Wikipedia talk:Micronations

General principles concerning micronation articles
Given the controversy they generate I think it is probably a good idea at this point to try to establish some general principles governing the inclusion/exclusion of micronations from Wiki. The set of informal criteria I have myself used over the past several years is as follows:

1. That its existence is independently verifiable by more than 5 offline documentary sources.

2. That such documentary sources are likely to have come to the attention of a minimum of thousands of people in a minimum of 5 countries over a period of years - eg through the medium of popular television and radio broadcasts, and in high circulation national newspapers.

3. That it has produced substantial physical evidence of its existence - ie tangible objects such as coins, medals, banknotes, stamps, passports (preferably all of them) produced in multiples of at least hundreds - or alternatively, that it or its representatives have been involved in court cases or other public processes, meetings or ceremonies, for which transcripts or photographic records exist.

My view is that if a micronation fulfills all of the above criteria it has a demonstrable existence in the real world (irrespective of whether that existence is "legitimate" according to interpretations of law or historic precedent), and which, as part of a wider cultural phenomenon qualifies the micronation as a notable, valid article subject.

It is my view that all of the micronation articles currently listed in this category fulfill these criteria, and that any proposed future inclusions should equally be required to do so.--Gene_poole 02:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Given that a further year has passed since I posted the above comments I thought it would be a good idea to review how my proposed principles are stacking up against Wikipedia's evolving consensus on this subject. The following is the list of articles about micronations that have been nominated for deletion (that I'm aware of - I'm sure there are lots more) during the past couple of years. It clearly demonstrates that articles about micronations that conform with my proposed principles above are almost always retained, while those that do not are almost always deleted. This evidence is even more compelling given that 2 of the kept articles below were nominated for deletion a total of 5 times. --Gene_poole 05:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd reopen this discussion in light of [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_and_Lesbian_Kingdom_of_the_Coral_Sea_Islands_(4th_nomination) the fourth nomination of Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands]. Can I suggest the addition of "A permanent population, of any size, identifying as citizens and residing within the claimed territory." That's pretty generous IMO, but would knock a lot of the more dubious ones out. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Results of Wikipedia micronation articles nominated for deletion
''Moved to Micronations. --kingboyk 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)''


 * Er . . . Almea isn't a micronation. It's a conworld. Wiwaxia 03:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on criteria sought
See Articles for deletion/Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina... perhaps some discussion by others about these criteria may be useful. They seemed reasonable to me and I've been using them in weighing how to comment regarding the recent batch of micronation related AfD nominations, but they may not be reasonable to others. I think the analysis showing correlation between the criteria being met and previous AfD outcomes gives empirical support to their usefulness. ++Lar: t/c 08:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One problem is that those criteria are very, shall we say, forgiving. Imagine that my family have a long running dispute with the government. It's been reported a few times on local TV and in the regional newspapers, a catchment of thousands of people. With absolutely no foundation in law, I decide to declare our property an independent state. No other sovereign nation recognises me. I may as well say I'm Napolean for all that the average person cares. Nonetheless, our dispute with the government gets a bit nasty. There's a stand off, and I'm carted off to jail. Reuters picks up the story, and a few papers around the world pick up the story about the eccentric Englishman. I am now eligible for an article on Wikipedia. All the above criteria have been met. Now, let's be honest, some of the micronations which have been proposed for deletion this week are little more than the fantasy I have just put to you.


 * 1. That its existence is independently verifiable by more than 5 offline documentary sources. Fine, but I would say 5 different offline documentary sources. 5 articles in the Sydney Morning Herald should be not enough.


 * 2 is fine by me.


 * 3 I feel is way too lenient. Court cases should not be enough, as my 'fantasy' above illustrates. Coins, passports, stamps etc should only count if they are valid somewhere. Can I spend the coins and banknotes freely (are they legal tender) anywhere? Are or were the stamps valid for international postage? Have any legitimate sovereign states accepted the passports as valid travel documents?


