Talk:List of micronations/Archive 3

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

Transnational Republic

I think the Transnational Republic should possibly be listed. Comments? --AlastairIrvine (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By my personal opinion, without problems, but you must add some references. I found only one in Micronations by John Ryan, George Dunford, Simon Sellars and in Krause Unusual coins. --Yopie 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No way, they do not deserve it. --AwockaLord —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

Removing Sunda

Official title Flag Founded Description
Democratic Empire of Sunda Unknown Claims to be the Government of the Kingdom of Sunda (an ancient kingdom, in present-day Indonedia) in exile in Switzerland, the Democratic Empire of Sunda made media headlines when two so-called princesses, Lamia Roro Wiranatadikusumah Siliwangi Al Misri, 21, and Fathia Reza Wiranatadikusumah Siliwangi Al Misiri, 23 were detained by Malaysian authorities, at the border with Brunei, on 13th July 2007, and are charged for entering the country with a fake documents, having illegally stayed in Malaysia, and entering the country without a valid pass. The two were acquitted and discharged from the first two charges by the Sessions Court. Hearing continues. [1][2]

I believe, those people (Lamia Roro Wiranatadikusumah Siliwangi Al Misri and Fathia Reza Wiranatadikusumah Siliwangi Al Misri) were fraudsters. The Sunda Kingdom ceased to exist since 16th century and there was no any records of any activity from them since the time. Hence, a story of "in exile" was simply a lie. There were two rebellion in West Java in Soekarno's era. One of them was Darul Islam and the rebellion did not have any connection with Kingdom of Sunda. The other was Angkatan Perang Ratu Adil (APRA), made by unsastified KNIL such as Westerling and as Darul Islam, the rebellion did not have any connection with Kingdom of Sunda.


While their name, "Wiranatadikusumah" was a Sundanese name and so does "Siliwangi", the name "Al-Misri" raised a suspicion since the name simply means "of Egypt" which will be unlikely if they were descendant of Sunda Kingdom (since the kingdom itself were Hindu, and fanatic one).


Therefore, I remove them from list of micronation Kunderemp (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There are more examples of continuing previously existing states or nations as micronations, including Dominion of British West Florida. There are also examples of fraud in micronationalism, such as the Dominion of Melchizedek, and both can and have been included in Wikipedia, so I don't see why we should remove Sunda. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Flagging all uncited and will remove in a week

Sorry folks, there is so much opportunity to make mischief here. I'll notify as many contributors as I can. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of the entries were either properly-sourced blue-links or had references. I flagged those that didn't, but I'm not going to hurry to delete them. Please find references for them or, after a few weeks, delete them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a good idea - we need a strict approach to this list - too many people lately have been promoting their own micronations. All except one of the micronations you've flagged do have a reference - Lonely Planet. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There are 8 flagged as fact. None have explicit citations. Some of them have blue-links in the descriptions. If you find relevant citations in the blue-links, please add them to this article and remove the {{fact}} flag. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Westarctica?

Defunct? It's true that there website has closed (for now), but I don't think we should call it defunct - apparently (I know this doesn't qualify as a source for WP) micronationalists have been explaining that this is only temporary. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it no longer exists as a website, it is defunct. It never existed as anything other than a website - albeit one which minted some coins. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely fictional Micronations should not be listed here

This article is for "real-world" Micronations. Micronations appearing only in works of fiction, such as Petoria in this episode of Family Guy, should not be listed here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Micronation in BiH 2

There was a micronation in Bosnia and Hercegovina (I think the Bosnian Muslim was the founder). It carried the numerical name, named after catastar particle. Croatian magazine Arena wrote about it in first half of 1991. Kubura (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving micronations here

Any micronations that I have taken off of the micronation article will be placed on here so that they can be added later. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost there...

Hopefully we can nominate this article for featured list status in the very near future. So far I have gathered references for all but three of the micronations. Any new references would help, but next we need to replace all the references with citation templates where necessary. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzupis#The_Republic_of_U.C5.BEupis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.47.182 (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Waveland

The references for Waveland are not reliable.

  • BBC h2g2 - wiki, not a reliable source.
  • Waveland site - a micronation's own site is not a reliable source.
  • Greenpeace - founded the micronation, therefore it "controls" Waveland, again not a reliable source.
  • FOTW - edited by various users, similar to a wiki, not a reliable source.

If you do find any sources that are reliable, then please add them under the correct citation templates (WP:CITET).

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So, I just added new references, mainly from reliable books. I can add more, from various news, but, I think, that now it is OK. With same prejudice one can delete about half of micronations, as Sunda (few references), Other world Kingdom etc. --Yopie 17:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Waveland was deleted because it had no reliable references... until now, so it can be added again. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Empire of Austenasia?

What about the Empire of Austenasia?

Here is it's web address: www.austenasia.webs.com

I won't add it to the list because firstly I dont know how to on the table format, and secondly I don't know if it meets the criteria to be featured on the list of micronations.

Hi. It can only be added if it is notable (with reliable, third-party, published sources that support its existence). - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


OK, its been featured in a newspaper article so I'm going to add it now http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/topstories/4064529.Carshalton_home_declares_itself_independent_state/ 77.103.210.146 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Does some of these countries still exist. I know Sealand and Molossia exist but Im wondering if some of these states are already extinct states. Bottomline, Does all these states exist or are some of them already extinct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.25.93 (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They are micronations, which can make the answer more complicated than a simple yes or no. We often have records about when they started but because micronations are ephemeral it can be very difficult to determine when they exactly end (unlike with sovereign states, where wars, parliaments etc. clearly decide their existence). Talossa, for example, is notable and there is no reason to believe that it has ended, but it has recently been largely uninvolved in the activities of micronations. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity but are you from a micronation or the UK because in your User page you have info about Sealand so Im wondering if you are a Sealander. Im from the Philippines and the United States just incase ur wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.63 (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not from a micronation, and I am not a Sealander. However I mostly edit articles about micronations, so I joined WP:MICRONATION here on Wikipedia. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

nations that link back to same page

is there any point in having links that link back to the same page? Rdunn (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Government of Norton II in Exile

I came back and checked before adding the page in the wiki for it on verious related subjects, and found it was gone. If this is going to happen I do wonder if I should even add my micronation to wikipedia. I should note that I plan to add the page sometime this week, as time is available. Emperor Norton 2 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Don´t waste your time with article, that probably fails WP:NN and will be probably speedy deleted--Yopie 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking around I did decide it would be a rather large waste to do anything with wikipedia. 98.212.79.206 (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stigistan

I tried to add my micronation, Stigistan, onto the list, but it kept getting removed. Can responses be sent to my talk page on the Micronations Wiki here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.49.73 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

dude dont even try these guys are crazy you cant just add it, you have to have a bunch of differen things, im facing the same problem--AwockaLord (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Conch Republic flag.gif

The image File:Conch Republic flag.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Principality of Dubeldeka

This is a micronation near to Mittagong/Bowral in NSW, Australia, that I have visited. There is one news article on the web, http://bowral.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/lodge-secedes-to-form-new-country/270714.aspx I have scanned two news articles that were faxed to me from Dubeldeka, a passport and the back of an envelope with a crest on it. The scanned images can e viewed in this on-line photo album: http://s719.photobucket.com/albums/ww198/wikispecial/

There were no comments about this so I went ahead and added it to the list140.247.85.118 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Add Awocka!

Nilfberg is a recently founded micronation in california, and i think it is worth putting on the list and it iis a real non fiction micronation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilfberglord (talk • contribs)

Just being a real micronation is not enough—it should be verifiable and you will have to establish its notability by providing reliable sources such as media coverage of the micronation.–Capricorn42 (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh I just saw your edits, plain vandalism. I shouldn't have taken you seriously I guess.–Capricorn42 (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Nilfberglord is one of reasons for my request for protection of article..--Yopie 10:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for the vandalism i dont know how to edit yet and i my computer froze up. and to capricorn i have exstensive matereal i would love to share with the wiki world, again im sorry for messing it up. and i reallly do think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilfberglord (talk • contribs) 05:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is only 225 mentions to Nilfberg on google... all to do with Viking: Battle for Asgard and thats only is when you click "repeat the search with the omitted results included."  rdunnPLIB  11:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


The Two leaders have come to an anonymous decision and REnamed the mironaion Awocka. -AwockaLord- —Preceding unsigned comment added by AwockaLord (talk • contribs)

Just changing the name of your country does not make it any more notable... as Capricorn42 originally told you, your country needs to pass several of Wikipedia's policies before we can add you to the list... WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV are the big three... Have there been any newspaper articles written about your country? Does anyone even know about it outside of the two of you? Do you even have a constitution, tract of land, flag, national anthem or motto, or even a website yet? Please understand that we are not calling your country fake, we are just trying to explain that it is not notable enough (yet) for inclusion in Wikipedia... feel free to come back once you are notable, or if you need help proving such notability now... let me know (or any of us at the WikiProject) if we can be of any further help... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We have around 30+ people that know about us. We have Parts of a website that is under my control. we have a Code of Law, Four plots of land, a Flag and a semi devoloped anthem and a motto. i am also currently talking to th local pamphlet of my town to get a spot in there so i may receive recognition of my micronation. -AwockaLord- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.241.167 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And how about any reliable sources for any of this? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you want me to send you this stuff or what i have all of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.241.167 (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

really what we would like are links to newspaper articles or books written about the subject... did you read WP:RS or WP:V yet? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked every micronation on the list for those? do they have books? and how many articles in the news do you need. And why does it have to be a third person account its more reliable if its 1st person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.241.167 (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Because that's the way any encyclopedia works (including this one). They do not publish original research; they report on other people's critical commentary of that research. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we have checked the others, and on a daily basis (until it was protected) were reverting other newly created non-notable entries... please understand that third party reliable sources are used because (most of) the larger newspapers and news outlets check their facts before they publish the article... this is done because if we allowed primary sources to be used here on Wikipedia, then every kid who had the time/money to put up a website about themselves, would be using that website to create a referenced article here that "Joe is the coolest kid in the world!" (there are already innumerous articles created like that daily)... if that happened, what do you think Wikipedia would look like? How would this effect the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole? Please do not think that we are picking on you specifically, but these are the policies that were laid down to ensure that Wikipedia would be as accurate as possible... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

