Talk:Principality of Sealand
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Principality of Sealand article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Principality of Sealand is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 28, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wrong Latin in motto... (For those who care)
Hi there, just wanted to point out that, given that "e(x)" goes with the ablative case and the ablative singular of "mare" is "mari", the Latin in the motto should be "E mari Libertas", not "E mare Libertas". As we are all aware that His Royal Highness' family is century-old, meaning that there might be some sort of medieval history behind this "e mare" which I am not aware of and from which the current motto is derived, let it be on my head! But if His Royal Highness cares about the proper Latin in his nation's most renowned motto, I suggest he changed it for the sake of his people.
Explanation: Mare is a neutral word of the third declension. In Latin third declension words, generally speaking, have the ablative ending "-e". But since mare (stem: mar-) ends with an -e in the nominative case and on top of that is a neutral word, meaning that the accusative case is also spelled "mare" (as opposed to (the hypothetical masculine/feminine) "marem"), the regular "mare" exceptionally becomes "mari" in order to distinguish the form of the ablative case from the nominative and accusative cases. This is as far classical Latin goes, anyways.
Notable People Who Own Sealand Titles
There seems to be a lot of edits on the sentence in business operations about Sealand's titles and a few celebrities who own them. I originally added this sentence "The principality also sells noble titles on its online store, such as Lord and Baron. Some notable individuals who possess titles from Sealand include Ed Sheeran and Nas Daily." Which had sources for both individuals at the end. I have recently seen that there are a lot of edits regarding this topic, first with Ben Stokes being added to the list of individuals with no source, and now some BBC presenters, also unsourced. I think the general topic is notable enough as it generates a share of Sealand's publicity (especially the Ed Sheeran claim as he is very famous), but there needs to be some consensus about this section in the article, especially as the list of unsourced celebrities who are being added grows by the day.I would probably recommend using my original edit, but probably take out Nas Daily and just have Sheeran. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sheeran, Wogan and Fogle are all mentioned in the source. So, the material can't be removed on the basis that it's unverified. DrKay (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry I just noticed that, I am not too familiar with Wogan and Fogle. I knew Sheeran was sourced though. I feel like my original point still stands that the section has been pretty volatile recently and I fear that more people will just arbitrarily change the individuals listed there. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, there's potentially an argument for removal based on triviality. DrKay (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know if the whole thing should be removed (it is how they make money), but I think having more than one individual on there is trivial. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The entire Sealand operation is pretty trivial - it's just a long running scam operated by some dodgy chancers. I'm surprised the article takes it so seriously. The idea that it's an actual micronation with a monarchy is preposterous. This was once a WP:FA! --Ef80 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know if the whole thing should be removed (it is how they make money), but I think having more than one individual on there is trivial. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, there's potentially an argument for removal based on triviality. DrKay (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry I just noticed that, I am not too familiar with Wogan and Fogle. I knew Sheeran was sourced though. I feel like my original point still stands that the section has been pretty volatile recently and I fear that more people will just arbitrarily change the individuals listed there. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Population
Around 20 people live in Sealand, not 2.—Coughers (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Coughers: What is your source for that information? ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Very easy to find. Just look it up on Google.— Coughers (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidance. DrKay (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Very easy to find. Just look it up on Google.— Coughers (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- auctally according to this reference https://worldpopulationreview.com/regions/sealand-population its 27 Paytonisboss (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@drkay it states the population is 27 along with Google and the following 2 sites https://steemit.com/blog/@hsynterkr/the-smallest-country-in-the-world-with-27-population-sealand https://www.indiatvnews.com/web-stories/trending/smallest-country-in-the-world-sealand-population-27-2023-04-12-862850 paytonisboss (talk)
- These don't appear to be reliable sources. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- how come? everywere i look it says 27 population with only 1 permenate resedent Paytonisboss (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidance. DrKay (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- do yall just stalk these talk pages, also i will look at that refrence thanks Paytonisboss (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- You can use the Watchlist feature to help monitor page activity. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- if i find a "good enough sorce" can i request that yall add it to the info box? Paytonisboss (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you locate a reliable source, feel free to share it. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- okay Paytonisboss (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/micronation-sealand-bates-royal-family-60-minutes-transcript/
- reliable?? Paytonisboss (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- As long as you are not quoting Michael Bates, yes. Bates himself is not independent. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I´m pretty sure its not quoting him so I think its a reliable source Paytonisboss (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I just noticed its quoting everything from that interview ima look for a another source Paytonisboss (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, before the interview, Wertheim writes "Sealand has a full-time population of… one." DrKay (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- As long as you are not quoting Michael Bates, yes. Bates himself is not independent. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you locate a reliable source, feel free to share it. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- do yall just stalk these talk pages, also i will look at that refrence thanks Paytonisboss (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidance. DrKay (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- how come? everywere i look it says 27 population with only 1 permenate resedent Paytonisboss (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Inclusion of symbols
The removal of all symbols from this page is unwarranted. The arguments made in the RfC were specifically regarding whether the inclusion of symbols in the infobox would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. This has no bearing on the body of the article. The flag and coat of arms of Sealand are widely used emblems of the micronation and there's no reason why they shouldn't be included. Loytra (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide the necessary secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that the flags and coat of arms have been discussed in sufficient depth to merit inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sources that specifically highlight the flag: [1][2][3][4]
- Sources that mention the flag: [5][6][7][8]
- And this is after a minute of looking.
