List of micronations is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 8, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept September 8, 2008 Peer review Reviewed September 24, 2008 Featured list candidate Not promoted October 7, 2008 Featured list candidate Promoted September 18, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept September 26, 2009 Featured list removal candidate Demoted Current status: Former featured list

Micronations List‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronationsWikipedia:WikiProject MicronationsTemplate:WikiProject MicronationsMicronations List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics List‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

I spent some significant time cleaning this article up to include only those entries which actually fall under the Micronation umbrella. That is to say, I yanked out some pseudo-microstates, and a few instances that in modern times may have developed into a microstate, but in their contemporary time period amounted to little more than isolationists laying actual claim to empty islands (i.e. Trinidad). Yopie has been undoing these edits in a manner I find to be less than constructive, and I've brought my thinking to his user page but thought it worth discussing here. I'm not suggesting that everything I removed should remain off the page, but rather, inviting other informed editors to take a look at the sum of what I did and weigh in on the larger theme of my edits, which was meant to streamline this page to include only those organizations which would be specifically considered as Micronations (not microstates, or some extralegal areas of land which briefly fall outside a legal controlling authority). Hiberniantears (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clear view of your actions, here is message from my talkpage: "What are you doing? My last edit summary explained fairly clearly what I was doing. My POV is that all the Micronations should be deleted... as you can clearly see, I only removed those which aren't actually micronations, such as a piece of land in Germany that went briefly unoccupied after WWII, as well as a chunk of land between the US and Canada which was in limbo due to international treaty. That isn't POV. That is cleaning up cruft so that the list is well defined and follows the description of what a micronation is in the Micronation article. If there are individual entries which I removed which you think should stay in the article, I suggest you take that to the talk page, but as you can see from the edit history, I spent a good deal of time carefully going through the entire list, and looking specifically at every single article. Reverting my edits with snide edit summaries was less than appreciated. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)" (bold part is marked by me). I hope, that community take proper action.

• Your first huge edits were unexplained, without sources for your POV and clearly are your own "research"/opinion.--Yopie 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis is your's, but that said I very definitely think micronations, with rare exceptions, do not belong on Wikipedia. However, consensus has been well established over the years that they do belong. A flawed decision? Absolutely. Nonetheless, it is the decision that we must all abide by, and one which I respect. With that in mind, a good faith NPOV view of my edits here demonstrate that I was cleaning the list to make it less crufty. There really isn't anything huge about my edits, nor were they meant to be huge. Rather, they are meant to remove examples in the list that strain the definition of what a micronation is. My reason for doing so was actually to protect the long-term viability of this article, and those articles legitimately related to it. I do apologize for not making that clear when I first did it yesterday. Micronations, for a variety of reasons, are at the root of a lot of edit wars here, as my edits point out. What I was actually trying to do was remove examples that do not fit with the consensus definition of micronation that has been established over the years on Wikipedia. This is important, because in my own "research"/opinion, I believe that every single one of these articles, save a few (Sealand, or Hutt River) should be deleted. As you can see, that is far from what I did, and not what I am trying to do. By removing the bad examples, I've made this article far more representative of what a Micronation is, and thereby hopefully prevented some edit wars over micronations in the future. A Micronation is very different from a Microstate, and it is important that any list of Micronations, therefore, does not include anything that was/is a microstate, or a quasi-microstate. I am honestly, and in good faith, just trying to help prevent issues that will inevitably pop up down the road with the old version of the list. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but your edits don't look as good faith. You simply deleted, what isn't in your personal POV micronation, without any talk or consensus about it and without any knowledge about micronations. Categorisation of Sealand or Hutt River as "club" is simply wrong.--Yopie 22:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's your POV. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Hibernatus: Please, read some litarature about micronations, as Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations or How to Start Your Own Country (book). Do you have any sources for your POV? --Yopie 14:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do I need sources to prove a negative? That's circular, tendentious logic on your part. Micronations are clubs. Microstates are sovereign, or at least extra-legal bits of land. Farms, apartments, and other such constructs who's residents or owners claim sovereignty in a serious of jocular manner are micronations, and no different than any other club or social activity, regardless of claims. I cleaned this list up to focus on things that really are micronations. That the items I removed exist, and have sources backing up that they exist, is not the point that I am disputing. The one item that I did delete, was only deleted for failing to assert any type of notability or coherence (though it did include an interesting history of the local aristocracy). Aside from that, everything I removed is notable, just not a micronation. That, or our article on micronations is entirely wrong. I am more willing to believe that this list is simply (or was until my clean-up) casting too wide a net. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need the sources, because its your burden of proof. Deleted micronations are listed in reliable literature as micronations, so logically belongs in list of micronations. We create encyclopedia, and thus your POV must be sourced. Of course, maybe you know literature/source, where are listed in different category and in this case, please, share your knowledge with us.

By the way, I hope that your uncivil conduct will stop. Otherwise you will be reported. --Yopie 14:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you plan on reporting me for? He of the tendentious editing block of several weeks ago... This is a heavily watched article and you're the only one to take issue with my attempts to make edits over the course of the past week. You templated me, and I have warned you on your talk page for it. Hardly an abuse of my responsibilities as either an editor or an administrator here. I have explained my edits, and all you do is insult me and revert my changes, and today you appeared to use an IP sock located in Australia. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sock or sockpupeteer! And I´m not from Australia.. Try CheckUser, if you think. Cite any insults by me. "Templating" isn't listed anywhere as insulting.--Yopie 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you, no worries. The timing was suspect, but I figured out who the IP is. I apologize for insinuating it was you. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, there exist several issues here.

• First, I cut the list down by removing entries which appear to be fairly tendentious, or lack a dedicated article asserting actual status as a Micronation. I am open to a discussion on the merits of each individual item I removed. I employed a thoughtful process, which can clearly be seen in my edits from April 4, in which I made individual edits to remove individual list entries, demonstrating that I was carefully combing over the list, reading the linked articles, and then removing those items which didn't fit the bill. Owing to the fact that I am human, I can allow that debate may surround the inclusion of some items I removed. However, blindly rolling back my changes en masse is entirely unproductive. Perhaps there is need yet again for what a Micronation actually is (i.e. not a Microstate), but I don't believe this to be the case. Rather, this list simply began including things that aren't micronations in the sense that they have been treated by Wikipedia since I began paying attention to this group of articles back in 2006. Let me reiterate that last point: I am not a noob to the Micronation articles (as raised as an insult against me in the thread above). I have been reading, and editing some of these pages since 2006.

• Second. I added to this and many other articles the category "Clubs and Societies" because a micronation, when you boil it right down, is a club and/or society. Including this category is innocuous unless you take the position that these are real countries, rather than clubs and societies. Perhaps I am over categorizing the individual pages, but certainly it is not unreasonable to think that at least this list and the Micronation page can include the link, since logically editors and readers could go looking for a micronation under the clubs and societies category. That a Micronation is also a club and society is not a stretch, nor is it POV or OR on my part. That said, if consensus says we should not include this category, so be it, though I would appreciate a compromise that leaves the category at least on this list and the main article on Micronations.

Those are the two individual aspects of what I'm trying to do here. They need to be addressed individually, rather than wholesale ignoring my efforts here. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply:

• You say, that XY isn't micronation, but you don't have any proof.
• I say that XY is micronation, because is listed as it in printed literature as Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations or How to Start Your Own Country (book).
• Read WP:V

You forgot to sign your last post Yopie. By grossly oversimplifying my position, you also -again- failed to respectfully discuss the issues that I -again- just took the time to carefully, and clearly lay out. The book is important, and I don't question that, but is it definitive of what Wikipedia considers a Micronation to be? I am under the impression that it is not, unless tongue-in-cheek publications are now our gold standard for verifiability. In any event, as pointed out in my comments, I am open to an individual analysis of each article I removed from the list. If you are arguing that Free State Bottleneck is a micronation, then you need to do some research. The distance between things like the Empire of Atlantium and those like Free State Bottleneck is extraordinarily vast. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-warring on this page is disruptive, so let's hammer out a consensus here first please. There are 10 differences between Yopie's preferred version and Hiberniantears' preferred version, so instead of wholesale reverts back and forth, it might be better to discuss each one individually in the following subsections. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrwsc. For the purpose of this discussion, I went ahead and restored Kingdom of Romkerhall. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for inclusion

• small, self-proclaimed independent city, printed postmarks, but without recognition

Comments against inclusion

• I saw this more as a purely protest movement against a local industrial project, but in retrospect I really have no problem with that protest movement being lumped in as a micronation. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for inclusion

• see official site for current, was relatively small, self-proclaimed territory without recognition, today is really micronation (passports,coins etc.)

Comments against inclusion

• At least as far as the article is concerned, this was a quasi-state that briefly existed during a war following the collapse of central German sovereign authority over this area as Allied armies advance around the area. I won't speak to the legitimacy of the current possibility that a notable modern micronation exists, but it is not mentioned in the article at all, nor should it be. If an entry is created, it has to be a distinct article (i.e. Free State Bottleneck (micronation)), and we would be wise to create a disambiguation page, or a line item at the top of the historical article. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for inclusion

Comments against inclusion

• probably not micronation
• Pretty much the same as Free State Bottleneck and Free Republic of Schwarzenberg. Areas of land that were not under any central sovereign control, but bu virtue of the chaos of war, or a treaty dispute prior to returning, or rolling into a new or previous sovereign authority. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for inclusion

• self-proclaimed "free city" with funny attempt to be in UN, same as Seborga or Hay-on-Wye

Comments against inclusion

• See Lundy, below. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for inclusion

• similar to Crown Dependency of Forvik, minted coins, referenced in Britannica [1] For words "Lundy" and "Harman" (king of Lundy) I found 21.400 ghits, and 627 hits in Google Books, so we have plenty of resources.--Yopie 12:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• For Wikipedia:Listcruft read answer in Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft.--Yopie 13:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the context of my use of the term (that is... I used it in context) my word choice is appropriate. Another fine attempt at obfuscating the substance of my argument, as this appears to be your modus operandi in this debate. There is no article on this micronation, which is why I removed it. Feel free to create the article, shepherd it through a deletion debate, and give it the legitimacy that warrants mention on this list. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments against inclusion

• The Micronation itself does not have an independent article that asserts notability. We currently have a link to just the town. Situations like this fall into the cruft category in that they open the door for anyone who can find even the most tenuous source on a claimed Micronation to add a link here, even if the article cannot, or does not exist. Perhaps, at the moment, this is only because not enough material exists on the topic, even though it may in the future. That is fine, but as it exists, according to Wikipedia:Listcruft (which is not policy) it lurches us toward a list that is trivial in nature, rather than informative. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for inclusion

• Why is "micronation" limited to end of 20th century? --Yopie 12:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am operating under the impression that micronations were not invented until the 1970's. For all the Emperor Norton things that have been around over the years, their is probably, or needs to be, some phraseology to describe things like this. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article is already categorized as and unrecognized country, which is all it ever was, and more than an adequate description. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments against inclusion

• I applied the same logic to this article, as with Principality of Trinidad below. We are essentially redefining whatever this was with modern terminology which doesn't address or account for the geopolitical realities that were contemporary to early 19th century sailors setting up their own government on an uninhabited islands which really had no controlling authority to begin with, and which were simply taken control of by a sovereign power when it suited said power. Notably, these events transpired prior to the 1815 Congress of Vienna, and thus precedes the development of the constitutive theory of statehood which though not the basis of international law is generally a good guide for dealing with the issues of sovereignty (real or imagined) in this topic. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for inclusion

• listed as micronation in Lonely Planet Guide, minted coins etc.

