The Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads was a micronation in the Spratly Islands. Tracing its origins to the 1877 claims of captain James George Meads, it became the subject of international attention during the 1956 Tomas Cloma incident.[1] Its leadership waged an official and media campaign for recognition until almost all of them were killed in a shipwreck in 1972.[1]
In the late 1870s, British captain James George Meads, captain of the Modeste, sailed through the Spratley Islands.[2] In 1877, he claimed some of the islands as personal property,
- ^ a b Samuels, Marwyn S. (1982). "Appendix B: The Kingdom of Humanity and Republic of Moroc-Songhrati-Meads". Contest for the South China Sea. Methuen. pp. 168–172. ISBN 0-416-33140-8.
- ^ Whiting, Kenneth L. (2 February 1992). "Asian Nations Squabble Over Obscure String of Islands". Los Angeles Times. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Associated Press. p. A2.
Recently, we have gotten a couple of FPs from filter 1233 caused by new users, unaware of how we use the characters # and * around here, creating lists on article talk pages by using only line breaks. Looking at recent hits, disabling the filter in namespace 1 doesn't seem a viable solution. However, much of the vandalism seems to be repeating characters; it occurred to me that tailoring the filter so that on talk pages, it instead checks for strings of letters longer than most English words, about 13 characters or so. (For article namespace and the like, I think the current code is working just fine, but IMO talk pages should be less strict about proper formatting and punctuation.) Perhaps something like (\w{14}[\w\s]){3}) would do the trick, although I just cobbled that together in five minutes and don't know how to test such things against actual recent edits, so it could probably be better. My guess is that this would eliminate the false positives but also allow maybe twice that many bad edits through (most of which would be useless WP:NOTFORUM rants rather than outright vandalism). I'm not sure if that's an acceptable trade-off; thoughts?
Prop 1: 6 support, 3 oppose Prop 2: 4 support, 4 oppose Prop 3: 5 support, 2 oppose
There is a consensus to include sales figures but no consensus to include publisher expectations. Editors agreed that information about the publisher's expectations is sufficiently covered in sources. However, many editors argued that including it in the lead could mislead readers by implying that the fact is more significant than it really is. That is, of course, a very subjective consideration, but without tertiary sources to help us weigh what is most important about the subject, it is one that Wikipedia editors must make themselves essentially via polls like this.
OR
There is a consensus to include unit sales in the lead.
There is a consensus to include publisher expectations somewhere in the article. This is in accordance with due weight and the uncontested fact that the game's disappointment of publisher expectations received significant coverage. Many editors opined that disappointing publisher expectations is not actually important for various reasons (e.g., publisher expectations are unreasonable, games often disappoint them, other articles don't include them either); I will remind editors of the following from WP:DUE: in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
(The section on balancing aspects echoes this instruction: treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
) In other words, we don't get to decide what to include in an article; if outside coverage considers it important enough to discuss it often, we discuss it.
However, there is no consensus to include publisher expectations in the lead.(non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)}}
This RfC concerns what content to include in the lead, starting with the sales information.