Talk:Talossa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Micronations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of micronations. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Claimed number of members
Population figures have been going back and forth here. I've provided sources for the latest figures. If someone wants to change it, please provide a better source than what's there now. PubliusFL 04:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An Imaginary Country Created By Schoolkids
Does this REALLY need an article? I mean, come on. Hundreds, if not thousands, of fake countries and languages are made up by kids every year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.51.175.62 (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
- Sure. But few of them are more than two decades old.--Agbdavis 04:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- And the majority of the population (of either Talossa) aren't kids, but adults. For a micronation, Talossa has been around for a long time and has an actual history (the previous link is not NPOV - it's pro-R. Ben Madison, who wrote it. It is, however, the longest and most detailed history of Talossa available), unlike most other micronations, where they exist for a short period of time and then disappear, with one person in charge (and usually only one in the micronation) the whole time. 75.162.224.132 04:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Silly it mat be - but it's a special type of silly that can last more than 25 years and become the inspiration to thousands of others via coverage in major broadsheet newspapers - and we should certainly document it. --Gene_poole 05:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- And the majority of the population (of either Talossa) aren't kids, but adults. For a micronation, Talossa has been around for a long time and has an actual history (the previous link is not NPOV - it's pro-R. Ben Madison, who wrote it. It is, however, the longest and most detailed history of Talossa available), unlike most other micronations, where they exist for a short period of time and then disappear, with one person in charge (and usually only one in the micronation) the whole time. 75.162.224.132 04:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Question- the infobox only contains information about the Kingdom of Talossa and none about the Republic of Talossa. Silly as this may be, impartiality is still an important principle. Would the wiki community find it acceptable to put symbols of both groups in the infobox?--Wyattt 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that would be OK to a point. The bottom line here is that the "republic" is only "notable" because of the "kingdom", so any mention of the former needs to be kept in proportion. We can't imply that they are somehow "equal". --Gene_poole 00:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The real problem is that all of the sources in the article mention only the "kingdom" and not the "republic." Therefore it's hard to say whether anything about the "republic" is verifiable. Certainly it would be tough to argue that adding any more details about the "republic" would be "relevant to (Talossa's) notability." The arguments for the existence of this article made above rely on Talossa being "more than 25 years old," providing "inspiration to thousands of others," and having "coverage in major broadsheet papers." All of these may be true about the entity called "Kingdom of Talossa," but it does not appear (to me at least) that any of them are true about the entity called "Republic of Talossa." PubliusFL 01:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disclosure: I am a Talossan. But I feel that the Republic has only been around for three years and has had very little outside interest, especially in comparison with the multiple major media articles about the Kingdom. It merits a section of its own in this article, not its own article in whole.--Agbdavis 08:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disclosure: I am a Talossan too, since almost nine years. The current division between a Republic and a Kingdom reflects one country being split in two halves. When the Republic was founded, most of the active citizens of the Kingdom left and the gutted Kingdom had to be built up again from scraps. Seeing them as anything else than two equal counterparts makes no sense. So let's write an unbiased article taking that into account. There is no need for a conflict here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.136.49.54 (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
- Agreed.--Agbdavis 03:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed by me as well.--Wyattt 00:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed and done. Elistir 11:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, not done! You tried to add a second whole new infobox, deliberately refashioning the article to put the Republic on the same par as the Kingdom... an interesting political move, but just silly when you actually look at the edited article. What was agreed to was an article that was "unbiased" taking into account the role of both in recent history... a section devoted to the Republic. But if the Republic doesn't merit its own article (something I am neutral about) then you can't just jam in the infobox here.--Agbdavis 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the article is to be unbiased, then it does need to put the Republic on the same par as the Kingdom.(a member of the Republic, not Elistir)
- That's not necessarily true. It is not umbiased to artificially create a total parity between the two, when the facts (the longevity of the Kingdom, broadsheet coverage, etc.) indicate that the Kingdom is of much greater significance. In that context, the Republic seems deserving of its own section within the article. I'm not sure what else you want to do... I am sure you will agree it is insane to try to cram in two full-size infoboxes into the article. And since the Kingdom article has already been deleted and squeaked by on another deletion review, there seems little reason to think a new page devoted to the Republic would pass muster. A Republic section of the article seems the only reasonable alternative.--Agbdavis 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Has any Talossa-related article really survived a deletion review? Kingdom of Talossa was speedy-deleted a few times, and now is just a redirect to this article. Republic of Talossa was deleted after a VfD, and is also now a redirect to this article. PubliusFL 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct; bad phrasing on my part. I refer only to the assertion which started this section of the talk page; I was being all dramatic and such. You have discovered my fatal flaw.--Agbdavis 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Has any Talossa-related article really survived a deletion review? Kingdom of Talossa was speedy-deleted a few times, and now is just a redirect to this article. Republic of Talossa was deleted after a VfD, and is also now a redirect to this article. PubliusFL 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not necessarily true. It is not umbiased to artificially create a total parity between the two, when the facts (the longevity of the Kingdom, broadsheet coverage, etc.) indicate that the Kingdom is of much greater significance. In that context, the Republic seems deserving of its own section within the article. I'm not sure what else you want to do... I am sure you will agree it is insane to try to cram in two full-size infoboxes into the article. And since the Kingdom article has already been deleted and squeaked by on another deletion review, there seems little reason to think a new page devoted to the Republic would pass muster. A Republic section of the article seems the only reasonable alternative.--Agbdavis 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the article is to be unbiased, then it does need to put the Republic on the same par as the Kingdom.(a member of the Republic, not Elistir)
- No, not done! You tried to add a second whole new infobox, deliberately refashioning the article to put the Republic on the same par as the Kingdom... an interesting political move, but just silly when you actually look at the edited article. What was agreed to was an article that was "unbiased" taking into account the role of both in recent history... a section devoted to the Republic. But if the Republic doesn't merit its own article (something I am neutral about) then you can't just jam in the infobox here.--Agbdavis 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed and done. Elistir 11:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed by me as well.--Wyattt 00:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed.--Agbdavis 03:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disclosure: I am a Talossan too, since almost nine years. The current division between a Republic and a Kingdom reflects one country being split in two halves. When the Republic was founded, most of the active citizens of the Kingdom left and the gutted Kingdom had to be built up again from scraps. Seeing them as anything else than two equal counterparts makes no sense. So let's write an unbiased article taking that into account. There is no need for a conflict here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.136.49.54 (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
- Disclosure: I am a Talossan. But I feel that the Republic has only been around for three years and has had very little outside interest, especially in comparison with the multiple major media articles about the Kingdom. It merits a section of its own in this article, not its own article in whole.--Agbdavis 08:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The real problem is that all of the sources in the article mention only the "kingdom" and not the "republic." Therefore it's hard to say whether anything about the "republic" is verifiable. Certainly it would be tough to argue that adding any more details about the "republic" would be "relevant to (Talossa's) notability." The arguments for the existence of this article made above rely on Talossa being "more than 25 years old," providing "inspiration to thousands of others," and having "coverage in major broadsheet papers." All of these may be true about the entity called "Kingdom of Talossa," but it does not appear (to me at least) that any of them are true about the entity called "Republic of Talossa." PubliusFL 01:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that would be OK to a point. The bottom line here is that the "republic" is only "notable" because of the "kingdom", so any mention of the former needs to be kept in proportion. We can't imply that they are somehow "equal". --Gene_poole 00:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Question- the infobox only contains information about the Kingdom of Talossa and none about the Republic of Talossa. Silly as this may be, impartiality is still an important principle. Would the wiki community find it acceptable to put symbols of both groups in the infobox?--Wyattt 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
I agree. We're not here to determine which group is "more authentic" - that can solely be determined by reference to third party sources - and thus far there are dozens of those for the kingdom and none for the republic. Sticking 2 infoboxes into the article is not appropriate. --Gene_poole 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Gene Poole, what are the "dozens of sources" that determine for the Kingdom's "more authenticity" that you are talking about here? Obviously we need to attribute them. (a member of the Republic, not Elistir)
- Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia content policies before contributing to this discussion. WP:V is a good place to start. There are multiple reliable third party sources from which content concerning the kingdom can be drawn, including 4 already listed in the article. There are no such sources for the republic. The primary reason that I or anyone else have heard of Talossa is because of press articles about Ben Madison and his kingdom. The republic, thus far, has achieved nothing of interest to anyone outside its own membership, and as a consequence has been documented nowhere, to my knowledge, outside its own website. --Gene_poole 20:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The concept of verifiability of information, whether inside or outside of Wikipedia, is hardly new to me; I am a librarian and am trained to evaluate the reliability of reference sources. I take Wikipedia's point that "a thing must be noted in the word before it ought to be noted in Wikipedia", so I suppose we in the Republic need more publicity. Nevertheless, you do not seem to be following "any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article". I grant that you have provided four, two of which are weighty, one of which is brief, and one of which cannot be checked unless you are a subscriber. But four is neither "multiple", let alone "dozens". If you have numerous others, then according to the verifiability rule that you pointed me to, since I am asking, you are under the onus of providing them. And if there are only four, and that may be all that is necessary for Wikipedia's purposes, then please state honestly and plainly that there are four reliable sources and do not exaggerate by speaking of dozens. (the above member of the Republic) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.63.100 (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
- Anything greater than one is a "multiple". I find it rather odd that a librarian does not know this. The four references supplied are certainly more than sufficient to verify the existence of the kingdom according to WP:V. There are numerous other references publicly available as well, and you can easily find some of them, if you so desire, by doing a Google search. --Gene_poole 03:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The concept of verifiability of information, whether inside or outside of Wikipedia, is hardly new to me; I am a librarian and am trained to evaluate the reliability of reference sources. I take Wikipedia's point that "a thing must be noted in the word before it ought to be noted in Wikipedia", so I suppose we in the Republic need more publicity. Nevertheless, you do not seem to be following "any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article". I grant that you have provided four, two of which are weighty, one of which is brief, and one of which cannot be checked unless you are a subscriber. But four is neither "multiple", let alone "dozens". If you have numerous others, then according to the verifiability rule that you pointed me to, since I am asking, you are under the onus of providing them. And if there are only four, and that may be all that is necessary for Wikipedia's purposes, then please state honestly and plainly that there are four reliable sources and do not exaggerate by speaking of dozens. (the above member of the Republic) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.63.100 (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
- Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia content policies before contributing to this discussion. WP:V is a good place to start. There are multiple reliable third party sources from which content concerning the kingdom can be drawn, including 4 already listed in the article. There are no such sources for the republic. The primary reason that I or anyone else have heard of Talossa is because of press articles about Ben Madison and his kingdom. The republic, thus far, has achieved nothing of interest to anyone outside its own membership, and as a consequence has been documented nowhere, to my knowledge, outside its own website. --Gene_poole 20:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added a new link to the bottom of this article. It is to the Octagon & Crown, which is an online newspaper that covers both the Kingdom and the Republic. It is also the only internal media outlet within the Talossan community that is regularly updated. This newspaper has been well received within both Talossan communities, and I think it would be of interest to anyone who wanted more information about Talossan current events. The newspaper strives to be impartial and thorough (not easy with volunteer, amateur reporters), like Wikipedia itself, so it seemed to be an appropriate addition to this article. Again, I'm not looking to offend anyone, so let me know if this a totally off-base sort of thing to do.--Wyattt 04:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I have one thing to say about this, even if it is an imaginary country created by schoolkids, what damage does it do to Wikipedia, I mean, the guy has a professional looking website, and quite frankly, I think it's funny. The guy's been interviewed and stuff, and besides, the only people who are going to wikipedia "Talossa" are people who know about it. The guy made a freaking language, and didn't violate any rules, so let the kids have their fun. Will
[edit] Merger of Talossan language
A notability template has been on Talossan language for a while, and nobody has been able to come up with anything to improve the sourcing of that article. Since the language appears to be an aspect of the notability of Talossa itself, why not merge the language article into this one (with a redirect)? If any reliable sources dealing more specifically with the language come to light in the future, the history of the language article will be preserved for resurrection at that time. PubliusFL 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I endorse this. Quite simply there are no articles about the Talossan language in reliable sources. The small mention in the Wired article does not confer notability on this subject as distinct from the subject of Talossa. - Aagtbdfoua 02:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am afraid I must endorse it as well, against my feelings on the matter. I must admit that the language itself is not alone notable yet, alas. We will change that soon, though, if I have my way.--Agbdavis 05:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am against this, as the language itself is quite notable, as is the nation. --217.42.248.242 19:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The question, IP friend, is whether the language has notability in and of itself or whether it derives notability from its origin in the Talossa project. It appears to me to be the latter, so I support a merge. --Fsotrain09 16:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
