Jump to content

Talk:Principality of Ongal

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

Wikipedia - What Is This Nonsense?

[edit]

No, really, are you an ENCYCLOPEDIA, or a forum for dumb, nationalistic 11-year-olds to gibber their nonsense at?

This... THING here does, most certainly, indicates the latter.

I expect you to delete this bullshit immediately and to block the retarded kiddo, who created it on the first place. 77.126.147.200

Good luck with getting your expectations met! I think IP editing should be banned, but in this case that's not happening and there also do appear to have been mentions of this "micronation" in the media, which appears to confer notability. At least, that's the current standard for micronations. Not that there's not scope to cut this article right back. Bromley86 (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting it back

[edit]

Just a warning that, time permitting, I'll be reviewing this article soon with a view to cutting it back to what reliable sources say, along with some basic bio stuff. I.e. Don't expect things like the Disputes with other Micronations section (referenced to a forum post) to survive. Bromley86 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Bromley86 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

facepalm

[edit]

This is yet another Liberland, but with even fewer (trivial) news coverage? That one at least got a bit of traction, but in Croatia no one's ever heard about it - I tried to google "Ongal" on the websites of Jutarnji list and Večernji list and came up with absolutely nothing. Can anyone think of a reason to keep any of this in any part of Wikipedia? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see much point. Perhaps a redirect to a single page that covers all of them? Bromley86 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine devoting even a single sentence to this particular one in e.g. Croatia-Serbia border dispute because it's completely orthogonal to that dispute - nobody involved in the actual real-world dispute cares about this. It would be worse than a trivia section. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, it definitely shouldn't go there. I've cut the article right back, but I'm still not convinced that it needs it's own entry. Perhaps asection in the much-more visible Liberland article that effectively says pocket 1 has been claimed by Enclava, pockets 2 & 3 (and that small spot opposite Apatin) by Ongal? But, then again, that Liberland article is getting a bit big as it is, so perhaps not. Bromley86 (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen this, which looks to me to be a pretty good way of dealing with Enclava and Ongal. Bromley86 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's better than nothing - an article that explicitly states how there are claims and how they are void. Is there any objection to redirecting this article to Terra nullius#Land portions along the Danube river? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is, in my opinion, exactly what should be done. This article is far too long, even if even should exist in its own right. It needs either redirection or stubbing, and redirection is fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect works for me. I'd expand the section there to include the pocket location map common to all 3 articles, as that quickly and easily shows us where these "entities" are "located".[1] Bromley86 (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalisation

[edit]

Please Stop to vandalise the article and delete all official info of BTA (Bulgarian telegraph agency), BNT (Bulgarian national state television) and BTV (Bulgarian private national television) central news emissions, News and media portal Eurochicago, Gazette "Defence" etc. for Ecological Danubian Principality of Ongal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.137.5 (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation of vandalism in a legitimate content dispute is a common shouting tactic used to "win" a content dispute, but it almost never works. It is also a personal attack, and a relatively severe one, and disruptive editing with regard to the Balkans is subject to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you're suggesting it's vandalism, rather than considered editing, does your position no favours. The article we had before I reviewed it was a mess. Feel free to suggest edits if you feel there's some material that should be back in, but the fact there was coverage on Bulgarian National Television is not, in itself, important. It may, of course, be used to support points; however, in this case, I think you'll find that it's the same as a press release in terms of reliability (i.e. not that reliable). Bromley86 (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again IP, the article you keep reinstating is a mess and, rather than correcting it, you're just reinstating it rather than trying to fix it. Not, I should add, that I think there's any way of fixing it other than cutting it back as I did; even then, I'm not entirely convinced that it's notable. Certainly, it fails the tests mentioned over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronations/Micronation convention.
I'll ask for a third opinion to put this one to bed. You might also want to have a look at WP:3RR. Bromley86 (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't appropriate for a third opinion, because more than two editors have already become involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because generally reliable sources have mentioned or discussed a topic that doesn't mean that all of it needs to be used in any specific order or format in Wikipedia articles. The content and layout of articles is determined according to consensus, not through edit-warring. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Length

[edit]

This article is far too long, even compared to the other articles about the self-proclaimed microstates resulting from the Croatia–Serbia border dispute, and needs to be stubbed down to an appropriate length. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that reducing the article length would not suffice in fixing the problem because no length is appropriate when a topic lacks encyclopedic notability and even verifiability. The article describes an idea that is apparently disconnected with reality, but does not clarify that to the readers, which is misleading and highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure this behavior runs afoul of WP:HOAX. Either way, even if that problem was fixed, I still see no significant coverage sufficient for a standalone article here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a hoax. This topic is entirely without substance. Rothly (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations

[edit]

Everyone, if people who claim their back gardens as micronations are on Wikipedia, I can't see why these can't. They have a more legitimate claim than them but you still seem to think that they cannot have a article for some reason. Ongal have been covered by mainstream media! If you don't like it, lets delete the entire micronations category, shall we? Should this be flagged for deletion: Aerican Empire, Austenasia, Frestonia, Kingdom of Enclava? Nether the less, I would like a cleanup on this article. Also, I do feel that if these Danubian nations can be recognized on Wikipedia, why cant the smaller ones (South Maudlandia, Humanytaria, Valkadia) be mentioned on a merged wiki page such as 'small micronations on a portion of the Danube'? I would appreciate a reply, thanks! Humshom (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got to run, but thought I'd quickly point to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronations/Micronation convention. Note that it is proposed, but that it's been around for ages. It also suggests how to differentiate beween my back-garden micronation and one that is in fact notable:
Generally speaking, in order to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia article, a micronation should have been documented as the main subject of reportage in multiple non-trivial third party sources, in multiple countries, over a period of years. Reportage in major national broadsheet daily newspapers, and in non-fiction works released under the imprint of respected publishing houses might reasonably be considered to be non-trivial.
Seems sensible to me. Ongal would fail on this, as it's been mentioned in one Bulgarian newspaper article and in a press release on Bulgarian television, both recent, both Bulgarian. One is a press release and the other is effectively a press release, rather than fact-checked reports.
Once we get some traction on whether or not Ongal should have it's own article (not, IMO, as most of the edited version I produced[2] applies to Liberland/Enclava), then we can start reviewing micronations as a whole. Bromley86 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for clarifying this. However, if the guideline is not implemented but only proposed, wouldn't that mean that a article could not be deleted under its terms? Would you have to cut it to a stub? Why cant all micronations with media coverage have a stub (Weneda, Celestinia)? Again, thank you. Humshom (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Principality of Ongal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Ongal&oldid=1108168597"