- Loytra (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't say I'm overly impressed with commentary that mostly merely notes that Sealand has a flag. Hardly in-depth discussion, in my opinion. Still, perhaps we should see what else other contributors think. The article has been edit protected for a week, so there's no hurry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- None of those links include in-depth discussion of the flag, they merely note it exists and sometimes show a picture of it. The unbylined Business Insider India piece is not RS. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump is in the wrong here. The RfC consensus was that flags of micronations shouldn't be in the infobox as this puts undue emphasis on the symbols and legitimizes non-countries by making their infoboxes look just like the infoboxes of real countries. The RfC consensus was not that symbols are prohibited from appearing anywhere in the article. And RE: JoelleJay, there does not need to be "in-depth discussion of the flag" to put it somewhere in the article. We are not discussing writing a standalone article about the flag and its symbolism or history. The fact that numerous sources confirm the flag's existence is more than enough to display a small image of it in some paragraph. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that states that sourced 'existence' is necessarily sufficient grounds to include something. And I'd note that secondary sources discussing the coat of arms haven't been provided at all. AndyTheGrump (talk)
- AndyTheGrump is in the wrong here. The RfC consensus was that flags of micronations shouldn't be in the infobox as this puts undue emphasis on the symbols and legitimizes non-countries by making their infoboxes look just like the infoboxes of real countries. The RfC consensus was not that symbols are prohibited from appearing anywhere in the article. And RE: JoelleJay, there does not need to be "in-depth discussion of the flag" to put it somewhere in the article. We are not discussing writing a standalone article about the flag and its symbolism or history. The fact that numerous sources confirm the flag's existence is more than enough to display a small image of it in some paragraph. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Should we add the flag to the infobox?
The flag instead of the base would be very informational. Additionally, we could move the previous image to another location on the page. Bennett1203 (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_191#RfC:_micronation_infoboxes, where it was decided by clear consensus that micronation infoboxes should not contain flags. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Actually Andy, the finding was that consensus was generally against it. You'll note that it included the caveat of (albeit rare) case-by-case use of flags. Certainly, that's no measure of if its appropriate here, but the door has certainly been left open for the community to decide that it is appropriate. TW 04:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- And note the stipulation that "symbols which are recognized or reported by reliable sources may be appropriate to add, as important information." TW 04:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Actually Andy, the finding was that consensus was generally against it. You'll note that it included the caveat of (albeit rare) case-by-case use of flags. Certainly, that's no measure of if its appropriate here, but the door has certainly been left open for the community to decide that it is appropriate. TW 04:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Very informal thank you. Bennett1203 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you meant "informative". I agree with Andy and didn't see any reason to expound. We've already discussed this at the RfC. Having another discussion isolated to a single article isn't helpful. The answer is, simply, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for being late, but I meant informal, not informative. Bennett1203 (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I told Andy: the closure specifically (and intentionally) left the door open ("Certain symbols which are recognized or reported by reliable sources may be appropriate to add..."). The community can certainly decide that the flag is appropriate to add under that decision (and that it comports with the guidelines). TW 04:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you meant "informative". I agree with Andy and didn't see any reason to expound. We've already discussed this at the RfC. Having another discussion isolated to a single article isn't helpful. The answer is, simply, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Very informal thank you. Bennett1203 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
RfC on the inclusion of symbols
![]() |
|
Is it appropriate for symbols (e.g. the Flag of Sealand) to appear somewhere in the article? Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Background
A few months ago, a Village Pump RfC was held regarding the use of flags in infoboxes on micronation articles. It closed with a consensus that it is generally not appropriate to display micronation flags in the infobox, though it may be allowed on a case-by-case basis.
For a few months after that, the flag was moved down to a paragraph, but it was not removed entirely from the article as the RfC pertained only to infoboxes. This became a point of contention this month as one editor felt that the RfC meant it should not appear anywhere in the article.
Since this is still an unresolved issue and there are multiple threads about this, I feel the best way forward is to settle it through an RfC.
I suggest the following options, but you are always welcomed to !vote for a solution not listed if you prefer.
- Option A - Symbols (e.g. the flag) may appear in the article body, just not in the infobox.
- Option B - Symbols may appear in the infobox.
- Option C - Symbols have no place in this article.
Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Survey
- Prefer Option A as nominator. I feel this is the most consistent with the result of the RfC. That said, the RfC did leave open the possibility to flags appearing in the infobox on a case-by-case basis provided that there are enough sources. As the RfC close note mentioned, one of the main problems with micronation flags is that they are far too often unverifiable and unrecognizable. This is not the case with the flag of Sealand, as it is without a doubt the most well-known of the micronations. However, there are still other concerns with flags in micronation infoboxes, such as the potential to mislead a reader into viewing the micronation as more legitimate or country-like than it really is. For those reasons, I'll also weak endorse Option B, but I find A to be the least problematic. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- Comment What does 'e.g.' mean? If this is a question about including the flag, then don't confuse the issue by discussing abstract 'symbols'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I thought it should be fairly obvious what e.g. means in this context. Flags, coat of arms, and other symbols. The previous talk page thread was titled as such, the closing comment of the RfC specified more symbols than just the flag, etc. There is nothing to be confused about. If you feel one way about the flag and another way about other symbols, you're always welcome to state that. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- C-Class East Anglia articles
- Mid-importance East Anglia articles
- WikiProject East Anglia articles
- C-Class Micronations articles
- High-importance Micronations articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment