Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Limited recognition/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

WikiProject Unrecognized countries

This is a list of random thoughts on what we need for our standard template:

  • History - who ruled it, when and why? Has it ever been independent or self governing as part of a larger unit?
  • Why independence - history, key people, causes
  • Nature of the defacto government
  • Ethnic profile/languages - is this self determination?
  • A map of the area
  • Who recognises it
  • Population demographics

Secretlondon 12:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

one of these things is not like the others - Western Sahara. This is not de facto independent - its basically in the same situation East Timor was where it is internationally recognised but occupied. Morwen - Talk 12:54, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And the postage stamps of course! :-) But seriously, the handling of the daily mail to/from a place usually says a lot about its real status wrt people who are just trying to send a letter, plus philatelists often do the heavy digging to determine whether their objects are real or faked. Is this only for current unrecognized, or historical ones, like Stellaland (was very tough to get details on that one) or Biafra? Is the threshold for "recognition" clearcut? Stan 12:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That'd be an excellent start, Secretlondon - thanks!

As well as that-

  • most of these need information on their economies - if it exists at all, there's barely anything.
  • information on the original seperation - such as a war with the recognised country. Even Abkhazia doesn't have wonderful information on how it seperated from Georgia.
  • most of these could do with some details of future prospects, goals, etcetera, which practically none of them have. (i.e. Abkhazia and Somaliland won't settle for anything but independence, South Ossetia has proposed the idea of joining with Russia, Transnistria has proposed a two-state federation, etc).

Morwen - I'm aware that Western Sahara isn't quite the same as the others, but I threw it in because it still doesn't have a seat in the United Nations, part of it has sovereignty, (as the Sahrawi Republic), and the article (and related articles) needed work.

Stan - I'd like to do historical ones as well, but I don't have a decent list of them. I'm also keen, for that matter, to avoid diving into hotly-debated areas like Chechnya. Apart from Biafra and Stellaland, got any others to add to the list? I hadn't even heard of the latter. Ambivalenthysteria 13:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of entities that have issued postage stamps has a bunch although they're mixed in with colonies and foreign post offices. It occurs to me that if one goes back too far, things get really messy and poorly defined - should every tribe that rebelled against the Roman Empire for a year called an "unrecognized country"? Obvious cutoff points are the establishment of the League of Nations or of the UN, since they instituted a formal concept of who's "in" and who's not. A less defensible criterion ties to the development of nation-states, would start at 1500 or so. A couple of test cases would be California Republic and Republic of Texas - were they unrecognized countries or what? My inclination would be to use the League of Nations as cutoff, at least to start with. Stan 13:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think the League of Nations would be a wise cutoff point, too. Ambivalenthysteria 13:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've done some thinking about drawing up a template for this. I think we may as well use the entire Countries template, with a few minor changes. Foreign relations would be one area that would be quite different.- in this, we could discuss not only recognition (I think only Armenia recognises Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkey Northern Cyprus and no one any of the others), but their more complex relations with other states (such as Abkhazia and Russia). Most of the other points could fit into Politics and/or Government articles, IMO. And we could put postage stamps on the end as well.

*Ethnic profile/languages - is this self determination?

I don't quite understand what you mean by that, Secretlondon.

Is there anywhere else where we need to depart from the Countries template as it currently stands? Ambivalenthysteria 12:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can understand the addition of Taiwan (though there's such depth there that I don't know whether it's necessary), but I don't particularly like the idea of adding micronations here. That's a different kettle of fish entirely. Ambivalenthysteria 03:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I have removed the micro nations again.Pascal 11:24, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anjouan

I think Anjouan should be excluded from the list, since it is part of the new constitution of Comoros and has taken part in the April 2004 Comoros elections. I have done some research on the Internet, and have not found any claims that Anjouan is claiming independence right now. Pascal 11:24, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That seems to be the case. It's painful...I can't seem to find any information to confirm either scenario. I guess if they participated in the elections, then it's reasonable to assume the AU managed to work out a solution. My school has a subscription to some good for-pay databases of stuff, so I'll have a look around there and see what I can turn up. I've moved them to the historical section for now.
I've also added a bunch more historical ones, as well as Jubbaland in Somalia. Ambivalenthysteria 12:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sealand

Sealand might be suitable for the list. Its article is fairly well built out, relatively speaking, but it's the first place that comes to mind when I think of "Unrecognized countries". Maybe I'm just a geek. --Rtucker 23:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Micronations are a whole different kettle of fish. Ambi 23:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What delineates between micronationand unrecognised countries? (In this case, I guess I'm asking: Why is Sealand a micronation and not an unrecognised country?)
I'm also wondering if this includes any of the Sovereign States in the US, such as California Republic, which was a recognised country, but -- though the original constitution was never repealed, there has been a new constiution written, and the state has 'been renamed' -- however the original State still exists, and there are distinct differences in the State of California and California Republic, though they both occupy substantially the same geographic area. California Republic is largely unrecognised, even unnoticed, even by people who live within its borders. --Pedant — Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 4 November 2004 (UTC)

Inclusion

What is the criteria for inclusion on this list? --Jiang 00:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In short - Unrecognized, has sovereignty, isn't a micronation. Ambi 00:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"unrecognized" as in absolutely no diplomatic recognition? or just diplomatically isolated? what constitutes "unrecognized"? --Jiang 00:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've applied it to all those that are not recognized by the majority of the world today (and thus including Western Sahara and Taiwan). The same issue still applies in those cases. Ambi 00:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about the historical section? Many state were at one time unreocgnized and gained recognition later on... --Jiang 00:30, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the unrecognized state can be differentiated from the later one, then add it (like the Irish Free State mentioned). I just want to make one thing clear, though - when I first created this, I had in mind to just do the current ones. However, after someone raised it here, I started going back through the last century or so, and realised that it'd be an interesting project to look at the historical ones too. I know that for many of these, it is a vague classification. Ambi 00:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
East Timor, perhaps? Grutness|hello? 01:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about Confederate States of America? RickK 00:14, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't gone back any further than about 1890 (and I think Secretlondon agreed with me above on this), because the nation-state, in its modern form, is a fairly recent thing, and before the inception of the League of Nations, there wasn't necessarily a recognized/unrecognized issue.
I've gone back the extra thirty years or so because there's a handful that still seem to largely fit - they were functioning, but internationally ignored. IMO, the Confederate States of America is a case for Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states. Ambi 00:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A few more for consideration: Nagaland, Chechnya, Kashmir, Tibet, Tamil territory in Sri Lanka, Kurdistan, Bougainville. ISTR there's one in Cameroon, near the Nigerian border as well, but I can't recall its name (NOT Biafra!). And what about areas which are currently within another nation but with strong nationalist tendencies or are semi-autonomous (I'm thinking of the likes of French Polynesia, Nunavut, Basque Country, Padania and even Cornwall, Brittany and Corsica)? Grutness|hello? 01:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Options: The one near Nigeria might be Katanga or Cabinda - an exclave of Angola. I think that this should be limited to current nationalist movements. Some of the ones mentioned in the previous post have been resolved (such as Bougainville). Justin (koavf) 16:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Tibet

Tibet is considered an autonomous region of China; it has a certain level of independence already, and had been independent in the past. It also has a government in exile, its current leaders being Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama) and Khensur Lungri Namgyel (the Ganden Tripa). --Eequor 02:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The current Tibet has no de facto sovereignty and does not qualify. The historical Tibet under Chinese suzerainity can be considered de facto sovereign, but work on that needs to be done at History of Tibet. --Jiang 23:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What Jiang said. Ambi 23:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The line for Tibet here says "Tibet (Republic of China)", not People's Republic of China. Therefore it should be under the "Historical" list as "Tibet (Republic of China) (1911-1949)" or "Tibet (China) (1911-1951)" LuiKhuntek 23:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would Tibet be here? They're not a country now, and they were a recognised country before the invasion. Ambi 04:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Read here: History_of_Tibet#British_influence. Tibet wasn't recognized but exercised de facto sovereignty over much of the country from roughly 1911 to 1951. (Prior to 1911, the modern nation-state system didn't particularly apply in the region.) That's much like the other "unrecognized countries" on the list.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sealand

Sealand is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Southern Kurdistan (aka Iraqi kurdistan)

the current existing entity pledges loyalty to the local government. They claim to be a federal part of Iraq so I do not see why we should be claiming they are not. --Cat out 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Still active?

I only just discovered this project. Is it still running?