Comments against inclusion

• I actually removed this not because it fails to meet the standard of a micronation, but because the article met criteria for deletion. I restored it for the sake of an honest discussion so that everyone can see the article. That said, this is more of a neutral vote. Add it back to the list, but the article in its current state should be deleted again as it fails to assert notability, and 95% of the content fails to even discuss the topic. I'll leave it alone if someone better informed on the subject than I agrees to expand and cleanup the article. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for inclusion

• Why you rely on constitutive theory? This theory isn't generally accepted, but mainstream theory is Declarative theory of statehood, as codified by Montevideo Convention. Free republic government effectively controlled small area with people, and was capable to enter in foreign relations. Of course, no one other state accepted his existence. By POV as micronation is only club, this Free Republic is not micronation, but by POV that micronation is small, self-proclaimed entity that claim to be independent sovereign states but which are not acknowledged as such by any recognised sovereign state, Free Republic is micronation. Summary, Free Republic is on borderline and I not rely on my POV. --Yopie 12:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither the Constitutive or Declarative theory makes this a micronation by any stretch... if anything, it is is microstate that failed to remain sovereign. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments against inclusion

• Similar to Free State Bottleneck this was a quasi state that briefly existed in the chaotic aftermath of WWII in Germany. In line with the Constitutive theory of statehood, the controlling, sovereign authority over this area had collapsed, and not yet been replaced by a new sovereign power. For a brief period there was simply no sovereign authority with which to contest sovereign control. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for inclusion

• Today is micronation, as Seborga

Comments against inclusion

• Sovereign microstate, which is outside the scope of a Micronation. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for inclusion

Comments against inclusion

• Dates to the 19th century, which really seems to predate the modern Micronation phenomenon begun in or approximately around the 1970's. Seems to fall within the bounds of a failed self-determination attempt, which is outside the scope of the definition of a Micronation. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this, as in the past the kingdom was one of the most powerful in Asia and not a micronation. The current Sultan of Sulu and North Borneo makes no claims to sovereignty and is a recognized leader of the indigenous Tausug people. Only claimants to the throne claim sovereignty to sell titles of nobility etc. In 1962, the Sultanate has ceded the last sovereignty and therefore all royal rights to the Republic of the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by About the Sultan (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that I plan to merge the content of List of leaders of micronations with this article, and turn List of leaders of micronations into a redirect to this page. I'll probably do this next week, and just wanted to make sure people had a chance to think about it as my last changes here kicked off an edit war. My thinking is we really don't need two lists, when we can just add the information on each leader to the entry on that micronation in this article. In some cases (Atlantium, for example) the leader is listed in the Atlantium article, on this list, and at List of leaders of micronations, which just seems a bit repetitive. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and am undoing this. --124.170.155.18 (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. See no reason to combine them. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of an established series of list articles supported by a wide consensus of contributing editors. There is no consensus to merge this into List of micronations, which is a featured list article. Major changes of this nature - particularly where they affect the content of featured articles in a substantive way - must be supported by consensus. Please do not continue changing List of leaders of micronations to a redirect, and merging its content into List of micronations until there is a clear consensus supporting such an action. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect restored and page semi-protected per User:Hiberniantears's action here. (Disruptive IP editing by likely sockpuppet of a registered editor.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please either discuss your concerns relating to article content, provide a rational policy-based justification for your assertion that "disruptive ip editing" has occurred, or reverse the page protection. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure whether this should be included as an external link - after all, it is full of micronations that aren't notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. What are the opinions of others on this? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it further, I'd add that the link includes a lot more detailed information than is included in wikipedias article, so its definitely relevant.--203.166.245.85 (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed - it fails the reliable sources and external links guidelines. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Meets WP:EL. WP:RS not relevant. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:EL - no indication this has any verifiable sources, or that it is not just someone's personal opinions. The site (and associated wiki) sho no indication of stability, a broad user base, or similar standards that we expect. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:EL. WP:RS not relevant. It is an external link, not a cited reference. The site and associated wiki are directly relevant to the article subject, are fact-checked and show no indication of instability. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be a good idea if you attempted to familiarise yourself with WP:EL before making further contributions to this discussion, specifically:

What should be linked

• Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail [...] or other reasons.

Links to be considered

• A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. [...]
• Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided sections 1, 4, and 12. Also per WP:EL, the link has been replaced with a direct link to the Open Directory Project's page on micronations (http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Micronations/). The IP is free to request that his/her link is added there, and the site is endorsed by Wikipedia as a means of avoiding these sorts of problems with respect to "External links" sections. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Does not apply. The site provides an *extensive* unique resource beyond what the article contains as a feature article. There is *no* other source that provides such a range and breadth of accurate, up-to-date data on the subject. By comparison, the quality of data on DMOZ is extremely poor, years out of date, and of extremely limited extent.

4. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

Does not apply. The link does not promote a website at all. Simply linking to a site that is directly relevant to an article subject does not constitute "promotion". If that were the case, *every* external link on WP would need to be removed.

12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

Does not apply. The link does not link to a wiki. It links to an html web page. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DMOZ is a Wikipedia-endorsed alternative to disagreements such as this, and for situations where ELs accumulate. Given that anyone can ask for a listing to be added there, I would challenge you to stop attacking a valid and consensus-approved solution, and instead apply to have your favourite link added there. As for your claims, there are 137 links on the DMOZ "Micronations" page, which in in sharp contrast to your describing it as having a "limited" extent. Finally, you have raved (yes, raved) about the "listofnations" site with a zeal beyond that of any average site user. You have described it in glowing terms, claiming it is "current", "accurate", "unique", "unparalleled" and "independent" (among others) - but neither you or the site gives any indication as to how to verify these claims, other than by accepting similar claims made by the site's administrator. I would ask, then, if you have any connection to that site, either as a contributor or an involved party. I feel this is a fair question because your passion for this link, and your haste in personally criticizing someone who opposes your actions, mirrors what I have seen countless times with other site owners or advocates who have argued for the inclusion of their own sites. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find an alternative site to listofmicronations which provides the same or better range and breadth of data, by all means, go ahead and add it, and remove listofmicronations.

