Template talk:Infobox micronation

Principality of Sealand
Principality of Sealand
Unrecognized micronation
	Flag Coat of arms
Area claimed	Offshore platform off the coast of England
Type	[type determined by page consensus]
Claimed by	Paddy Roy Bates, Michael Bates
Dates claimed	1967 to present

Use this template?

I've made use of this template in Lovely (micronation) to demo it out. The template has been copied about to many micronation articles, so this is an attempt to unify them to one place. Comments? --Billpg 22:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't work as expected with legacy browsers. This caused some troubles on Sealand with the similar Template:Sealand table(edit talk links history), where I was finally able to fix it by adding width="300" align="right". Also added here: Omniplex 05:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation statement

In common with the real-country template, I've added a space for footnotes. For Lovely, I've moved the statement that it doesn't claim land into the footnotes. The note that this entity is a micronation may as well go there. I think the fullName looks a lot better in big letters, in common with all the other micronation and real-nation infoboxes. --Billpg 00:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a showcase of different designs...

Fixed footnote. [1]
Fixed data value. [2]
Table heading. [3]

I'm thinking that the "Fixed data value" is best, but make that value unfixed. Possible values could include "Current micronation" or "Historic micronation" (eg Republic of Rose Island which no longer exists). What does everyone think? --Billpg 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

which infobox guideline exactly? main article mention is not enough, a box must not mislead the reader if he doesn't read the article. -- User:Kolokol 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC) copied from edit summary.[reply]

See Wikipedia:Infobox templates under "Design and usage".

"3. The top line should be reasonably bold, and contain the full (official) name of the item. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. It should not contain a link. Avoid {{{PAGENAME}}} as pages may be moved for disambiguation."

I'm quite happy to mention "Micronation" in the infobox, but only if the information is in its place. Sticking it right up top like that's the only thing that matters is not that place. --Billpg 22:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation

The fields in the documentation list don't match the actual fields. For example, the documentation has "Headofstate" and "HeadofGovenment", while the template itself has "Leadership". Will Beback talk 06:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

I added this template to the Republic of Wallace article. That article may or may not last more than a few days, but I thought I would mention a couple of problems I had with the template.

The template had a stray char in it, which I removed. This was causing a display problem when neither flagImage nor secondImage was supplied.
The doc for the location' parameter says, "Location. Use {{coor dms}} if applicable". {{coor}} says, "To add coordinates to articles, use {{coord}}." The template as it stands is apparently not compatible with {{coord}}.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation and disband

We should have date of disbandment of nations, as most of them are non existent now, and we don't have option to add that in infobox. Can someone do that? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs update

As best I can tell, the deprecated template "location" is to blame for the problems with Location. It should be replaced with its successor, "coord", as well as replacing "Image:" with "File:".--Auric (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

Discussion moved here from Template talk:Infobox micronation/sandbox --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ahecht for the draft version. I think flag and coat of arms parameters are needed. They are quite essential to the topic, as a rule pose no WP:NFC problems, and I don't think having them legitimizes the topics of these articles beyond what's due. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop The result of the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191#RfC: micronation infoboxes was that Consensus is against generally including the flag, coat of arms, and other purported symbols of the micronation. Having a dedicated parameter invites general usage. For those cases where there is consensus to add them to a specific article and there are enough reliable sources backing it up, they can be put into the generic "image" parameters. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop I modified the template slightly so that |image= and |image2= are separate from |image_map= and |image_map2= copied over from {{infobox country}}, so you can do something like

|image={{infobox country/imagetable |image1a = [[File:Flag of foo1|125px]]| image1b = [[File:Flag of foo2|125px]]| caption1 = Flag| image2 = [[File:Seal of foo|85px]] | caption2 = Coat of arms}}

in those special cases. For example:

However, I don't think making it any less manual is in the spirit of the RfC. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unrecognized micronation"

IMO the unrecognized part should definitely be removed because it is an oxymoron, only uses the American and Oxford spelling variant (but perhaps there is a template that can fix this?), and might actually have the adverse effect of making readers think that micronations are equal to states with limited recognition. Re: it is an oxymoron (and thus not grammatically-correct) because there is no such thing as a "recognised micronation". Also, an unrecognised state is a real concept in international law studies that refers to states like Taiwan, Kosovo, Somaliland etc.: thus, using the word 'unrecognised' could actually have the opposite effect of making readers think that micronations are of equal status to the aforementioned states, when, in reality, micronations are obviously not held in the same regard within academia or the political sciences. If the RfC was for the infobox to include an indicator to readers what a "micronation" is (as it seems having read it), then this is not a good way to do it. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), writing bad articles since 2017 – posted at 10:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? "Micronation (unrecognized entity)"?--Trystan (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trystan: I think that actually clears all of my concerns if you wanna add it! I reckon "unrecognised entity" distinguishes it enough from "unrecognised state" as I discussed above, but do you know if there is a way to make it toggle between using unrecognised/unrecognized on articles that have a certain use X English template for spelling consistency per individual article? ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), spreading misinformation since 1906 – posted at 16:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not great with templates. Perhaps Ahecht can implement that?--Trystan (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. @Ahecht: any idea? :3 ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), editing without thinking since 2017 – posted at 02:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEatsTuna, Trystan: I added the {{engvar}} template so that you can add the |engvar=en-GB parameter to the template call to switch the spelling. The template doesn't currently look for {{Use British English}} or {{Use American English}} on the page, so you'd have to switch it manually, but if I have time I may either look for or code up a lua module that does exactly that. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEatsTuna see Template talk:Engvar#Automatically detect engvar based on "Use XXX English" templates. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is perfect – thanks! ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), correcting bad (sometimes good) edits since 2017 – posted at 20:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anything the term would be redundant, but not an oxymoron ("recognized micronation" would be an oxymoron). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see – it appears I have been the oxymoron the whole time. But yeah, it is best to rephrase IMO to avoid any redundancy and the current awkward wording. I have never seen this wording used outside of Wikipedia, and instances of "X is an unrecognised micronation ..." in the leads of WP articles have been regularly removed for the unnecessary redundancy. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), making splash text since 2024 – posted at 20:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pleassse what is a "recognised micronation"? Australia?? I beg you pls, let's remove the unnecessary first part. 😭😭 'unrecognised state' refers to polities like Abkhazia, Somaliland or Western Sahara. Micronations are classified (per academic and micropatriological consensus) as separate entities to the aforementioned states. While micronations are not recognised, they are hardly unrecognised states.. this inadvertently gives them undue "legitimacy". If readers confuse micronations for microstates it should not be up to us to clear up this ambiguity in an infobox when the article can easily do this, i.e. Slowjamastan. (I am not removing this myself because I do not believe in going against consensus). ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 20:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I wouldn't object to "Micronation (unrecognized entity)", but there was explicit consensus in the outcome of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191#RfC: micronation infoboxes to include the word “unrecognized”. It is too easily conflated with microstate otherwise.--Trystan (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trystan: Err, I suppose my issue is that the RfC was clearly erroneous and so being forced to follow it seems illogical given Wikipedia's policies for striving for accuracy. Having previously read through it, the grammar they want is "unrecognized, micronation" because there is no such thing as an "unrecognized micronation" nor a "recognized micronation". But this second option is wrong too – I know this is pedantic, but… micronations are indeed political entities that are not recognized, but they are to be distinguished from unrecognized entities—for which we have an article that explicitly excludes micronations: "§ Excluded entities [...] Entities considered to be micronations, even if they are recognised by another micronation". Our lead for micronation, a GA, also says they are "classified separately from de facto states [that is, unrecognized states] and quasi-states" and there is a hatnote outright saying "not to be confused with unrecognised state". This is why, although the "Micronation (unrecognized entity)" suggestion fixes the bizarre grammar issue, it would still be erroneous in this classification/designation regard, incorrectly suggesting that micronations are unrecognised entities which, as per academic consensus, they are not. Tl;dr both are verifiably incorrect and a third alternative must be suggested.

Also, sorry if I seem overtly passionate – I would correct this sentence as I normally correct any other spelling or typographical error on Wikipedia, but this unusual sentence has a whole RfC backing it (for some reason) so I am unable to do so myself and it is quite annoying. Are we to follow an RfC consensus even if it is incorrect? I follow their other stipulations I disagree with, like a blanket ban on micronational symbols (odd) and have made no attempts to revert or disobey it, but this smol sentence is instead a matter of grammar and academic consensus (to which Wikipedia is bound) rather than opinion (from an RfC, other Wikipedians or otherwise). ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 18:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is to clarify in the infobox that micronations are unrecognized. I don't see how that consensus can be characterized as "incorrect". If you want to suggest different ways of achieving that goal that address your concerns, that is fine, but I think the onus is on you to come up with something that respects the spirit of the consensus.--Trystan (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But.. why? Hyperlinks exist for a reason, and a person can easily click the link and see what it is about. Defining the word within the infobox itself is quite bizarre and foreign to me. Are there any other infoboxes like that? Also, what I meant by "incorrect" was the current word usage, "unrecognized micronation", not the RfC itself per se. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 20:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:NOFORCELINK. An article should be clear to a reader without forcing them to follow a link. A reader that mistakes a micronation for a microstate won't know to click the link to correct their error, and will be left with a fundamental misapprehension as to the nature of the subject, contrary to the purpose of the infobox, which is to succinctly convey the key facts at a glance. I believe the consensus can be characterized as preferring a bit of redundancy over the likelihood of a significant potential for leading readers astray.--Trystan (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining it to me! The policy you linked is helpful. May I change it to "Micronation (unrecognized entity)" then, to correct my original grammar issue while maintaining consensus and complying with NOFORCELINK? ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 21:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine with me.--Trystan (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]