i do understand the whole thing that everyone would add their page saying im the best or the is person is a fool but thats not what im trying to do. i am trying to prove the legitamacy of m nation so i will have even more proof to get more exstensive reseach done on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.241.167 (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem, you're doing it backwards... Wikipedia is not the place to add your non-notable nation in hopes that having an article on Wikipedia will gain you notability... the exact opposite is the case, Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) is where an article is written once notability has been proven by several credible sources making mention of you... your best course of action right now would be to get a website up, and get some local authority to take note of your micronation... that might then peak the interest of your local newspaper to write an article about you, and then you would be started on the path to notability... nothing brand new is automatically notable, micronation or not... an article in an encyclopedia (Wikipedia or other) is gained by being notable enough that other people want to write about you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

i have the website already, but if i get in a newspaper then i can be in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.241.167 (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

not just a mention in one random newspaper...
  • Per WP:N, "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
  • Per WP:RS, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."
Please take the time to read WP:N and WP:RS... notability is not something that can be gained overnight, but if you take your micronation seriously, and the news takes you seriously, it's quite possible that one day you may have an article on Wikipedia... when that time comes, let me know and I would be more than happy to help you write the aritcle... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What woulld happen if i add awocka myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.241.167 (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, at this time, it would probably be reverted or deleted... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the web address anyway? If some of the editors look at it we can tell you what we think then. rdunnPLIB  08:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am still editing another page and this one is not totally done yet, [its more like little tidbits of nothing and stuff like that, the next page will be more detailed and have the hisotry to it.] http://andrewpwheeler.com/Schedule__Calendar_.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.241.167 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that one page on your personal website does absolutely nothing to prove notability... and the poll at the top does even less, a couple of your friends think you should be on Wikipedia, but do any of these people understand Wikipedia policy? A flag made in MS paint, a borrowed image for your coat of arms, a small list at the bottom of what you have (including a non-existant website?), but no links to references about the country, no documentation of anything (constitution, statutes, etc.)... The comment at the top ("Awocka is a new nation, but it is still great. Although we are having trouble being able to be recognized by wikipedia we are strong and we will prevail.") shows to me that all you are doing is trying to get an article on Wikipedia, and not focused on building a serious country... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I said that page had nothing and i was making one with the other stuff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.241.167 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009

Where is your proof that your nation's independance has been ratified by the UN or the host nation? (If its the USA you have no hope of independance (I remember reading that the US wont allow any parts of its states/commonwealths to become independant))  rdunnPLIB  09:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

also if you dont login w/your account you wont get the number of edits necacery to edit a semiprotected article. rdunnPLIB  09:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's in my Declaration of Independence --AwockaLord (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And where is that? Like I said above, there is absoltely no documentation on your website... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Actual documents are on paper but a digital version is on my computer --AwockaLord (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

--Yopie 08:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the over all answer is No  rdunnPLIB  10:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you want documentation of i have all of it. --67.188.241.167 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Samana Cay

I have put Samana Cay on the list and it has been removed, even though it is just as credible a micronation as others. I think it should be included on the list. And if it shouldn't, can I get an explanation why? Flopo1 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, per the notability or verifiability policies... The only information I could find online about the island were in regards to Christopher Columbus... I could find nothing about a micronation... could you provide any third party reliable sources to verfiy the notability? (your own website is not a reliable source)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
That isn't my website. I just stumbled upon it. Does that make a difference.Flopo1 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Whether your created it or just stumbled upon it does not matter... it's a matter of notability and verifiability (as I stated above)... can you find any other information about it, other than it's own website? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll look around and see what I can find.Flopo1 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I've found a website. Micronation Encyclopedia. The website is limited but the information seems good. Flopo1 (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Culling the Cruft

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)

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)
  • 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)
@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)
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)
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)

The issues

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)

Simply:
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)

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)

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

Independent State of Aramoana

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)

Free State Bottleneck

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)

Republic of Indian Stream

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)

Llanrwst

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

Lundy

Comments for inclusion
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)
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)

Islands of Refreshment

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)
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)
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)

Kingdom of Romkerhall

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)

Free Republic of Schwarzenberg

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)
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)

Kingdom of Tavolara

Comments for inclusion
  • Today is micronation, as Seborga
Comments against inclusion

Principality of Trinidad

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)

Sulu and Sabah

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)

Plan to merge List of leaders of micronations

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

== Inclusion of dot com/ List of Micronations as an external link == (edited on archiving to bypass blacklisting)

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)

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

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)

Removed - it fails the reliable sources and external links guidelines. --Ckatzchatspy 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Restored. Meets WP:EL. WP:RS not relevant. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
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. --Ckatzchatspy 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)

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. --Ckatzchatspy 06:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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)
  • 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. --Ckatzchatspy 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. --Ckatzchatspy 05:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)

Should there be a "List of Micronations Warning Template"?

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Cleanup and merge information in List of leaders of micronations here

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:

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)

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)
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)
  • 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)
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)


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.

Official title Flag Founded Description
Aerican Empire 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]
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 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. --Ckatzchatspy 04:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    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. --Ckatzchatspy 17:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. I'm slowly building it in my userspace at User:Hiberniantears/Things. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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? --Ckatzchatspy 23:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. It looks great. Thanks for fighting that pesky bot too! Hiberniantears (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. --Ckatzchatspy 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Austenasia

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Austenasia is also on listofmicronations dot 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) (edited on archiving to bypass blacklisting)
For some reason Austenasia has suddenly been deleted from the list after having been on there for over a year - in that time it has of course got more references, and so I am adding it back to the list along with four seperate independent references: a British newspaper article, an Italian newspaper article, a South Korean newspaper article and an article on the AOL-run website Asylum. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Folks. I reverted a recent re-addition of Austenasia (Dec 20), but looking at it more closely I think I was wrong to do so. A single local newspaper would not be sufficient for notability, but Austenasia has made it into international publications. Merry Christmas to Austenasia and all her citizens. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Samana Cay

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)

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

Aspinburgh Page

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

Commonwealth Republic

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)

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

Article is C class, not featured

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. [4]

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)

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

Eastport and Christiania

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)

Old Rectoryland

The Horncastle News has now published an article on the Kingdom of Old Rectoryland [5]. 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))

Poll: List of micronations and Micronations external link

This is an attempt to resolve a dispute and help determine consensus concerning the inclusion of dot com this external link - and specifically the lists of micronations detailed dot com/listphysical.html here and dot com/listvirtual.html here - in this article, and in the Micronations article. (edited on archiving to bypass blacklisting)

Please indicate your personal preference below:

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

  1. --203.214.132.100 (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC) (edited on archiving to bypass blacklisting)

dot com www.listofmicronations dot com should not be included as an external link: (edited on archiving to bypass blacklisting)

DISCUSSION:

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

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

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

Removal of dot com www.listofmicronations dot 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) (edited on archiving to bypass blacklisting)

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)
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)
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)

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. --Ckatzchatspy 18:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign Kingdom of Kemetia

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)

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)

Culling the Cruft II: In Plain Cite

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)

Dubeldeka

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

(directed at 140.247.85.118) Minnow 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)

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)

There have been a a couple of articles recently...a photograph and caption in the Washington Times, and an article and video in Voice of America. Let me know if these are suitable references: http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Australians-Fed-Up-with-Government-Create-Their-Own-Micronations-93098649.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/07/a-nation-to-call-their-own/?page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.84.133 (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Dubeldelka" is not mentioned at all in the Washington Times piece you linked.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right. There was a series of photos from the Associated Press with the article originally, which included a photo and caption of Dubeldeka (The leader signing a visa), and now there is just one. There is a mention on the micronations website: http://listofmicronations.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=653 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.84.99 (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are some photos of Prince Vas of Dubeldeka taken by the Associated Press: http://www.apimages.com/Search.aspx?sh=10&st=k&remem=x&kw=micronations&intv=None —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.84.141 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dubeldeka has been recognized by the Associated Press, see above link, Is there any reason why it cannot be included in the List of Micronations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.84.42 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just putting on a funny hat and calling yourself a Prince or an Imperial Majesty may get your picture in the paper, but it does not mean that your micronation has been "recognised" or that it is notable. See WP:42 for what notability means. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

JohnCD You must be English with that positive attitude! What you describe above regarding hats and titles is a universal trait of micronation leaders...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.84.42 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a specialised Wiki for micronations at MicroWiki, why not make an entry for Dubeldeka there? Wikipedia is only interested in things that meet the notability requirement, so trying to get it in here is likely to be a frustrating waste of time for you. JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a series of links on the Dubeldeka website to news articles...edging towards notability? http://principalityofdubeldekagov.org/3.html

Republic of Cyberbunker

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)

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)

The Anti-micronation Crusade - Part 1394

I know that this is probably better placed on WP:MICRON, but it seems that there is yet another anti-micronation crusade from those who, when it comes down to it, have no better reason than "I don't like them". In what is nothing more than a desperate attempt to delete another article, the list of leaders and the list of micronations have been merged - not that there is anything wrong with that in itself, but the pictures are far too small, the additional details fill up unnecessary space, and the whole reason why the list was created in the first place was so that people could find one referenced, reliable source of summarised information. If the micronation is notable enough, then we can go into details about the leaders, the currency - everything that makes up what is otherwise an empty entity; but until then we should not resort to cut-and-paste merging but sensible, well presented merged articles. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I beleive most of this has been discussed. What the major current problem is, is people addinf micronations that are nor notable.  rdunnalbatross  10:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dagostinia

After reading through this talk page, I want to be sure that the inclusion of my micronation Dagostinia is not subject to the flip-flopping status that others have been. We are on real, owned property. We have a government set up. We have a web presence. We have a permanent population. We aim to create currency, postage, and other ephemera. While I realize the latter is not proof of a micronation, we meet all other requirements as set forth in the League of Small Nations. We have also been officially recognized by His Excellency, Kevin Baugh of the Republic of Molossia.

Please leave the reference and link on this page and allow us time to develop our wiki entry.Bdag (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as this is covered by a reliable source. WP:V is policy. -- Bfigura (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, please Write the article first. -- Bfigura (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Questioning 1970s as Beginning of Modern Micronations

This will seem picky but I want to politely dispute references I see here and elsewhere to the 1970s as the beginning of the idea of micronations (in the modern sense). I believe it would be more accurate to place it in the 1960s.

My friends and I started a micronation in the early 1960s, although we did not use (or even know) the word. Perhaps we pioneered the idea! I have written on a separate site about the Union of Confederate States [6]. Note that I am not lobbying for our inclusion in Wikipedia as I have no present evidence for our country's existence beyond personal memory (mine and that of some of the other participants I have contacted).

Besides my own participation in creating a micronation, I also recall from the 1960s

1. Seeing a mystery guest on a TV show (either "What's My Line" or "I've Got A Secret") who was revealed to have built a huge raft that he anchored in the Caribbean and declared an independent country.

2. Reading a newspaper story about someone who wanted to create his own country on an island in the middle of the Rio Grande that had formed following a hurricane. Claiming it was new land that neither the U.S. nor Mexico owned, he wanted to build a gambling casino on it and a bridge to the Texas side of the river. He was ultimately thwarted in this, as you might imagine.

3. Reading a newspaper story about two youngsters in Tennessee who proclaimed a Confederacy of Tubbyville. After they mailed a declaration of independence to the President of the U.S., they were visited by FBI agents who questioned them for several hours. I've been in contact with someone in that area who says there are people associated with Tubby's Bar (for whom the Confederacy of Tubbyville was named) who well remember this incident.

P.S: I also note, from the article itself, that Sealand's founding is put at 1967.

Farfloogle (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source

Most micronations are deleted because they don't have any reliable source. My question: I'm a member of a micronation, this month that micronation and the founder will be filmed by the RTBF for a informative documentary. Is a reportage from the RTBF a reliable source? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I believe it is.  rdunnalbatross  09:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I add Flandrensis to the list with a link to the documentary on the website of the RTBF --Niels Vermeersch (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Source

I have a reliable source (documentary on the RTBF), so I add my nation to the list. But an admin still delete it because he can't watch the movie when he goes to the website link. It seems that only people in Belgium and French speaking nations can watch the movie on the website of the RTBF (something with rights?). On the french page of list of micronations they have accept Flandrensis to the list, how can I fix the problem so the admin here can watch my source and I can re-add my nation? --Niels Vermeersch (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Finding a source that is in English and can be easily accessed.  rdunnalbatross  14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you view this movie? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The State of All Australia

Who removed such an additon to the list? What are your justifications? H.R.H Soveriegn King Bradley the Great, Autocrat of All AustraliaBKCW8 (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Your Majesty, that would be me. As it says in a comment at the top of the article source: "If your entry does not have a well-sourced Wikipedia article, you must include at least one reference here." For some reason, the entry for your realm lacked this. Favonian (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm displeases me - Kudos, however on calling me "Your Majesty" - that must of been really hard for you =D H.R.H Soveriegn King Bradley the Great, Autocrat of All AustraliaBKCW8 BKCW8 (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I live in a macroscopic monarchy, so it comes naturally. Favonian (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

and what microscopic monarchy is that? H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia 10:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I included a reference and it still was removed...whats the dealio? H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 06:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it was self-published source.--Yopie (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition

I don't suppose you'd allow Ultamiya on the list? I have a perfectly good reference point, an article on MicroWiki, and I am not going to make an article. I just want to see if I could put it on the list.

Sincerely,

His Lordship, David Salapa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.181.159 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A Microwiki article is not sufficient to meet WP:N or WP:RS, so, unfortunately, no.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding Flandrensis

Hello. I am Barnaby Hands, President of the Democratic Environmental Society of Senya, which is a micronation located in Norfolk. While my nation does not deserve recognition on wikipedia, I would wonder if the Grand Duchy of Flandrensis would be allowed. It has been included in several documentaries (e.g. This Belgian Documentary), and has it's own flag here. Would you include it on the list?

Eesti 08 (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you could provide something a bit more substantial than a TV blog calling the state a hobby it would be helpful. As you can see from the section above, a MicroWiki reference also falls short of Wikipedia's standard for reliability. Thanks Tiderolls 15:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

incomplete list template

Someone should add the incomplete list template, since there are obviously far more micronations in existence than just the 40 or so on Wikipedia.--Samusaran253 (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In list are only notable micronations. Of course, there are more micronations, but ommited fails to prove notability. For understanding please read WP:NOTE.--Yopie (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

may I add mine to the list?