However, there is no way that you can argue that DMOZ is that alternative. DMOZ is merely a collection of a few dozen links (including out-of-date and dead links - it doesn't seem to have been updated in *years*) to some micronation websites. And yes, 137 is an insignificant number.

There are NO contact names, phone numbers, postal addresses or background data on any of the micronations in DMOZ. That data *does* exist in tabulated form on listofmicronations - which currently lists about 220 micronations.

There can be no argument as to which is the superior source of data on the subject. A simple visual comparison of the two sites confirms it. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that 137 links is "insignificant" is laughable. Again, if you endorse "listofnations" so highly, ask to have it added to the DMOZ site. That is, after all, why the site exist; it is an open-source directory service with editorial control (sites have to be approved, not just added by anyone) that is endorsed by Wikipedia. You also have not addressed my questions about the verifiability of Lon, and your association with it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing "laughable" here is your repeated attempts to suggest that DMOZ is somehow a superior EL than listofmicronations; any fool who bothers to compare the two can see that this is not so. First you attempted to argue for removal on the basis of the wrong WP policy (WP:CITE}. Then you attempted to argue for removal on the basis of a mis-reading of WP:EL. Having failed in those attempts you now you seem to be going for WP:COI. Are you seeing a pattern here yet? --203.166.245.85 (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with WP:EL, and I haven't followed this discussion like the others on this page, so I'm sorry if this is a stupid question. Why can't both "List of Micronations" and "DMOZ" be listed in the external links section? --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I see that they are both already listed. But, why not keep them both there? --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly keep both, as both comply with WP:EL. My argument is that the link to DMOZ is probably redundant, as most - if not all - of its content is already present in a much more detailed form on listofmicronations. The current situation is a compromise intended to satisfy the editor who is most insistent on adding the DMOZ link. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) My argument would be that the link to List of Micronations would be against guidelines as it is basically a list of all the micronations that failed to get onto Wikipedia; therefore, all the notable ones are already in the article. What would be the point of the link? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are constantly trying to add their micronations to this article. Most recently, I undid the second addition of a micronation that is a few days old. Some editors have given vandalism warnings for these kind of edits, others give no notice directly to the person who added it. I think most of the editors who add their micronations are new and don't understand why their micronation is deleted. I gave a long explanation (see here) to an editor, but it was not very specific to that edit. I think there should be some kind of template explaining why a micronation was removed, but not accusing them of vandalism. Any thoughts? --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 16:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The main reason that I tried to merge this list and the list of leaders of micronations was to consolidate two lists suffering from the same problem (people adding non-notable or non-existent examples to both lists). I never ended up doing it, but my intention was to get rid of the leaders table, and simply add a "leaders" column to the main list. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a rough draft (basically a copy of my warning on Neethis's talk page) in my sandbox. Anyone who wants to is free to edit my sandbox to improve it before making it a template. Also, I have never made a template, so I don't know how to make it insertable into other pages. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 17:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but maybe your draft need something as "without reliable sources can be deleted again" --Yopie 19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If people add content that is unsupported by reliable third party sources, simply delete it, as with any other WP article. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. The principal behind the template is too offer a courteous explanation for why we deleted it. The ordinary editor passing by takes one look at this list and sees a bunch of fake country fantasy clubs not extending beyond a house or an apartment. The natural conclusion is that they can add their fake country to the list just like anyone else. The purpose of the template is to simply spell out what they need to do with their fake country to get it listed with these fake countries, because someone who has not read up on our editing policies isn't necessarily going to understand our sourcing policies, and this provides an opportunity to help educate what may actually be a well-meaning editor. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied and pasted the template after reverting the zillionth addition of Austenasia. This time it was put there by a new account, Qwertyuiop1994. To Yopie, I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting we add to the template; is it not to add the micronation a second time? Well, like I said, feel free to add it yourself by editing my sandbox. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I make it not specific to List of micronations to allow it to be used for additions to other pages, such as Micronations? --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 15:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Building on what I tried a few months back regarding List of leaders of micronations... I was originally drawn to the micronation related articles a few years back because I felt micronations had no place on Wikipedia. However, some pretty persuasive arguments have been made to me, and I see the value in having articles on a quirky topic like this. Most of my recent efforts have not been content oriented, but rather aim to tighten things up to make the articles as legitimate as possible. That is to say, actually make things like the List of micronations a... list of micronations, and not also a list of micronations in the defined sense, as well as anything else bored passerby decide to add (for example, the newly founded Secular Republic of Hiberniantearsistan, following the fall of the now defunct Grand Archempire of Hiberniantearsutopia).

With that in mind, the reason I moved the content of List of leaders of micronations to this list was that I originally intended to nominate List of leaders of micronations for deletion, and move the content to this page. My reasoning is that we seem to have two lists on the same thing. One list on the micronations, and one list on the people known to run them. Since the table in List of micronations has multiple columns, why not just add a column for the leaders and delete List of leaders of micronations (or redirect it again)? Any notable leaders would then have their name wikilinked, all known leaders would still be included, no information is actually deleted from the encyclopedia, and this list becomes more informative. This was actually my prior intention, but I got lazy, and Orderinchaos made a pretty good point when he noted that adding one crappy list in its entirety to one featured list just degraded the featured list.

