Template talk:Sealand table

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Grammatical Mistake

The song and motto of the "state", "E Mare Libertas", is grammatically incorrect. The preposition "e/ex" takes the ending "-i", with this class of noun, so that it ought to be "E Mari Libertas" Just thought the governement would like to know!!


Hello. I thought the same thing until today. Mare is a neuter third declension i-stem, so one would expect the ablative singular ending to be long i, rather than short e. But on looking it up, I saw that both Bennett (39.2) and Allen & Greenough (76.a.3) say that the ending in e is "sometimes" used with mare. I guess the Sealand folks lucked out!!!

It might well be gramatically incorrect, but that's the way they've been using the phrase since the 1970s, so that's the way we need to document it. --Gene_poole 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to editors

The template "Sealand table", is currently being used by several editors to attempt to define a model template that can be used for entities that, for one reason or another, might not be considered states. We (the editors) may not quite agree on what entities fit this need, but are working together to see what we can come up with.

[edit] Refactored conversations from other pages

On one revert, Rivarez commented "country templates are for countries, we had this before". The template in question is actually a custom template I created for Sealand, not a reference to the country template. This is the same solution as was implemented at European Union, another non-country for which there was information that it made sense to organize in a table. -O^O

My view is that there should be an infobox specific to micronations that have articles in Wikipedia (of which there are currently about 40) , to provide readers with information "at a glance" on these entities - however it should make clear that they are micronations, and not recognised states - perhaps by including the word "micronation" prominently in the header cell. I had been intending to initiate this as a project for some time, so if anyone else would like to assist, message me via my talk page. --Gene_poole 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I too see the need for something like this, but I have a concern that "micronation" is too narrow of a topic for a template. The problem, that I see, is that just as we see ourselves arguing over when it is appropriate to use the "nation" template, we would also find ourselves arguing over when to use this new "micronation" template.
Do you think it would be useful, instead, to consider a "non-state" template. Ideally, this would be something that could be used at Sealand, European Union, and Palestinian territories equally. I choose these three as examples because they are all "things" that have many statelike trappings, but don't meet the threshold for "nationhood" on Wikipedia. -O^O 02:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I've been an editor here for three years, and it's taken me that long to knock some sense into the more hysterical elements around these parts concerning such basic considerations as recognising that historic micronations are indeed a subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Now that that battle has been won, and Wikipedia has some fairly solid micronation content, it's time to start finessing and tidying it up, and I think info boxes for each article could contribute towards achieving that. What I don't think would be a good idea, would be to create an info box that confuses micronations with other unrecognised entities. Firstly, I don't think it's good to confuse entities like the Palestinian Authority or South Ossetia with those like Sealand and Hutt River Province, which are distinctly more ephemeral in nature; secondly, if you do so, you'll almost certainly create a major all-in edit war lasting for months - and I don't relish that prospect at all. I've just added more detail to the Sealand infobox, but I'd like to have the word "micronation" in white, against a dark coloured background - do you know how to do that? --Gene_poole 02:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello again, and thanks for the note. I too, have been editing Wikipedia since 2002, which means that you and I have outlasted many users and many disputes. Like many things, classifying "non-states" requires compromises between involved parties. Based on your note on my talk page, I don't think we see eye-to-eye on exactly how we would classify non-states, but that doesn't mean we can't work together in the spirit of useful compromise.
Regarding Palestine, it was indeed classified as a micronation well into 2004. Personally I perceive that there is a perhaps a continuity of statehood, where I would place in order Aerican Empire, Sealand, Palestine, North Korea, and the United Kingdom. Any attempt for wikipedia to draw a bright line designating micronations from nations is bound to find disagreement.
I will work in the spirit of moving forward to develop a template that can be used for micronations, but I don't know that I agree that Sealand is a micronation. I think I object to making the label micronation an explicit part of the template.