 * 4 The policy makes no distinction between territorial micronations and artistic/political/fandom ones. I believe this needs to be addressed. As first offer, I would propose that WP:WEB should apply to those micronations which are purely of the fantasy/hobbyist type and which are internet based. I've nothing against these entities at all, it seems like a bit of harmless fun to me, but Wikipedia is not.... well you know the rest... --kingboyk 19:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your intro/example, I think you're probably right, as it stands the criteria may well be too lenient. I think a new analysis of outcomes may be a good thing, it may wel show some skewing farther toward deletion from the first analysis, but I think part of the point of the policy was that it seemed to empirically bear out how votes seemed to go, at least that was my read. Regarding 1. maybe something like 5 articles, at least 3 different sources? If we're getting to concrete maybe we agree the bare bones idea is workable, with some dial turning, rather than that the metrics are completely the wrong ones? ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 3 different sources is certainly better than 5 articles from the same newspaper. --kingboyk 21:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nod, those 5 articles could be just because one writer or editor has a hobby... (oh, and further, the same 5 artciles seem to be used in support of all the micronations or wannabe micronations anywhere near Oz... WP:WEB suggests that the notability test is more than a mention... some considerable length needs to be devoted to the topic in the article or programme or whatever... I personally think WEB is too stringent but it bears mentioning that is the approach it takes...) ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly my thoughts. It's quite possible there is a micronation hobbyist working for SMH (nothing wrong with that, but we shouldn't rely so much on one fine but regional newspaper). I'd add too that one particular book seems to be cited in many articles too - Strauss, Erwin S. How to Start Your Own Country. --kingboyk 21:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nod again. My thinking here is this: given that Micronations seem a phenomenon that is of cultural significance, there are three classes of them... those important (current or historic) enough to warrant their own article and a mention in the main Micronations article (Sealand, Indian Stream being two that come to mind), those not important enough to merit their own article, but still important enough to be merged into either the current Micronations article, or perhaps a new one called "minor micronations" or whatever, and those that are so unimportant that they don't even warrant that. Using these 5 articles and one book as a binary decision maker isn't going to help get to that sort of 2 tier gradation. I'm just someone that wandered into this, with some minor interest (being libertarian as I amtends to get one sent info on a lot of these proposals, not all of which, er, float...) so I can't really speak to where to find more guides to notability but more ought to be found if possible... I think I'm done commenting in detail till more folks weigh in though. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --kingboyk 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So... anyone have any more comments now? I think both kingboyk and I felt we had said our piece barring further comments from others. A number of micronations have now went through AfD and the above box updated with results. Any change to the empirical predictive ability? Any comments on the 3 tiered approach? Any desire to move this forward into a useful metric? ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it'll have to wait till later in the week. I spent 3 hours writing a response earlier today only to lose it all when Wiki had one of its periodic fits. --Gene_poole 04:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You probably don't wanna hear it, but "external editors" are your friends. I don't edit small stuff that way but anything big I periodically repaste into a local text editor (UltraEdit being my favorite but that's a war topic in itself!) I look forward to your rewrite. ++Lar: t/c 05:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yikes! Save often. I don't trust computers, if wiki doesn't have a problem Firefox crashes on me (sad to say but true, since 1.5 came around). --kingboyk 15:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I know this is an old thread now but would you, Gene, be willing to update your proposed guidelines based on any consensus which emerged from the above discussion, and put the result into the proposal on the attached page? (Micronations). --kingboyk 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Talossa
There are soooo many micronations THAT ARE REAL THAT CAN BE VERIFIED. I think that people should stop deleting these articles. My Kingdom of Talossa, for example, was deleted and protected, for the simple reason that I provided no source except for the website fast enough. I know that this micronation fulfils all those critea and can cite those newspapers if any adin, King of Hearts in this case, can give me enough time. I would appreciate any admin help.--Kitia
 * There are very very few micronations that are "real" in the sense of being more than just a website. If people continue writing articles about unverifiable micronations, then they'll continue to get deleted. --Centauri 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can provide the newspapers that sitedthis nation. Anyway, even if it is only a website, which it isn't, it still provides info, which is what the Wikipedia is all about, right? --Kitia
 * What Wikipedia is "about" is outlined in the following 3 keystone policies: WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. One of the things Wikipedia is definitely not about is writing articles about insignificant websites - see WP:NOT for further detail. --Centauri 01:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Talking about Talossa in general (Kingdom and Republic, I'll not annoy you with internalt issues, but I'll assure you that there's a friendly cooperation among them and they may unite in a nearer future), I believe that should be created a page about Talossa, even if I'm not sure if the 1st point of this policy is fullfiled. Why I believe this (and the fact that I'm a member of this community does not influence me)? Because Talossa, founded in 1979, is probably longest suriving micronation (model country) and the first one of his gendre. Some says also that its founder was the one who invented the word "micronation".--Elistir 14:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why I created this page
This copy of a messsage I left at User talk:Gene Poole should explain my rationale:

Hi Gene. We had a discussion around a year ago about micronation notability. I'm currently sorting through the micronation articles again, and I believe there are still issues with them and a need for some guidelines. Therefore, I've moved the old category talk page into wikipedia space, and created a micronations page at Micronations. In Micronations I've sketched a few proposed principles based on some of the problems I perceive. I've also left a request for you at Wikipedia_talk:Micronations.

Feel free to notify interested editors about this; WP:CANVASS doesn't apply as there's no !vote to canvass :)

BTW, I don't have to justify attempts to improve the encyclopedia, but lest you think I'm looking at micronations again as some sort of campaign, it's not. As last time, I stumble across these articles whenever I start working on pirate radio articles (Radio Caroline is an interest of mine), and the cruft and the legitimising of entities which the reliable sources generally treat as little more than a cultural curiosity or a bit of fun never ceases to amaze me. I focus on articles, not editors. --kingboyk 15:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The chart showing results and alignment with principles is very helpful, I think it should be kept... I wish more projects and policy pages did that. I find myself in agreement with the general principles outlined, this seems a good start for a page. (n.b. Kingboyk let me know he's starting to work on this again, you may recall my talking about this here before) ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary guideline
I do not see the need for this guideline. It seems like an instance of instruction WP:CREEP. Edison 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) I agree. There is no need which justifies a further guideline. --Kevin Murray 08:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that there is no need for a specific policy on micronations. If a micronation is verifiable in multiple reliable, non-trivial sources then by definition an article about it should exist in WP. If not, then the converse applies. That's really all there is to it. The micronation subject itself is totally uncontroversial and very well documented. --Gene_poole 09:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that existing articles don't follow our policies of WP:NPOV, giving undue weight to visions of statehood and not reflecting what the reliable sources say. I am attempting here to merely lay out how our existing policies and guidelines should apply to this subject.

The guideline which I'm certain is needed, and which Mr Poole himself worked on in the past, is a notability guideline. I haven't placed that on the attached page yet as I was waiting for Gene's interpretation of the debate as it happened last time (see ).

I'd ask folks to "wait and see" and not dismiss this until it's finished; if you think it's unnecessary when it's finished then so be it, it can be tagged as rejected.