Many of the the questions at the top of this talk page regarding entry content have been addressed in WP Former countries. The main purpose of WPFC is to improve the content and accessibility of articles on now non-existant states. One major way to assist with the content was the development of a special infobox for historical states. With the infobox as a steady base, the rest of the article could be built upon it, if it were necessary to start from scratch.

While the infobox was primarily designed for "normal" former states, it has evolved into a template that can be used for historical unrecognized states (eg. Irish Republic), countries that existed only in exile (eg. Free French Forces) or nations where the government is still in exile today (eg. Belarusian National Republic). The only thing that the infobox does not currently support is countries that are unrecognized today (such as Palestine or Taiwan).

We have set up a special taskforce within WPFC, the Extraordinary Governments task force, whose focus is former unrecognized countries, governments-in-exile, and other special cases.

If this project is still running, perhaps we can work together on a number of issues. If not, I invite all involved to join us in WPFC. - 52 Pickup 09:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's start this project!

What do we need to do to get this project moving? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Criterion for Inclusion

I think if we're going to restart this, we need some coherent criterion for inclusion. I would argue that to qualify an "unrecognized country" must have similar criterion to the article States With Limited Recognition. Since nobody is trying to include micronations, uncontacted peoples, etc, I'll summarize the other points as follows.

  1. Have de facto control over at least part of its territory.
  2. Claim de jure independence.
  3. Not be a UN Member state.
  4. Not be a competing government in an active civil war, i.e. changing frontline (Libya, Ivory Coast until a few days ago).

I would also argue that for inclusion as a former state, a state must have met these criterion in the past. By this standard, the Communitarian Nation of Moskitia probably does not qualify, though the Mosquito Coast might.

By this standard, Iraqi Kurdistan and Puntland probably do not belong any more than Republika Srpska, though I have left the former two in because there might be some arguments for different standards that include them, those being: 1. Puntland is an unrecognized subnational entity, and Iraqi Kurdistan has different borders than its official limitation. Wa State might also qualify, and possibly some others.

Regards, --Quintucket (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority issue

Users are welcome to express their opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As WikiProject geopolitical entities not recognised as states

I think that the title of the project was mis-titled in reference to "Unrecognized countries" as we can't speak in Wikipedia's voice of entities as being countries if they are unrecognised as being such elsewhere. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye Your renamed this project 2 minutes after this post. That is not discussion. This post is aimed to disquise your action based on position which failed to gain consensus. That is why you should wait for opinion of other editors before renaming this project. Your position that recognition is necessary for statehood is opposed my multiple editors. I contest this move. Please restore the previous name and rename it only after you gain consensus for your position.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye When move is contested, it is necessary to restore the original title and initiate RM discussion. Please respect wikipedia policies and restore the original name.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator What guidance are you referring to. Wikipedia:Requested moves#Undiscussed moves, states: "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page..." As far as WP:BRD is concerned, am I required to make a revert? In good faith I made a change to what I consider to be a title more fitting with NPOV. I made notification of the change on the talk page and, when contested, I have started an open discussion on article topic below with invitation to a variety of participants. You are making an accusation of disruption. I saw what I perceived as a lack of NPOV and reacted accordingly. GregKaye ✍♪ 15:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
"If your technical request is contested by another editor, please remove it from the contested technical requests section and follow the instructions at Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." You should rename pages yourself only "if a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature". Your position about statehood and recognition was contested well before this move. You knew it and still renamed this page. That was disruptive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator To put this in context, for the last 3-4 months I have been one of the most regular contributors to the discussions raised at WP:RM. I have not seen any discussion at least that I recollect regarding project pages. This was a page that seemed largely dormant so, in good faith, I made the bold change and gave notification.
What I have seen on WP:RM on a very great many occasions in which a manual move had been made and that an RM has been initiated so as to contest the move to either move the title back to its original title or to move it to another destination. I will consider your objections here in good faith but consider your edit in the following thread to act as an irrelevant distraction/derailment in that thread and request that you refactor.
I repeat: Wikipedia:Requested moves#Undiscussed moves, states: "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page..." Again I ask, as far as WP:BRD is concerned, am I required to make a revert? GregKaye ✍♪ 15:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I repeat: "You should rename pages yourself only "if a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature"." This was not the case here, and you knew it. You knew your move is controversial because it was based on the notion "no recognition - no state". This notion of yours is refuted by multiple other editors who explained that recognition is not necessarily characteristic of the state. That is why you did not respect wikipedia policies when you renamed this page and that is why you should revert your action. Wikipedia is volutary project. Nobody is required to do anything, but I think that violation of wikipedia policies and expecting the other editors to clean the mess you made is additionally disruptive. I recognize IDHT approach in your comments. I think I gave fairly clear reason for my position and don't have anything else to add to it now. You are of course free to disagree, but you should not expect me to be somehow obliged to keep discussing here with you as long as you are dissatisfied. You can have the last comment. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye had no reason to believe that any reasonable editor would object to improving the name. Your objections have been noted, but hopefully other editors will be able to bring these pages closer to NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC title

NAC: No consensus, but not even any clear idea as to the subject on which consensus was requested. Not a well-stated RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this edit I moved the project page with comment added to the edit: Gregkaye moved page Wikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countries to Wikipedia:WikiProject geopolitical entities not recognised as states: the project was mis-titled in reference to "Unrecognized countries" as we can't speak in Wikipedia's voice...

Dispute has been raised above to this naming and I would like raise the question of a suitable NPOV wording that might be used. Relevant Wikipedia reference may include:

I found the title declaring "countries" as being existent even before details were mentioned as presenting extreme and POV and not providing a suitable basis for the development of neutral encyclopaedic content. I came up with the best title that I could think of but nothing there is set in stone. It is currently presented as "WikiProject Geopolitical entities not recognised as states". How should the project best be named?

Ping: Rebecca Big Adamsky Charm Quark< koavf Morwen Nightstallion Pascal Pedant Secretlondon UniReb PaxEquilibrium Patricknoddy (talk · contribs) Naruto Arena (talk · contribs) Sahmeditor (talk · contribs) Pocopocopocopoco (talk · contribs) Domino theory Nebraska3 Presidentman (talk · contribs) Xhavnak Phoenix B 1of3 Spesh531 Savissivik

GregKaye ✍♪ 12:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - Does not speaking in Wikipedia's voice apply to the naming of Wikiprojects? If not, Wikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countries will do. If it does, how about Wikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized states? It's less of mouthful than Wikipedia:WikiProject geopolitical entities not recognised as states.--obi2canibetalk contr 13:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree that Wikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countries is better than new title. Gregkaye Your actions here are disruptive. You renamed this project without any discussion (2 minutes after your post). When your move was contested you should have followed wikipedia policies and restore the original name and initiate RM discussion. To make matters worse, instead to explain your position in neutral words in opening comment of RfC, as requested by wikipedia policies, you proclaimed opinion of mulitple other editors as "extreme and POV and not providing a suitable basis for the development of neutral encyclopaedic content". When you realised you will not gain consensus for your position at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant you came here to rename this project in order to advance your position in related discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • obi2canibe Thank you I agree that it is a mouthful. I still dispute the NPOV of unrecognised state and this was very much on my mind when making the move. This type of statement would usually be made in situations such as where there is an overlap of claimed territories as in the cases such as that of Somalia and Somaliland; of Iraq and Syria and ISIL and Nigeria and Boko Haram. There are many geopolitical groups that Wikipedia describes as rebel groups many of whom control territory. In the context of Star Wars and the like I see nothing necessarily derogatory in the use of "rebel" but personally considered "geopolitical" to be a better description. One side says there is a state. Other sides say there isn't. I don't personally think we should declare a group to be a state while only giving the qualification that it is unrecognised. This is already picking sides. GregKaye ✍♪ 15:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I will also add my other reply when able, in the meantime see thread above. For now I will simply comment here that the page project is marked as inactive. I did not consider the earlier move to be a big deal but had opened a thread in case anyone did.
  • I support Gregkaye's stance; we should avoid using Wikipedia's voice to push a particular POV, when a place's status is contested. However, I think Gregkaye's approach should be taken much further, as this Wikiproject's pages still seem to imply that some places are "unrecognised" whilst, in reality, they are recognised to varying degrees. bobrayner (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • bobrayner Thank you I've been thinking some more about it some more and I would suggest that a slightly more acceptable alternative could be Wikipedia:WikiProject Internationally disputed states. In searches:
The only reason that a supposed state is unrecognised is because it is disputed. I added the search terms country and nation in an attempt to filter out references to other definitions of state. The "Geopolitical entity..." version is still more accurate and that remains my recommendation. My suggestions are made mostly with the content of List of active rebel groups#Groups which control territory in mind. I don't see a problem with the long title. It ticks all the boxes. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
That looks like a good approach. bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It does not matter, as Project pages are not indexed by Google and not really useful for our readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

