Template talk:Infobox micronation

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)


 * It didn't work as expected with legacy browsers. This caused some troubles on Sealand with the similar Sealand table, where I was finally able to fix it by adding . Also added here: Omniplex&#160; 05:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Here's a showcase of different designs...
 * Fixed footnote.
 * Fixed data value.
 * Table heading.

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)

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.
 * See 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 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)

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)

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. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The template had a stray char in it, which I removed. This was causing a display problem when neither flagImage nor secondImage was supplied.
 * 2) 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.

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)

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)

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

Thank you 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)

PAGE]]) 14:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Finnusertop The result of the RfC at Village pump (policy)/Archive 191 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 ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * @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 in those special cases. For example:

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

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

PAGE]]) 15:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC) PAGE]]) 20:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC) PAGE]]) 20:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I'm not great with templates. Perhaps Ahecht can implement that?--Trystan (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. any idea? :3  ❧ LunaEatsTuna  (talk), editing without thinking since 2017 – posted at 02:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @LunaEatsTuna, Trystan: I added the engvar template so that you can add the 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 ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * @LunaEatsTuna see Template talk:Engvar. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Oh, that is perfect – thanks! ❧ LunaEatsTuna  (talk), correcting bad (sometimes good) edits since 2017 – posted at 20:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If anything the term would be redundant, but not an oxymoron ("recognized micronation" would be an oxymoron). --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * 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)