I'm fairly new to editing, so I would like someone else to do it. My micronation is the Union of Caribbean Socialist Republics (UCSR) it was recently started and I have 3 citizens including myself. Does this count as notable enough? I'm currently building up citizenship. www.ucsr.webs.com for my national website (or micronational if you prefer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falowane6 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You would need to show that the micronation is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Please see WP:N. This would require, for one thing, that reliable sources have significantly covered the subject. ... discospinster talk 21:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 November 2011

Autonomic Republic of Germany The Autonomic Republic is founded from citizen of former German Democratic Republic. The cause are human right violations against political activists and surveillance society in FRG. Date of Foundation: 24.May 2009

Authority Autonomic Republic of Germany Tanenbaum (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done In order to be included in the list, a micronation must show notability, therefore it must already have its own Wikipedia article, or you must include references that show coverage in reliable sources which are not self-published. If you have any, please feel free to request an edit again and include it in your request. Zidanie5 (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of flags

I just added a few flags to the list. There's about a dozen more on this list which have flag images on their respective article pages but not on this list. I was going to add them until I saw the comments advising not to because they were non-free images. If that is the case, then should the flags also be removed from the articles? I can't think of why it would be okay to use the flags on the articles but not okay to use them on this list (where they'd be much smaller anyhow). I'm just thinking that either it should be okay to use the flags in both places or not okay to use them in either place. Lurlock (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lurlock. Someone made the effort to create the flags, upload them to Wikicommons and use them in the respective Wiki articles. I think we should respect these creative efforts if at all possible. I have thus "un-commented out" the previous links to flag images, where the flag images are still viable. Any possible issues with the use of non-free images should be addressed at Wikicommons or the respective main Wiki articles linked to in this list. The flags provide a nice visual element to add to this otherwise sterile list. I could not find the "comments" mentioned by Lurlock, so unless I find any such comments or see any other comments by editors, I will leave the flag images restored. AlanSiegrist (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012

WAFEF The Kingdom of WAFEF is the world`s first football micronation formed 1991.

Wafef (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Riboalte

I would like to call your attention to the Kingdom of Riboalte (now defunct and that takes its name from the House of Riboalte). From http://www.chiefacoins.com/Database/Micro-Nations/Riboalte.htm:

According to its official Web site (without web), the Regne de Riboalte "is a virtual microstate." The capital of this monarchy is named Santa Maria Magdalena, after its patron saint. Its official languages are Catalan and Spanish. The brief history of the Kingdom is as follows: On 22 July 1999, a group of citizens established the micronation (in the Spanish province of Lérida) as an independent/sovereign state. His Royal Highness Emili I (he is also described as the founder) assumed the throne as king. The Kingdom of Riboalte claims two overseas territories (autonomous states): Islote de Sant Jordi (a small island in North Africa) and Pequeña Isla Mosquitos (in the Gulf of Guinea).

The current status of Riboalte is not clear. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Land Area

Perhaps we can add a new column listing the area of each? (eg. usually in m^2...with exceptions, such as Westarctica which, with 1.6 mn km^2, is a quarter of a continent!); for ones that are "nomad states" but still claiming some imaginary "land", or past land (e.g. Eel Pie Island for Lovely), this area can be listed in brackets with an explanatory note; or, for something like Sealand, which is not true land but an artificial platform, again, brackets or italics with explanatory note. Any thoughts? BigSteve (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Same for population - true populations + imaginary or claimed populations, along with explanations in the notes column (e.g. Lovely has several thousand registered citizens) BigSteve (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dalton

I would like you to add the micronation Dalton to the page. It's a self proclaimed republic under socialist rule in North-East England and Yorkshire. It consists of six enclaves. Fore more information, here is the MicroWiki page.

--SaluteChciken (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable third-party sources that discuss the micronation? ... discospinster talk 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not currently. But if there is one created, I shall notify you. --SaluteChciken (talk)

Edit request on 5 April 2012

That the Kingdom of Aretesia Micronation be included in the List of Micronations. Aretesianscribe (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done unless you can show that it is notable to Wikipedia's standard, which means giving references to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see also WP:42. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 April 2012

The Republic Of Veshault and City Of Microna were started in 1999.. then doing much online 2001-2004. They also had REAL coins minted in 2002 (called a Microna) which can be viewed on there current site http://www.veshault.org and under the Microna National Bank link from there.. They are also active on facebook as well.. They had bought 40 acres with Torhavn Project back in 2002 for future CITY/TOWN of Microna, but Torhavn backed out due to funds.. Veshault pressed on and bought 10 Acres in West Texas.. and then bought 11 acres in the same location (last Spring) as it was on a road unlike the original 10 acres... There 1st building is going up April 17th.. Again if you check around the internet all the information can be verified.. including the COINs being minted and verified with McCree (coin collector) whom has some.. 71.251.140.184 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done unless you can show that it is notable to Wikipedia's standard, which means giving references to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see also WP:42. The test is, have multiple people not connected with the microstate thought it worth writing substantial comment about? JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 May 2012

I would like the Technocracy of Larusia (short: Larusia) added to the list of Micronations. It is an established micronation with 23 citizens, part of the League of Countries, has an official Website and also has its own established Wikipedia Page. If you have any questions regarding this micronation, please contact the head of the nation at archtechnocrat@larusia.com .