State of Palestine listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for State of Palestine to be moved to Palestine. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Kinmen listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kinmen to be moved to Jinmen. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

ISIL territorial claims listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for ISIL territorial claims to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Use of Country/Geopolitical Faction Infobox on Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic pages

An edit war over which infobox to use on the DPR and LPR pages has been ongoing for several months now. In an attempt to remedy the situation i have opened up a discussion and request for comment here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#Infobox, your opinions and comments on the issue would be much appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Northern Cyprus to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to be moved to Republic of Artsakh. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

State of Palestine listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for State of Palestine to be moved to Palestine. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Transnistria listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Transnistria to be moved to Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Renaming & Reviving project

I have renamed the WikiProject to "WikiProject Limited recognition" as it is a more commonly used term to describe the subject and I would like to revive this WikiProject, which will include reworking the project page. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The project is now active and functioning again. Feedback is welcomed; here is the difference between revisions: old new Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Numrec

There is an ongoing discussion in Template talk:Numrec#Withdrawn Recognition Currently not Subtracting from the Number of Recognitions that will directly affect the way recognition lists are structured in states with limited recognition across Wikipedia. Please comment your view on this POV matter in the ongoing discussion. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 Gaza border protests listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2018 Gaza border protests to be moved to 2018 Gaza border clashes. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Rebooting the project

The following editors were the original members of this project:

I cannot say with certainty how many of the original members are still active Wikipedia editors, but all are welcomed and invited to add their name to our list of members. Because the page was remade entirely from the former inactive version, the original members list is no longer there, and it would not feel right to manually add the names of others that may or may not agree to have their name readded. I've tried my best to improve the project, but I can't do it alone. A new member, Outback the Koala, has joined us, but it would be best if the direction of the project (and its new portal!) is decided by the people that made this project in the first place. The current tasks include identifying articles from all classes within the scope of the project, but also revamping our sister project Wikipedia:WikiProject Ossetia, rewriting articles, expanding articles, upgrading our portal, and designing more awards for the outstanding contributions made by Wikipedians. Please consider rejoining the newly revamped WP:WPLR 😊 Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Limited recognition newsletter 14 October 2018

Our first major project - locating articles in our scope - is going well.
Progress:
 Partly done 10 featured articles: 4 out of 10
 Partly done 10 Good/A/Featured articles: 7 out of 10
 Done 20 B class articles
 Done 50 C class or better articles
 Done 150 encyclopedic articles
We currently have 220+ pages in our scope.


In this process, we've learned that our WikiProject may be the sole project working on improving the following subjects:

  •  Transnistria - There is no WikiProject Transnistria. Many vital Transnistria-related articles in poor shape have been left to rot for over a decade. Many of these pages were not recognized as being in the scope of any WikiProject.
  •  South Ossetia - The Ossetia WikiProject is effectively nonexistent. Vital information on South Ossetia is either challenging or impossible to locate on Wikipedia, and many new articles would need to be written on this subject.
  •  Somaliland - Information on Somaliland is extremely difficult to find on Wikipedia, and what little is available has been neglected.

The same is true to varying degrees for most of the ten states with limited recognition, and especially for the rarely touched proto-states. We are a WikiProject of WikiProjects; our scope is not limited to any one aspect of any one unrecognized entity.

Our solution:

  1. A cramped to-do list is not an effective format for encouraging productivity. Bad articles will be transcluded on our WikiProject page.
  2. We will provide easy access to (and maintain) categories relating to each entity in our scope.
  3. We are in need of a strong advertising campaign. To ensure that we can develop a strong task force, we should invite any active Wikipedians who contribute to (or formerly made significant contributions to) articles on any of the entities in our scopes.
  4. If we can locate an article that meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations, we will nominate it.

Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Federation of Northern Syria listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Democratic Federation of Northern Syria to be moved to Northern and Eastern Syria. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Democratic Federation of Northern Syria listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Democratic Federation of Northern Syria to be moved to Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

This project's portal is currently nominated for deletion

Notifying the current volunteer editors at WP:WPLR: @Kautilya3:, @Outback the koala:, @EarlGrey2005:

A discussion to delete Portal:Limited recognition, which this project maintains, is currently taking place. If you would like to participate, please feel free to comment however you see fit here.