Strictly speaking, we should probably extend the concept to also pull the following articles in:

• Flags of micronations (Already a column in this list)
• Coats of arms of micronations
• List of micronation currencies
• List of anthems of micronations

Ultimately, my reasoning was similar to the reasons for creating the template discussed in the above thread, combined with a desire to simply centralize content. Thoughts? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we added all the information from all these articles into one table, wouldn't that make a table with about twenty columns? If they were put beneath the list of micronations, like was done with the list of leaders of micronations earlier, the article would be incredibly long and impractical. If only the names of the leaders, coats of arms, currencies, and anthems were added, the table would still have many columns and a lot of information would be deleted from Wikipedia. I don't see why it's a problem having separate articles. If it was a question of space, I could see why, but there is no danger of running out of room for information on Wikipedia. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The currencies list should probably stay on its own, since that would be a bit awkward in this list. The flags and coat of arms lists are both essentially image galleries at the moment. There's nothing wrong with that, but since this list is the list of micronations, it seems to me like a flag and coat of arms column(s) would be a more concise way of handling it. As for the leaders, the only thing you would really have to bring over here is one column for the name and title of the leader.

So if we leave the currencies list alone, but merge the flags, shields and leaders over here, we really only need to add 2-4 columns, one of which (flag) is already in this list. It is true that space isn't an issue, but the current configuration of these very focused lists just dilutes what could be one or two very robust and informative lists. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a no go? Any objection to my trying to expand the table (not just cut and paste the lists in) to include the tables, flags, and coats of arms? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this proposal.

There is no practical necessity, compelling reason or policy imperative for merging the content from the extant multiple discrete articles into a single massive unweildly list as you propose to do - and several very good reasons for not doing so.

Firstly, The separate flags and coats of arms articles are an integral part of an extensive WP vexillological and heraldic article series that has been created over many years thanks to the collaborative effort of dozens of editors; 2 articles should certainly not be moved, merged or otherwise excerpted from that series for no apparent reason.

Secondly, Micromaster raises a valid point - it is not merely the addition of FOUR columns to the existing list - it is the addition of FIVE from List of leaders of micronations plus a further FOUR from List of anthems of micronations plus another ONE if you want to add the coat of arms as well - a total of TEN additional columns; including List of micronation currencies would add FIVE further columns. implementing your suggestion would create a massive, messy, unweildly list, and would be a significantly retrograde evolution of the current simple, neat, clean, legible article split.

The only changes I think that need to be made are (1) the removal of the small flag icons from List of leaders of micronations, List of anthems of micronations and List of micronation currencies, as those represent redundant content already present in this list, and (2) the addition of citations to those 3 articles. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I strongly endorse merging the list of leaders into this page. Reviewing the content of that article, it is clear that the limited amount of information could easily be merged into just one column here.

• Current version of List of micronations:

Official title	Flag	Founded	Description
Aerican Empire		1987	An eccentric tongue-in-cheek micronation founded by Canadian Eric Lis as a child, and maintained for the several decades since. It claims various terrestrial and interplanetary territories as Aerican land.[1]

• Current version of List of leaders of micronations:

Micronation	Name	Date of Birth	Picture	Assumed title	Assumed style
Aerican Empire	Eric Lis	May 8, 1982		Emperor	His Imperial Majesty Emperor Eric Lis

• Proposed merged revision: (rough; there are many ways to further improve the presentation)

Official title	Flag	Founded	Description	Leader
Aerican Empire		1987	An eccentric tongue-in-cheek micronation founded by Canadian Eric Lis as a child, and maintained for the several decades since. It claims various terrestrial and interplanetary territories as Aerican land.[2]	Eric Lis (born May 8, 1982) Title: Emperor (His Imperial Majesty Emperor Eric Lis)

Simply put, there is not a lot of information in the "leaders" table, certainly not enough to warrant a standalone article. The information can easily be integrated here without losing any detail and without compromising the presentation. In fact, it would actually improve Wikipedia's presentation of the material; readers are likely to prefer having both nation and ruler in the same article, rather than having to sift through separate pages. In addition, it would also simplify the process of updating the information as it changes, and better allow us to ensure that content is correct. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I counted correctly, there are 21 entries in List of leaders of micronations and 59 entries in List of micronations. If the articles were merged, would there be a bunch of blank spots, or would someone write entries for all of the missing micronations? --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 16:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Those would be blank spots at the outset. But this does not necessarily degrade the quality of this article, since it actually helps identify gaps where we can further improve. Ckatz's example above is a very accurate representation of what I was getting at. By merging, you actually create a pretty tight list by removing duplicated content and helping ensure that you do not have contrary information across a large number of lists which are generally redundant save for one unique fact. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address the matter of *assumed* titles and styles in any satisfactory manner. Indeed, it ascribes titles and styles in a manner which implies the people in question are actual sovereigns or presidents, and in that respect the proposal is highly misleading.