BobaHat (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I placed the wiki page up for AFD. There appear to be no external sources that can verify the notability of your fictional microstate. At the very least we should hold off on putting you into the list pending the deletion of your article. Syrthiss (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 Not done The page has been deleted. →Bmusician 04:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 May 2012

Adding information about area of Hutt River: 75 km2--Synthesium (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Synthesium (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Done I confirmed this with the Hutt River article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 May 2012

add the micronation "north dumpling" to the list. as it claims to be seceded from the united states but is not recognized by other countries other than being informally recognized by the united States. source: wikipedia: north dumpling island.

24.130.151.221 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment This seems to be more of a joke than a micronation. I'll let another editor make the decision though. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan Vesey, from reading North Dumpling Island it does not appear the owner is making a serious claim of sovereignty or nationhood. If you have sources to the contrary, please re-open the request with them. Monty845 05:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 June 2012

please add "Espatricalia" to your list. Description: "A non-territorial micronation originally founded in 2005 by Espen Skretteberg and Arthur Haakonsen under a similar name. After a period of inactivity, Espen Skretteberg re-established the micronation under its current name in 2012. Formerly a democracy, ruled by a senate, it is now a monarchy ruled by His Royal Majesty, King Espen I."

founded: "originally 2005, re-established 2012"

leader: "His Royal Majesty, King Espen I"

Flag: File:Http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/2517/flaggg.jpg

National coat of arms: File:Http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2760/hovedvpen.jpg

Skrettis (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done:This page is only for micronations that have been mentioned widely in reliable sources and all micronations should have their own page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 7/3/12

I would like to add my own micronation, Wyhzette, to the list.

Members: 2

Government: Benevolent Dictatorship

Currency: Wyhzette Bit (pegged in value to USD)

Motto: In sectando Justitia, Libertas, et Capital Lucrum et Efficiency

Exists Where?: Internet

Capital City: Foxborough [[File:Bouncywikilogo.gif|thumb|My nation's flag for now]]

Denonym: Wyzettean (p: Wizz-et-tea-nn)

Time Zone: Pacific Standard Time

Leader: Sir Paul Kang of Foxborough (2000-present)

Purpose: To (in the future) sell useless merchandise and (right now) entertain micronation nuts like me.

Link to micronation:http://paulsblogherald.blogspot.com/2011/06/wyhzette.html

May I please have this added? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kranton54 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Kranton54 (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Kranton54

Not done: Sorry, but you'll notice that each of the entries in the article has its own Wikipedia article, an indication of notability. A Google search of "Whyzette" returns 34 hits, many of them completely unrelated to your micronation. Rivertorch (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request July 28th, 2012

Hello, I would like to add the Belgian micronation Grand Duchy of Flandrensis to the list. My sources are two Belgian newspapers (Het Belang van Limburg and Gazet van Antwerpen), a Russian newspaper (Chastny Korrespondent) and an article on Columbus Magazine that is already mentioned on the page (see reference 42).

  • DAMIAANS, R., DILLEN, R., Uw krant op bezoek bij Europese micronaties Deel 1: Flandrensis, Het Belang van Limburg, 20 July 2012, page 20-21
  • DAMIAANS, R., DILLEN, R., Dwergstaten Deel 1: Flandrensis, Gazet van Antwerpen, 23 July 2012, page 8-9
  • CHASTNY KORRESPONDENT, Micronations on the Southern Continent, 28 August 2010

The articles in the Belgian newspaper are not online but you can download a copy of those articles on this website (see PDF-files below). Next week I have an article in the newspaper Het Nieuwsblad and an intervieuw on the Radio 1 (Belgium) as sources. If you have any questions about the sources or newspaper you may ask so I can give more evidence. I hope to hear positive advice --Lyam Desmet (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Petoria

Saying Petoria is a fictional micronation is incorrect because regardless of your definition of micronation, almost all agree that not being recognised is a part of the definition. This would contradict the fact that the fictional nation had sanctions, meetings with abmassors and world leaders, and their membership in the United Nations. As with such, I request the removal of Petoria from the list. --65.182.245.138 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, if Petoria is to stay in the list, the population should be 5: Peter, Louis, Chris, Meg and Stewie. Brian the dog and the evil monkey living in Chris' closet should not be considered part of the population since they are animals (albeit linguistically able). --Masalih (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 September 2012

Republika Zaranska

1972

Situated on the tri-border point between Romania, Hungary and Serbia, Republika Zaranska is permanently stuck in the immediate post-communist transition period, and is a benevolent dictatorship.

