This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Sovereign State of Forvik page were merged into Forewick Holm on 20 July 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Sovereign State of Forvik was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 16 May 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Forewick Holm. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
I note from the source that Hill is "re-naming" the island Forvik. This is ambiguous and may well mean that he is exercising his right to give his property a new name, rather than that it is an original Norse name. More research needed on this. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 11:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed not to update census figures, so that all remain comparable. I suggest listing the population (2001) as 0, with a note of the presnt occupation. BTW I like the infobox with ranking note moved down. Finavon ( talk) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
== Does Hill get the north sea oil revenues all to himself? 81.156.140.91 ( talk) 22:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The result was No consensus -- Ben Mac Dui 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Crown Dependency of Forvik duplicates information in this article and claims micronation status for the island, and is unreferenced and uncategorised. If the micronation status can be sustained, then a reference should be provided and [[Category:Micronation|Forvik]] added. The flag strikes me as being a nonsense. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 21:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The 'proposed policy' page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronations/Micronation convention. The threshold for inclusion is fairly low and "as a consequence they are generally viewed by external observers and commentators as being eccentric and ephemeral in nature." Indeed. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 07:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Quoting again:
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.
Some exceptions to this guideline may apply - for example if a micronation exists for only a brief period, but receives national media coverage and notoriety during that time by being linked to allegedly contentious activities, or due to the judicial prosecution of its members - it might be argued that it warrants a dedicated article.
I don't see how that standard is met. We have a number of national and international news sources covering the story for the period of a week (I can find none more recent than 24 June, so literally nine days of coverage); [[WP:NOT#NEWS|Wikipedia is not a news source. We don't have anything "contentious"; given time it's possible that this will happen, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Stlemur ( talk) 14:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I say merge - the two are one and the same. There is little to say about Forewick Holm, other than Mr Hill's fantasies, interesting as they are. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Stlemur (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC) - Your own link to [ Google News] (and other news aggregators) disagree with you Stlemur. Coverage is subdued, but sustained from reputable publications internationally. All the coverage is about the Crown Dependency of Forvik, not the Island of Forewick Holm. This is a micronation that has captured the interest of journalists, and their reading/viewing public. In short order there will be far more content in the article specific to the Crown Dependency of Forvik than Forewick Holm, reinforcing further the clear need for two separate articles. Clearly, don't merge. Dalvikur ( talk) 13:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
And Gene Poole refuted your argument on the same day. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph you wrote is irrelevant, as CD of Forvik is an exception. CD of Forvik has existed for a brief period, but nonetheless became the subject of national or international media coverage or notoriety. Notice that WP:MICROCON states "reasons may include" - these are examples based on the history of micronations, circumstances will be different for each micronation. As long as it has "existed for a brief period, but nonetheless became the subject of national or international media coverage or notoriety", then it is an exception. However, you were wrong about the "reasons for its creation reflect broader contemporary political, social, economic or philosophical trends, in its locality, or in the wider world" point, because of this - "[the Forvik Declaration of Dependence] raises interest in the question of what Shetland's status should be, as is his intention. Many Shetlanders would be quite interested to see whether this has any impact on views in relation to greater autonomy for the isles. From time to time, it has been the council's policy that we could provide a better service if we had greater control of our own resources. From that point of view he is spot on", which you can find here.
So it is clear now that I have an argument in favor of the article's existence. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Stlemur, that is a straw man argument. By exception I did not say that Forvik is an exception to micronations, but an "exception" as described in WP:MICROCON. I don't "read WP:MICROCON differently" as you have said in the past - in fact, as Gene Poole explains, you selectively quote the convention. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 08:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
A section for voting on this matter, comments go above, please.