In the case of many micronations on the List of micronations list, there is actually little - or conflicting - data available on the subject, so the list of blanks will continue to be unacceptably large for a featured list article, which will certainly degrade the standard of the article; I suspect that was the primary reason the separate article was created in the first place. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Two thoughts occur here. Do our gaps in knowledge on who the leaders are represent areas where no one has gone looking for who the leader is, or where that information is otherwise unavailable? Also, I suppose there must be a few examples where there simply is not intended to be a leader. In the interest of not degrading the featured list, we could have a few items which we use to fill in the blanks. For a micronation that is defunct, we could simply have "vacant" or something of that nature, and for micronations which are not structured hierarchically, we could note that. As for the sovereignty issues, the list currently has a pretty clear intro paragraph that explains that a micronation is neither a nation, nor sovereign. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what appears to be an oppose from 203.166.245.85, above, but is there any other firm opposition to me trying to create a version of the table along the lines of what Ckatz demonstrated above? For the purposes of trying this out, I will leave all other lists as they are for a few days after making changes here, and if there is a general agreement that the format works, then I will redirect the relevant lists here. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say go for it - it would be an improvement. The "empty spaces" issue shouldn't be a concern, any more so than with any other table (for example, there are empty spaces in the existing "leaders" table). If anything, it might well inspire others to find the information necessary to fill the spaces. Let me know if you want some assistance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I'm slowly building it in my userspace at User:Hiberniantears/Things. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All available leaders are now on the List of micronations table available here for review. If anyone thinks of some good changes, or wants to add something, please feel free. Also, if anyone is patient enough, I seem to have inserted an additional empty column somewhere, but haven't found it in the editing window. All help appreciated. Additionally, I made the table sortable, since that helps make the additional columns more useful. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice work - I think we should go live with it. The few empty fields are not an issue, especially given that the "Flag" field was never fully populated in the main list. I've tweaked the layout a bit, moving the images of the leaders to the left so that text can flow better. I also removed the sort parameter from three fields that don't have useful data for sorting. I also w\found the extra field and removed it. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. It looks great. Thanks for fighting that pesky bot too! Hiberniantears (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was skeptical of how well it would turn out, but once some more blanks have been filled in (which I plan to try to do more), I think it will look pretty good. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 15:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and redirected the list here. This is a better integrated presentation, and it now has more information than the standalone version did. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austenasia has been featured in a newspaper article, and while maybe there are not enough reliable sources to write a whole article on it, surely it is notable enough to incude in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyuiop1994 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, but Qwertyuiop1994 seems to have a better source for Austenasia than some of the other things on this list have. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. After all, many micronations on this list only have one reference listed. Similarly, Dubeldeka is a micronation without an article that was continually added because of one newpaper article, and it finally remained on the list, after some discussion. Maybe Austenasia should stay. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a newspaper link cited for Dubeldeka http://bowral.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/lodge-secedes-to-form-new-country/270714.aspx and scans of articles and passports http://s719.photobucket.com/albums/ww198/wikispecial/

Where is the alleged newspaper article? Is there a link to it somewhere? If it's a dedicated article in the New York Times, then it should certainly stay. If it's a 1-liner in the Backwoods Times from Trailertrashville, Idaho, then it should not. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oops - found it. Is "Your Local Guardian" associated with The Guardian newspaper? If so, I'd say it should probably stay. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Your Local Guardian is a local edition of the Guardian newspaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyuiop1994 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspapers often report on peculiar goings-on in their community. That does not make the entry notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. If anyone thinks that other micronations are not notable, feel free to nominate them for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austenasia is also on listofmicronations.com, and was recently featured in the Italian newspaper 'City': http://city.corriere.it/pdf/supplementi/Summer.pdf

That's now three seperate independent references, and for Austenasia to be mentioned in an Italian newspaper it must be considered notable. Therefore, I am adding it back onto the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyuiop1994 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice Samana Cay was quickly removed after I added it to the list. I added this micronation a while back and it was also quickly deleted because there was no "Non-wiki" source for it. So, when I found an independent source, I readded Samana Cay and it was again, quickly deleted. Can I ask why this time? Flopo1 (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing here instead of simply adding Samana Cay again without explanation. True, the website you listed as a reference is an independent source, but is it a reliable source? Looking at it, it seems to be nothing more than the blog of a teenager in Argentina who calls himself the "President of the Internet." The interview consists of him asking a few simple questions to the self-proclaimed ruler of Samana Cay. Why do you think that this source is reliable? Please explain here. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your right, but I thought, because of the site extensiveness and its translation to many languages, that no random person would do this. They must have really wanted to create a great website if they took the time to do that. But you have a point and I understand.Flopo1 (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try finding a newspaper or magazine article. If there is one, that would be your best bet. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep my eyes open for one. Thanks. Flopo1 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Someone deleted the Aspinburh page? what is going on? --Greenwoodlion (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone interested in finding a good place for the Commonwealth Republic of Bimini Lemuria? It has a unique history written in my heart. The flag is black with a fuschia cross, being one that resembles the flag of medieval England. Its motto is "East Meets West" and its official languages are English and Japanese. I have fought for this country to be recognized, for after all, a micronation deserves recognition. The currency is the shell ($0.10) and its symbol is the Jolly Roger (skull and crossbones). If anyone has any suggestions, I will appreciate it. Thank you.

Oh, I forgot to tell you, the capital city is Akira and its current location is the Bahamas. Mew Xacata (Raven) (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Mew Xacata (Raven)[reply]

Any reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet the criteria for featured status. It is C Class.

1) It's largely summary of John Ryan's book Micronations. [2]

2) The first reference I checked was wrong, supporting the caption claim that Sealand is the world's best known. The reference did not say this.

3) The second reference I checked was misleading about information in Ryan's book. The Head of State of Sealand, says Ryan, is effectively Prince Michael. The Wiki article names someone who apparently is not active.

4) The third reference I checked at random seems to be fatuous (for Ladonia but the link is Wiki-blocked, and I can't add it here.) "Still we do not believe that Sweden really exists."

5) I question whether the material is entirely encyclopedic, as defined by this article statement "Micronations can also exist in various forms, including in the physical world (on land, at sea and in outer space), online, in the minds of their creators—or some combination of these." It's unsustainable that an encyclopedic "nation" exists entirely in someone's head. It needs to be written down, and that writing needs to be notable.

On the basis that three references checked at random were faulty, it can be assumed many of the rest are, as well. The very definition of the topic seems flawed and unencyclopedic. The article seems to be a mouthpiece for a single work by a single author, who is quoted for over half the references. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites no less than 23 separate references. The first reference has been corrected. --203.214.5.98 (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Piano non troppo. Unfortunately, the Micronation topic has a passionate crew of supporters who manage to shepherd it (and related articles) through countless AfD's and RfC's. See User:Gene Poole, who represents one of the greatest conflicts of interest I've seen on this project over the years; he maintains his own Micronation, maintains the article about it on Wikipedia, uses Wikipedia as free advertising for Micronations in general, and bullies anyone deemed an outsider to Micronations to the point that they walk away from this group of articles. I think it is pretty embarrasing for Wikipedia to have such an expansive coverage of a truly fringe topic. Wikipedia should definitely cover such trivia, but you could easily take all of our Micronation coverage, and distill it down to one very detailed, high quality article. Instead, we have this vacuous, meandering trail of very losely related clubs, movements, hermits, and political statement all innapropriately defined and grouped together under the Micronation banner. Because of this lack of definition, we now have a topic that is open to every bored 12 year old to create an article about his playground fort declaring independence, and I would argue that this is the last thing a credible project would want to promote as a featured example of high quality work. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• References checked and exists.--Yopie (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article that mentions two entities not currently on the list: Maritime Republic of Eastport and Freetown Christiania. --Lasunncty (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Horncastle News has now published an article on the Kingdom of Old Rectoryland [3]. It should now live up to the rigorous standards of wikipedia. Unfortunately I'm not neutral, so would somebody else please verify and add this nation to the list? (79.79.152.93 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This is an attempt to resolve a dispute and help determine consensus concerning the inclusion of this external link - and specifically the lists of micronations detailed here and here - in this article, and in the Micronations article.

Please indicate your personal preference below:

www.listofmicronations.com should be included as an external link:

1. --203.214.132.100 (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.listofmicronations.com should not be included as an external link:

DISCUSSION:

www.listofmicronations.com is directly relevant to the subject of the article.

www.listofmicronations.com is fully compliant with WP:EL.

www.listofmicronations.com represents a more comprehensive, detailed and exhaustive list of micronations than is available from any other known source.

Removal of www.listofmicronations.com from the external links section of this article and from the Micronations article will significantly compromise the content of Wikipedia on the subject of micronations. --203.214.132.100 (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that this IP is an WP:SPA who as been warned several times for vandalism, harassment, and trolling. Per WP:POLLS, the outcome of this vote has no bearing on any final decision in this matter. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Concerning the accusation of "trolling", please note that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 attempted to change this poll to a discussion, baldly asserting that there is "no polling on WP". When I corrected him by posting this message with a link to Wikipedia:POLLS on his talk page, he deleted it as "trolling". --203.214.132.100 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed before it is not in violation of EL, so long as it is not being used as an RS and is simply a link out. It probably helps to assume good faith - the user behind the IP is not under any current aspersion. The whole "polls vs discussion" debate is tired and old - a hell of a lot of things happen by polling in an official sense (including amongst others, our encyclopaedia's adoption of the CC 3.0 licence, the rejection of the WP:ATT proposal etc, not to mention things like ArbCom elections and RfAs) so to say Wikipedia has no polls is false. That being said, discussions are a better way to reach conclusions. Orderinchaos 09:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I feel it is in violation of WP:EL on a number of counts. With regards to the site itself:

• the site is nothing more than a list of names, addresses, and other such data, all of which would normally form part of a well-written Wikipedia article. This fails Wikipedia:EL#Links normally to be avoided point #1.
• there is no way to verify the accuracy of the site's list, other than by following links or accepting the assurances given by the site's owner. While we can certainly follow LoM's posted links to the individual micronation sites, Wikipedia's preferred practice in such a case is to avoid the middleman and go directly to the source. (The site is arguably a fan site for micronations, which fails Wikipedia:EL#Links normally to be avoided point #11.)
• the list's standards for inclusion are outside the control of Wikipedia's editors, as are the associated forum and wiki. (The wiki in particular fails Wikipedia:EL#Links normally to be avoided point #12.)
• there are numerous other sites that would (if given the opportunity) certainly like to list here as well. Why give one site preference merely because its owner is more familiar with Wikipedia's procedures?
• there is an existing process for dealing with controversial entries in an EL section, that being the use of the Open Directory Project. The nominator has openly derided that option, but again this illustrates the problem that his COI presents. DMOZ has long been accepted on Wikipedia as a valuable option for controlling linkspam. If the nom is so concerned about supposed "issues" with DMOZ, he is more than welcome to propose that they add his site to the list.

Normally, we would only look at the link, but in this case there are some highly relevant issues with regards to the nominator that must be factored into the discussion:

• the nominator has finally admitted the direct conflict of interest involved in this proposal, being the site's owner. He has even returned to editing under his previous user name, Gene Poole. Prior to this, however, he has been arguing the case for its inclusion (and edit-warring for the same purpose) as a supposedly anonymous series of IPs, in direct violation of Wikipedia:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest.
• the inclusion of the link serves primarily to benefit the site (and by extension its owner). This fails Wikipedia:EL#Links normally to be avoided point #4.
• given the past history, it is easy to see that this can be interpreted as an attempt to add a link for personal benefit.

Per the external links guidelines, even one of the above points might be enough to deny the request for a link. When you consider them as a whole - the blatant conflict of interest; the fact that the link is being added not by neutral editors, but by individuals connected to the site; the fact that the site does not offer any significant benefit that cannot be incorporated into articles; and the fact that its information is better represented by direct links to the actual micronations - it becomes clear that this link would be of great benefit to the target site, but it would not benefit Wikipedia. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, here are my sources: Lonely Planet Guide to Micronations (pages 98-101),and interview on BBC Radio Solent (sorry, I have the audio file, but it may be online), College Porridge (from Guildford College--http://www.guildford.ac.uk/ServicesFacilities/StudentServices/assets/docs/StudentMagazine/CollegePorridgeIssue1.pdf), the Orange Travel Website (http://www.orange.co.uk/travel/holidayideas/pics/1293_5.htm?linkfrom=&link=link_next&article=travelfeaturemicronations), and Hosteler (http://www.euro26.hr/hh/24/hosteler24.pdf).

Is this enough? I'm not sure how stringent the rules are for inclusion. Do I need more print references?

Thank you. I'm not trying to be annoying about inclusion. If it is not believed I deserve it, I will stop requesting. But we have been running since 2005 and feel truly established ourselves.

Thank you again, Adam Hemmings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.77.110 (talk • contribs)

The problem here is that if your "micronation" is allowed on then every "micronation" that appeares on newspapers and the such like would be allowed to appear. One of the reasons that this article went through a Deleteion review is that there are so many such "micronations" in the list already. Has your "micronation" done anything that people would concider notible?  rdunnPLIB  09:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point. Arguably, Kemetia has done nothing more noteworthy than any of the other nations on the list. Our real claims to fame have been my original youth in founding the nation (I'm now an adult), our business dealings with Ogilvy and Mather as well as contact with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Republic of Syria and Taiwan (although I'm pretty sure they do not quite understand the nature of my enterprise). Still, pretty interesting stuff. Adam Hemmings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.77.110 (talk • contribs)

Let's talk citations. One of the bugs in my craw during my AfD dicussion on this article was poor sourcing, or an over reliance on a substandard source. I think that for the purposes of this list, we need not cite information that is already well sourced in a specific micronation's article (such as name, existence, flag, leader, etc...). For micronations that do not have their own article, then we should consider two things:

• 1) Are sources available?
• 2) If yes, do the available sources merit the creation of an article for said micronation?

If both 1 and 2 do not apply, then the micronation should be removed from this list. One of my points in the AfD was that this list is poorly sourced. I think Adolphus was the one who pointed out that while scant sources are used in this list, it is because the individual articles are themselves well sourced. This was a very good point which undermined my thinking on the sourcing of this article. Since then, it appears that an effort has been made to apply to the "citation needed" tag throughout the list. Using Celestia as an example, I looked at the article and noticed that it is well sourced. Thusly, it need not have a citation tag in this list. However, if a micronation in the article does not merit an article, then it should be yanked from this list. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the List of Micronations clean-up it seems that Dubeldeka was inadvertenty deleted.

A newspaper article can be found here: http://bowral.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/lodge-secedes-to-form-new-country/270714.aspx

Scans of articles and associated documents from the micronation can be found here: http://s719.photobucket.com/albums/ww198/wikispecial/

If there are no objections, then it will be returned to the list.

Apparently "Ckatz" has requested that input from regulars be collected before re-inserting Dubeldeka back on the list.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.85.118 (talk • contribs)

one entry in a newspaper noes not make something noteable.  rdunnPLIB  08:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the photobucket link, there is a scan of another newpaper article. By doubling the number of articles, does it then become notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.85.118 (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case no because there is no indication which newspaper the cutouts are from therfore there is a posibility it is a screenshot from MS Word or some other program and therfore people could assume youv'e made it up. Now, if the "newspapers" are respected national papers then th micronation might be noteable but since programs like "How To Start Your Own Country" there has been an increase in the creations of micronations and they all cant go on the list. What has "Dubeldeka" acctualy done that is noteable?  rdunnPLIB  09:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you call up and find out what they have done which is notable, rdunn. Not everything notable that has been done is on-line. As a professional researcher, I would recommend that you do some physical leg-work before making any decisions about the validity of a subject. To be honest, I am surprised that seceeding from a nation and creating a micro-nation is not in itself a notable event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.85.118 (talk • contribs)

Please note, the burden of proof is on you, not others... Without verifiablility from reliable sources, there is no way to show notability... as a "professional researcher", you should know this already... also, number of mention in a newspaper article does not make something notable, otherwise I (as well as many others, I'm sure) would have an article... what makes Dubeldeka any more notable than some kid decalring his bedroom a micronation, just to get out of homework and chores? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adolphus. My mistake....I am used to publishing original research where you find something out and then report it. I see that things here are quite different. Now let me see if I understand this...all the links yopu provided to "verifiablility", "reliable sources" etc etc, are related to whether something is worthy of an article. I am not saying that Dubeldeka deserves an article. I would like to put forward the notion that a "list" is a place to include a grouping where the notability is lesser than that needed for its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.85.118 (talk • contribs)

No... and that is part of the reason this list survived it's AfD... This list is here so that we have one place to gather all the micronation articles... to be on this list means that it needs to be notable enough for inclusion under Wikipedia standards... If we change the policy for this list, then every day we're going to have some kid adding his newly formed micronation... then they'll use the excuse that "it's on this list, so it deserves an article"... your best bet is to read the policies I quoted you above, and find out if Dubeldeka is notable enough for it's own article... If it is, write the article, and then add it to this list... Worst case scenario, it takes a couple years for them to become notable (enough press coverage, etc.), and then they will be on the list... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(directed at 140.247.85.118) Use your common sence! I cannot realisticly phone up an Australian B&B and ask them about it.  rdunnalbatross  11:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rdunn, It's not as if I am suggesting something that I haven't already done myself in checking this micronation out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.85.118 (talk • contribs)

Agreeing with Adolphus79. The problem here is NOT that the subject isn't significant, it's that there aren't reliable, verifiable references. That doesn't mean Wikipedia has to "take whatever reference it can get", it means the topic does not have sufficient scholarship to be encyclopedic.

This isn't just blind "following the rules". Generally, when I check Wikipedia references, I find that about 1 in 3 do not confirm the Wiki article statements. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if this one has been considered before, but they do seem fairly serious. I think it deserves at least some mention because of it's unique legal status: It was originally a NATO bunker and the territory was never officially returned to the host country (The Netherlands) after being sold. I'm no expert, but it would seem to be a legal lookhole?

Check their website http://www.republic-cyberbunker.org/

Crispy (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must be hundreds of such sites around the world. We can't put them all on the list. If it becomes more well know then possibly.  rdunnalbatross  12:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]