President Zarand Hayamburuk (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 September 2012

TCMR was recently established as a new micronation and would like to bebome recognized on Wikipedia. the information is below: Flag is white with pink, blue,red and green stripes in the form of a square. The National Anthem has not been established yet. The currency is the Thunder Canyon Denarii (TCD^). It is now a member of the Micronational Space Agency. It is ruled by a queen with no king and the Adeillaie who controls everything the queen does not want to handle. Thanks, Adeillaie Tyler L. Stern 66.186.97.190 (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Besides, it's probably not notable. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2012

TCMR additional info: Currency Is denarii and Flag will be white with an engraved pattern of blue light blue pink and green stripes and TCMR printed in the center. National Anthem Adopted 2012 is "The People Shout Hosannah." 64.134.196.114 (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request Nov 26 2012

Edit request on 26 November 2012

Could Dubeldeka please be returned to the list? A great of discussion has gone on to ensure its inclusion, please see above section 16. Many thanks

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There does not appear to be any consensus arising from that discussion to support your request. --Ckatzchatspy 20:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have added a request in the Dubeldeka section for a consesus to be reached. It seems that the AP has recognized it which must count for something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.84.42 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 November 2012‎

Edit request on 1 December 2012

I would request you reword the pharse "which may have a legitimate claim to sovereign state status," as the word legitimate in this context is biased and not fitting of an encyclopedia. 65.182.245.138 (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2013

There is a new, not yet official micronation that I feel needs to be added to the list. It's located in Indiana, USA. It's full name is the Independent Country of Pangoro. Shortened, it's just Pangoro. There's been no official drawings of flag. It's leader is currently 15 year old Kaitlin Keith, whose birthday is July 2nd. She started her micronation after finding a growing interest in micronations and made her own. HelloKittyMonster (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ... discospinster talk 02:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2013

I have noticed that you have forgotten the Empire of Shashi-Mahal, I have found the link to this empires official website : shashi-mahal.webs.com . I have even gone and met its emperor, he is a 14 year old boy,whom is a bit of a megalomaniac. all the informations are on the website, BTW this micro nation is in Malaysia. Lampiaoshedan (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm not entirely familiar with this list, but it appears that a minimum criterion for inclusion is that the micronation have a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Also you need to provide references that are independent of the subject, not just its official website. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2013

Also I noticed you missed the Republic of Bolarya, national website being www.bolarya.webs.com once again I met their leader Mr X who is called Aiden Graham actualy and the website displays it all once agian including flag and online population

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ... discospinster talk 19:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2013 latest edit with flag

|- | Shrulund | File:Flag of shrulund.svg | 2013 | Shrulund is a small country in the northern hemisphere lying between 51 and 52 degrees latitude. It comprises of managed woodland and private land. | | | |- Shrulund (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Website can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/shrulund/home

Flag can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/shrulund/home/flag

Not done: Please provide reliable secondary sources to support the edit you've requested. A government's website by itself does not constitute a reliable source. --ElHef (Meep?) 17:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Caravor

I was reading this list and I noticed that The Empire of Caravor is not listed on this. I was wondering why. Or could it just have been overlooked. They have a site though. Www.caravor.webs.com Stefanthegreat2 (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please show with reliable sources that such a place exists. Pretty much a blanket statement that just coming here and saying 'we have a website!' will not work. Syrthiss (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom Of New Texas

Name:Kimgdom Of New Texas Founded: 2013 Descripiction: a "for fun" Micronation made in suburban Houston by child King Gage The 1st and Only. Has several parts of houses as territory and have a constitution written up. Leader: Richard Gage Cole Area: several hundred square feet. Population: 5 I would like for the Kingdom Of New Texas to be added to this page. While we are not well known to other micronations, we have several websites including this one: kingdomofnewtexas.webs.com/ All the same we have everything that is required of a proper micronation and therefore have no reason to not be included on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.225.181 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Voveu (Vovovitsa)

I guess the Bulgarian area near the town of Sevlievo known as Voveu (Latin, Romanian) or Vovovitsa (Bulgarian, Serbian) was a micronation in the Medieval Era. "Vovovitsa is a site in Northern Bulgaria. It is located in the municipality of Sevlievo, Gabrovo. Located in a forest area near the River Rositsa, north of the town of Sevlievo, in the land of the Kormyansko village.

The area was named after the old mill, which was located here (in the local dialect "vovovitsa" means "mill"). Vovovitsa exist as a settlement since the 12-13th century and was created by foreigners - immigrants from Romania and Croatia. In the 14th century some Bulgarians moved in the community. It dubbed itself a Kingdom and had a king. The Bulgarian state was weak at that time and ignored the creation of a sub-country inside it. Over time, the settlement shrinked to its present size, but it remained distant from any nearby villages." 95.111.106.220 (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ryan, John. Micronations. p. 102.
  2. ^ Ryan, John. Micronations. p. 102.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_micronations/Archive_3&oldid=1148048169"