As the above is a minor controversy and positions seem somewhat entrenched I have listed the proposal at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 18:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Forewick Holm. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm checking to see if this is a RS over on WP:RSN. Assuming it is, it should be useful. Bromley86 ( talk) 10:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The article is supposed to be about the island, not Stuart Hill. Whilst I think it is fine to mention him, the article goes into far too much detail about him. 46.208.178.175 ( talk) 17:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Ben MacDui: Must we have a (dis)infobox in the article? With the exception of "highest elevation", it gives us no information that isn't already presented in the lead. It also takes up a ridiculous amount of space, resulting in all the images being shunted into the references section (on my screen at least). Zacwill ( talk) 22:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Sovereign State of Forvik page were merged into Forewick Holm on 20 July 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Sovereign State of Forvik was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 16 May 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Forewick Holm. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
I note from the source that Hill is "re-naming" the island Forvik. This is ambiguous and may well mean that he is exercising his right to give his property a new name, rather than that it is an original Norse name. More research needed on this. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 11:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed not to update census figures, so that all remain comparable. I suggest listing the population (2001) as 0, with a note of the presnt occupation. BTW I like the infobox with ranking note moved down. Finavon ( talk) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
== Does Hill get the north sea oil revenues all to himself? 81.156.140.91 ( talk) 22:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The result was No consensus -- Ben Mac Dui 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Crown Dependency of Forvik duplicates information in this article and claims micronation status for the island, and is unreferenced and uncategorised. If the micronation status can be sustained, then a reference should be provided and [[Category:Micronation|Forvik]] added. The flag strikes me as being a nonsense. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 21:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The 'proposed policy' page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronations/Micronation convention. The threshold for inclusion is fairly low and "as a consequence they are generally viewed by external observers and commentators as being eccentric and ephemeral in nature." Indeed. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 07:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Quoting again:
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.
Some exceptions to this guideline may apply - for example if a micronation exists for only a brief period, but receives national media coverage and notoriety during that time by being linked to allegedly contentious activities, or due to the judicial prosecution of its members - it might be argued that it warrants a dedicated article.
I don't see how that standard is met. We have a number of national and international news sources covering the story for the period of a week (I can find none more recent than 24 June, so literally nine days of coverage); [[WP:NOT#NEWS|Wikipedia is not a news source. We don't have anything "contentious"; given time it's possible that this will happen, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Stlemur ( talk) 14:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I say merge - the two are one and the same. There is little to say about Forewick Holm, other than Mr Hill's fantasies, interesting as they are. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Stlemur (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC) - Your own link to [ Google News] (and other news aggregators) disagree with you Stlemur. Coverage is subdued, but sustained from reputable publications internationally. All the coverage is about the Crown Dependency of Forvik, not the Island of Forewick Holm. This is a micronation that has captured the interest of journalists, and their reading/viewing public. In short order there will be far more content in the article specific to the Crown Dependency of Forvik than Forewick Holm, reinforcing further the clear need for two separate articles. Clearly, don't merge. Dalvikur ( talk) 13:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
And Gene Poole refuted your argument on the same day. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph you wrote is irrelevant, as CD of Forvik is an exception. CD of Forvik has existed for a brief period, but nonetheless became the subject of national or international media coverage or notoriety. Notice that WP:MICROCON states "reasons may include" - these are examples based on the history of micronations, circumstances will be different for each micronation. As long as it has "existed for a brief period, but nonetheless became the subject of national or international media coverage or notoriety", then it is an exception. However, you were wrong about the "reasons for its creation reflect broader contemporary political, social, economic or philosophical trends, in its locality, or in the wider world" point, because of this - "[the Forvik Declaration of Dependence] raises interest in the question of what Shetland's status should be, as is his intention. Many Shetlanders would be quite interested to see whether this has any impact on views in relation to greater autonomy for the isles. From time to time, it has been the council's policy that we could provide a better service if we had greater control of our own resources. From that point of view he is spot on", which you can find here.
So it is clear now that I have an argument in favor of the article's existence. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Stlemur, that is a straw man argument. By exception I did not say that Forvik is an exception to micronations, but an "exception" as described in WP:MICROCON. I don't "read WP:MICROCON differently" as you have said in the past - in fact, as Gene Poole explains, you selectively quote the convention. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 08:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
A section for voting on this matter, comments go above, please.
As the above is a minor controversy and positions seem somewhat entrenched I have listed the proposal at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 18:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Forewick Holm. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm checking to see if this is a RS over on WP:RSN. Assuming it is, it should be useful. Bromley86 ( talk) 10:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The article is supposed to be about the island, not Stuart Hill. Whilst I think it is fine to mention him, the article goes into far too much detail about him. 46.208.178.175 ( talk) 17:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Ben MacDui: Must we have a (dis)infobox in the article? With the exception of "highest elevation", it gives us no information that isn't already presented in the lead. It also takes up a ridiculous amount of space, resulting in all the images being shunted into the references section (on my screen at least). Zacwill ( talk) 22:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)