With regards to WP:CREEP, you have to remember that we have 1.7 million articles and counting, and we need guidelines of style and notability if we are to manage this article pool effectively. This proposal hasn't been started for the sake of it or because I like writing these things (I don't), it's because I see a real problem of non-neutrality and trivial sourcing in the micronations articles. --kingboyk 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have never argued for any "notability" guideline on any subject in WP, as "notability" is fundamentally opposed to what WP is about. The only thing that matters in WP is verifiability. If something is verifiable in multiple non-trivial sources then we should have an article about it. If it doesn't, then we shouldn't. There's no need to make micronations an exception to the rule just because one or two editors with a bee in their bonnet decide to create a song and dance about it once every 12 months. --Gene_poole 12:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's right there at the top of the page: Wikipedia_talk:Micronations. Or did you intend it to just be some criteria you would use to track AfDs? --kingboyk 12:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I should note that the existence of notability guidelines is a long-standing fact. It's rather pointless to argue here that we shouldn't have any.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this guideline is unneccessary and WP:CREEP. Micronations can be covered under the general notability guideline, WP:N. I propose we tag this page with rejected. UnitedStatesian 16:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP:WEB should apply to online micronations, not WP:N.
 * I also think it does no harm to have specific guidelines and would once again ask that folks wait until the proposal is finished before rejecting it. --kingboyk 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is unrealistic in its premises and I see no evidence that the problem it is trying to address is not well handled by WP:N and WP:V. The exceptions to those guidelines are unrealistic for editors to measure quantitative standards.  This should be nipped in the bud and marked as rejected.  To argue that it should be allowed to evolve further is folly as the process of evolution at WP is unending and under that argument nothing would ever be rejected or deleted. --Kevin Murray 17:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the history of contributions to the proposal it appears that there has been one person driving this with other mimor contributions from two other editors, one of whom states above an opposition to the adoption of the guideline. Based on the clear support for rejection among the other participants at the talk page, I have marked this as rejected. Continued discussion does not preclude evaluating a consensus toward rejection. --Kevin Murray 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But funnily enough it was based on his criteria, and an old discussion between several people based on those criteria. I don't understand why there's such a rush to tag this as rejected before it's even finished. --kingboyk 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing at WP is ever finished. Why continue to put energy into a failed scheme?  --Kevin Murray 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are you to decide it's failed or more to the point advise me how to spend my time? This initiative was to formalise criteria based on those originally proposed by Gene Poole, and to do it in the interests of making a high quality encyclopedia; I'm quite happy to accept that folks don't want it but not so happy to take at face value your implied assertion that you alone decide not only that this is rejected in it's current form but that it has failed altogether when it's only been here a few days. --kingboyk 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? Because kingboyk is currently attempting to singlehandedly re-define the term "micronation" without reference to community consensus or external references. It is an attempt in which he will fail. --Gene_poole 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not attempting to redefine anything. I'm trying to get the articles to reflect what the sources say, per our policies. You are the one who has an Arbcom case about POV pushing against you; you are the one who wants to label every seccessionist movement or bit of fun as a "micronation" whether or nor it's supported by the sources. Indeed, some of these seem only to be of interest in the coin and stamp collecting worlds, but the articles never say that. If they did they might be more neutral. --kingboyk 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Normally I would be against Kevin Murray and others on Wikipedia who argue against instruction creep. But this is an example of where I am fully with them. The argument of 5 offlines sources, etc. is plainly unreasonable and more onerous on readers than perfectly fine guidelines like WP:N. I object to the kingboyk going round and nominating everything to do with micronations for deletion in some vague hope that this should still be the case. JRG 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are arguing against one alternate version of the guideline, not the existence of a guideline. Please feel free to make your own suggestions or indeed to edit the attached page, it's a wiki after all. --kingboyk 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Money/passports validity
The new proposed guideline requires that the money or passports be accepted somewhere.

This misses the point. If they're accepted somewhere, it's not a Micronation, it's a Microstate. This whole category is for things which aren't widely excepted. A notability criterion which by its nature excludes the whole category is nonsense.

The point of the criterion that Gene created is to filter out projects which have little attempt at real-world presence. It takes time and effort to create money and passports, whether they're recognized or not. Most non-notable projects never bother. Georgewilliamherbert 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Point of info: That was an old objection from ). Thanks for the info. Sounds fair, let me think about it please. Anyone else wish to comment? --kingboyk 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see that particular point above; if it's there and I missed it, then I apologize for the extra section heading. Georgewilliamherbert 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I'm glad of the new input. The attached page is based on old discussions (archived above); we need to thrash out where we stand now. Cheers. --kingboyk 21:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What are your thoughts, George, on whether we should have guidelines relating to micronations at all? --kingboyk 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Firstly, the established consensus for micronation article names, with some exceptions, is to use the long form. This differentiates them from "real" countries, the articles for which use the short form.

Secondly, the long form generally accurately reflects the micronation name in third party reference sources.

Finally, the long form is useful for disambiguation purposes in such cases as Sealand, Seborga, Aramoana and Atlantium, where there are multiple organisations or entities with the same name. --Gene_poole 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I've noted that long form is currently the most used and indeed, as you say, that there are exceptions. It would probably be best to standardise on one system or another; I've asked for advice on where best to discuss it. Will post back if I have any news. --kingboyk 14:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)