/Trail Ridge) refers to the geological Hawthorn Formation. I found that our article on the Hawthorn Formation was a stub, saying it is a stratigraphic unit in South Carolina. On the other hand, our article on the Hawthorn Group said it was a stratigraphic unit in north Florida. In fact, the Hawthorn Group, formerly called the Hawthorn Formation, is a stratigraphic unit stretching from southeastern South Carolina through coastal Georgia and down the Florida Peninsula. I had to find new sources and cite them to correct that mess. You can only decide that a Wikipedia article is correct if you check out the cited sources, and search for and check out other sources (in case the cited sources are incomplete), and if you do that, you should just go ahead and cite those sources in the article you are working on. Donald Albury 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a very simple reason why we require citations to be repeated in every article where information appears… articles can change. The “linked” article may currently contain a citation that supports the information at the article you are working on… but there is no guarantee that this will be the case in the future. The other article might, at some point in the future, be completely rewritten - and in the process the citation that supports what is in your article might be removed. You have to repeat the citation in your article to ensure that the information will always be supported, no matter what may happen at the other one. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition to that (not that that isn't enough, mind you), there's the fact that while most of us most of the time experience Wikipedia online, it's not the only way it can be used. A printed copy of an article that contains proper referencing has those references listed at the bottom of the article. If we switch to relying on the mere fact that there are references on some other page, those references may not accessible to the person using the printed version. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose this change in policy. Besides the other issues mentioned above, this would make it much more onerous and error-prone for a reader to verify content. Suppose there is a sentence containing links to 5 other Wikipedia articles, with no citation. If the reader wants to verify this statement, they would need to click on each of those 5 links, scrutinize the linked article to try to find a similar statement and see if there is a source there. If they can't find such a source after spending 10 minutes or whatever in this process, they still don't know if they have just overlooked the source or if the original statement was simply unsourced. Having the source for a statement at the point where the statement is made is essential.

The OP says that the current process is onerous for editors. That's fine; if there is a part of the process that is onerous, it should be onerous for editors, not for readers. CodeTalker (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not. This would invite all sorts of problems. The most obvious one is that it would become easier for a source's meaning to drift via a game-of-telephone; a slight mistake or paraphrase on one article that isn't a problem there could become something drastically divergent from the source on another article that relies on the first one's citation. And worse, it makes it harder to verify - what source in the linked page, exactly, and on what page, do I look at if I'm not sure it's summarized correctly on the second page? Finally, on top of all this, what if the relevant section is edited or removed and the source replaced or removed itself? Someone making that edit may not even know the page that relied on that source existed, so it would quietly become unsourced with nobody realizing that it had happened. We already have a problem with "source drift", especially in uncited lead sections, where text starts out reasonably summarizing the source and yet repeated edits for WP:TONE or perceived NPOV issues or the like, each one a reasonable rewording of the phrasing immediately prior to them, collectively cause the text to drift further and further away from what the source actually says. This would make the problem far worse. --Aquillion (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  +1 I strongly oppose this idea, but Aquillion said it far better than I could. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This would go against verification, Wikipedia is never a reliable source for verification and there is nothing to say that the details on the other page are reliable or will even stay in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sources should be on the page they relate to, so that verifiability can be met. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I understand where you are coming from, but the information architecture of wikipedia isn't formed to make this a robust option. The longer-term solution, which has been discussed from time to time, would be to create a centralized "citation library" where, for instance, a book referenced by many articles has a central citation which is called from each of the articles using that citation. The only way this would work in practice would be to have a bot-based transfer of citations to the library with in-page replacement. This is a wish and not a reality today. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Citing another article is just straight-up using Wikipedia as a source which isn't good. It's also confusing for readers to tell if the claims are cited since now they would have to read another article to verify it themself which may or may not be cited as well.

TheWikiToby (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Quick question here. Does being Servant of God and Saint count as notable, and if so, should we either add this to outcomes or notability? I can think of roughly three options here. 1. No effect on notability, in addition, consider any coverage of their canonization as WP:1E coverage. 2. No effect on notability, but consider coverage of their canonization as establishing notability. 3. Presumed notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Just clarifying, I assume that you mean it by the Catholic Church use of those terms. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing the Catholic Church (or any other religious institution - it would be deeply inequitable to distinguish between such institutions and treat them as more of an authority than others in this regard) does directly determines notability, which for this, like anything else, is assessed through the depth of coverage in reliable sources. Our decision, not theirs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Catholic Church designating someone a Servant of God or Saint (or other religious institutions doing their equivalent) is a claim of significance for A7 purposes, but it doesn't automatically confer notability. It is one point to consider when determining notability, but do note that the Catholic Church is a reliable but not independent source for Catholic saints. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous, the answer is "it depends". Specifically, it depends on how much coverage the individual(s) have received in reliable sources.

So here's something that sometimes surprises people: According to our rules, the Presidents of the United States are not inherently notable. Every single one of them is obviously notable, but none of them are inherently notable. That's because every single article about every single human has to be justifiable individually, based on coverage. If, over the course of several years, journalists and scholars write thousands of words, across dozens of news articles, about an individual, then that individual is actually notable. If nobody writes anything, then that individual is not notable, no matter how important they are. If we could somehow have a US president with no coverage, then that president would not qualify for a Wikipedia article.

Given that I occasionally see news headlines about the Catholic Church declaring someone to be a saint, I assume that basically all of the individuals canonized in recent years will – like US presidents – turn out to be notable. But it's the media coverage that matters for notability, not why the media coverage happened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

While I'm here: You have nominated many articles for deletion recently, and a larger than usual proportion have been kept. This suggests that your personal views about notability do not align closely with the wider community's views. You are obviously doing a WP:BEFORE search, but it's not helping you avoid incorrect AFD nominations.

I think that it would be helpful for you to reflect on what the Wikipedia:Editing policy says: "Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it contains, the better."

Every deletion makes Wikipedia have less knowledge. Sometimes deletion is necessary or desirable, but usually – as a rule of thumb – the long-standing policy says that more accepted knowledge is better than less. Consequently, if an article appears to be summarizing accepted knowledge, then deleting the article will probably make Wikipedia worse. You might have better results at AFD if you restrict yourself to nominating only articles that do not summarize accepted knowledge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's some good advice, thank you! Making my AfD noms more consistent has been a goal of mine, and one I have struggled to meet. Advice like this is always appreciated. I try to keep an open mind on AfD noms and try to be quick to admit mistakes when I make them so when I screw up, it at the very least doesn't waste too much time. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

From my experience, I agree with "It depends" above. There isn't a one-size-fits-all. People who have been sainted recently are very likely, practically guaranteed, to have coverage of them. Saints from non-Mediterranean regions in the first millennium tend to be more iffy in terms of coverage, but even this is not a good one-size-fits-all judgement because you have saints like Bede and Boniface. Curbon7 (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)