Regarding how this discussion will affect the project moving forward: in the event that the primary portal is removed, our project will most likely take on the mantle of maintaining Portal:Abkhazia, Portal:Artsakh, Portal:Somaliland, and other portals which allow readers to access the information that our project organizes and develops. If instead the outcome allows for the portal to remain on the encyclopedia, it will be improved per the critiques from the editors at this discussion, and per the to-do list at our main project page.

Thank you. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This project's portal has been deleted due to concerns including but not limited to: its ambiguous scope and title, the fact that many of these states have their own portals, insufficient information regarding the recognition itself, and others. As many of the individual states with limited recognition still have their own portals (namely Portal:Abkhazia, Portal:Artsakh, Portal:Somaliland, etc), these are the portals whose maintenance our project is concerned with. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

More portals in our scope deleted & nominated for deletion

Portal:Artsakh was deleted rather quickly, while Portal:Abkhazia and Portal:Western Sahara are nominated for deletion at this time. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Abkhazia has been revamped and kept. Portal:Western Sahara's deletion discussion is slow-boiling, but in the meantime we can expand on it. I've gone and added a few more selected articles to make the portal more of a real portal, and any volunteer efforts would be much appreciated. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Updates

After more than a week, the following has happened:

  1. Portal:Western Sahara was, thankfully, kept as a direct result of users banding together and working hard to improve it. There's still yet more work to be done, so any additional sub-pages would be much appreciated.
  2. Portal:Kosovo was deleted. It appears to have been deleted without prejudice, despite one comment in the MfD thread suggesting that it should be with prejudice. No doubt, Kosovo is a topic with a breadth of information, more so than some of the other entities with limited recognition. Without question, it's absolutely possible to make a great portal about Kosovo, but, unfortunately, it does not appear that editors have put in the time and effort required to do so.

My recommendations are as follows:

  • Add some minor updates to Portal:Abkhazia at some point in the next thirty or so days. It's in good shape at the moment, but updates are always beneficial.
  • Increase the number of curated subpages on Portal:Western Sahara by at least 5-10. It's presently being worked on by at least three editors, but it can still be improved.
  • Maintain Portal:Somaliland. It's certainly deserving of at least a few hours of work to improve. I suspect that it's currently vulnerable to deletion, but it's a well-designed portal with quite a lot of potential to be just as good as some of the others. There's enough good information about Somaliland on the encyclopedia to make the portal much better, but Somaliland is also an entity whose coverage is lacking overall.
  • Organize lists of selected articles, selected biographies, selected images, news items, and DYK items to form new, well-done portals for Artsakh and Kosovo. It's a shame they were deleted, but we can make newer, better ones.

Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, we should begin placing {{portal|Portal}} or {{Portal bar|Portal}} on any relevant articles. The Abkhazia portal is in good enough shape that, as soon as we make it more accessible, it should be of benefit to readers & the daily view count should increase substantially. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 09:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Hi. I invite users here to a discussion on map colouring for the UN. Ythlev (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

palestine

why is palestine on this list? isn't it majority recognized by 140 nations and is in the UN? Isn't this taking a POV israeli stance in the Arab-Israeli conflict

Lo meiin (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You're asking why the State of Palestine is included in a project involving states with limited recognition? Well, it's because it is a state with limited (i.e., not general) international recognition.
While I think that we all can agree that the State of Palestine enjoys substantial international recognition, particularly from sovereign states with developing economies, and that the UN's vote to transfer its designation of the PLO as a UN observer entity to the State of Palestine as a UN observer state was not a trivial reclassification, the State of Palestine's status as a UN observer state does not mean that, ipso facto, it should be deemed to have the same level of international recognition as Indonesia or Turkmenistan and be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states.
The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City.
Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo (for example), is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.
The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, it falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then it should be grouped with states with general international recognition and cease being classified as a state with limited recognition. In the meantime, it should remain in this project. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I concur with AuH2ORepublican and I'd like to emphasize that it does not take a pro-Israeli stance in the Israel/Palestine dispute to list Palestine as a state with limited international recognition. To refer to Palestine as a state with limited international recognition is neither pro nor anti Palestine the same way that it's neither pro nor anti Abkhazia to say that Abkhazia is a state with limited international recognition, no matter how many negative aspersions may get cast towards us from individuals with strong feelings on these highly sensitive subjects. This is a subject that must be handled with extremely delicate care, and that is why our project bases the list of states with limited international recognition solely off of the consensus at the talk page of the Limited recognition article. This project's talk page isn't the place to change the consensus on whether any entity is or is not a state with limited recognition; our project simply aims to improve the quality of articles, projects, and other pages which cover said entities.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 03:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion about settlement in Kosovo

Hello, everybody. There's an ongoing move discussion at Talk:Peć#Requested move 18 August 2020 in which members of this wikiproject could contribute and provide new perspectives as many of the arguments seem to involve the limited recognition of Kosovo as a state. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ambazonia

InspectorTiger (talk · contribs) has fully rewritten the article on Ambazonia to remove all the non-neutral material and most of the unsourced claims. It could still use some proofreading, and I question the need for the "Historical background and context" section that exists to summarize later content. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move for Republic of Artsakh

I have made a requested move for Republic of Artsakh to be move to Artsakh, your participation would be appreciated. The discussion is available at Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 3#Requested move 7 May 2022. DownTownRich (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

How does this nom advance the aims of this project? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Help with easy article interlinking as it’s easier to type the short name than the full name especially when using the source editor. DownTownRich (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral terminology for entities with limited recognition

A discussion in Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 3#"Self proclaimed" vs "breakaway" made me reflect on the terminology that media used towards entities with limited recognition such as Artsakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria. Is there any valid academic discourse on that terminology and which terms are more neutral? Some of the terms used by media (such as "self-proclaimed") appear to more politically loaded, and randomly used by journalists very much depending on their mood and political preferences and on the need to make BREAKING headlines, but are they neutral / cyclopedic enough to define these entities in Wikipedia? Would be in interesting to hear your thoughts. --Armatura (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. The editors at this discussion seem to broadly agree that "self-proclaimed" sounds more dismissive and non-neutral than "breakaway", but I also feel that "breakaway" isn't the most accurate and neutral way to describe all of the entities with limited recognition. In certain contexts it may be appropriate to use a longer, wordier description which avoids any such terminology, something along the lines of <entity>, which regards itself as independent since the <war>, is internationally recognized as a part of <country>.
For states like Kosovo, Palestine, and Western Sahara, I think the term "partially recognized" is preferable to either self-proclaimed or breakaway. However, I would not use the term "partially recognized" for entities only recognized by a single other UN member, such as the Donestk People's Republic or Northern Cyprus. Self-proclaimed or breakaway are more appropriate in cases with little or no recognition. In unusual cases like Taiwan, the state neither "broke away" nor "proclaimed itself" as it predates the People's Republic of China. It really just depends on the situation.
The discussion you were referring to was focused on Artsakh, and I agree with the editors there that "breakaway" is the most appropriate. It established itself through a war with Azerbaijan, and also lacks any formal recognition from UN member states. I suppose you can say the same about Transnistria.
Not sure how to best describe Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They have at least a handful of UN member states recognizing them, but the international community is still nearly unanimous in not recognizing them, so I have mixed feelings about using a term like "partially recognized" for those two. "Breakaway" is probably fine. Then again, these terms aren't mutually exclusive, so you could say that South Ossetia is a "partially recognized breakaway state" (but I'd still drop the "breakaway" part for entities with large portions of the international community recognizing them, like the examples I listed earlier).
These are just my own thoughts so I can't say I'm speaking for the entire project, but I hope this is an agreeable and useful stance.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I should add that "de facto state" is another possible alternative to "self-proclaimed" and "breakaway" which might be preferable in some circumstances.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice - First Nagorno-Karabakh War

I have nominated First Nagorno-Karabakh War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Republics of Russia has an RFC

Republics of Russia has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

This deals with Donetsk and Luhansk, so is may be of interest to members of this wikiproject. Furius (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Invite to join WikiProject Autonomous Zones

Because I believe this WikiProject is related to the WikiProject I have recently founded (with a slightly different scope related to other types of autonomous zones besides ones with limited recognition) I invite all participants here to join the WikiProject if they would like to increase coverage of autonomous zones across the world DominusVilicus (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

GAR notice

Gaza City has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Artsakh

 You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject Artsakh, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Western Sahara has an RFC

Western Sahara has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. CMD (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Limited_recognition/Archive_1&oldid=1216870681"