All that said, how about we consolidate this talk to talk:Sealand table and see if we can make progress? -O^O 03:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello again. I do feel strongly that with any infobox we need to make a clear distinction between unrecognised entities that have de-facto control of large geographical areas and population centres, and which have a reasonable likelihood of achieving statehood as it is currently understood at some future juncture - vs entities that might be considered decidedly eccentric or ephemeral, based upon arcane interpretations of law that may not be widely accepted or taken seriously, with pretentions to control over only very limited physical resources and/or populations. I consider the latter to fall within the definition of "micronations", and I certainly view Sealand as conforming closely with that definition. That aside I'm happy to work with you to get a template of some sort established that can be used for these types of entities. --Gene_poole 04:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I've taken the liberty of playing around with this info box to make it more suited to micronations. I've tried to NPOV some of the terminology, so I've replaced "head of state" and "head of government" with "leadership", which is a less provocative and more accurate term. Hope this is useful. I couldn't get the text in the header boxes to centre properly tho - you might want to see if you can fix that. --Centauri 10:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Got an idea to bounce around. Currently, this table contains a lot of the trappings of statehood. For example, a flag, a coat of arms, a motto, etc. However, the trappings of statehood aren't what make a state. Since the need for this template is based on the key idea that there are non-states that need classification, I think we should make some attempt to make that classification in a NPOV way in the table itself. I'm imagining a little subtable where we list both the declatory and constitutive requirements, and then check off whether or not the entity appears to meet them. I'll make this contribution later today, unless someone convinces me the idea is broken. -O^O 14:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that listing the declaratory and constitutove requirements is a source of potential controversy, with people arguing for and against fine legal distinctions of "ownership" and "control". I also think words like "government" and "population" are potentially charged terms. I think that for the table to describe the attributes of these entities in an NPOV way we should instead use terms like "leadership" and "membership". I also wonder whether it's necessary to include "capital" at all, as most micronations that claim territory don't seem to have one. I also like Centauri's idea of a category heading, per the Hutt River Province infobox. Concerning Palestine being listed in the micronation category, I'd say that was a case of someone not understanding what a micronation actually is. --Gene_poole 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Gene, lets just agree that we disagree on Palestine. Once upon a time the definition of micronation used on wikipedia included aspirant states, and now it appears not to. The definition we are left with, unfortunately, consists primarily of entities that don't have much of a serious claim to statehood.
I'd like to keep some version of the constitutive and declatory requirements, as whether or not an entity meets those is going to be one of the primary ways to classify one versus another. As an example, an entity that claims or controls no physical territory is in a differenet category than an entitity that does have territory. Similarly, an entity that has formally recognized as sovererign but has no territory is in yet another class. For *most* entities, I don't think it will be too hard to decide whether or not they have each of the criteria...
I do like Centauri's category heading, but I see the immediate problem that people will debate whether or not to apply it to certain entities. You wouldn't agree to put it on Palestine, and I might not agree to put it on Sealand. Here's a thought experiment I've been playing with myself - Should the Confederate States be considered a micronation? -O^O 23:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I was responsible for writing the majority of the micronation article, and I've always been clear that aspirant states or national self-determination groups like Palestine, East Timor, the South Moluccas, West Papua, South Ossetia, Abhkazia etc never belonged there. I would also never view the Confederate States of America as a micronation.
What differentiates micronations from other unrecognised/separatist groups is largely to do with their size, both in terms of population and geography, their ability to exert de-facto control over populations and territories, and the likelihood they have of achieving "real" statehood. No micronation has sufficient population, territorial, material or moral resources to have any realistic hope of achieving any meaningful form of statehood.
As an example, Sealand, after nearly 40 years, is still 1 eccentric British family claiming posession of a decrepit man-made structure in the English Channel that they can barely afford to maintain - and which will probably eventually fall into the sea during a storm, like one of the 2 other similar Channel fortresses did about a decade ago. It's never going to be a "real" country, no matter how much they'd like it to be, and no matter how many arcane legal arguments are put forward in its favour. All of this makes it a micronation - plain and simple - and the same criteria apply to every other entity curretly listed in the micronation category.
So, in summary, I don't think having an infobox with "micronation" in the header cell is particularly controversial or impractical, because the box with that name will only ever be used for entities that have a demonstrably quixotic existence. Of course, the same infobox coul:d also be used for other unrecognised entities by changing the header to read "self-determination movement", "unrecognised country" or whatever.--Gene_poole 00:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment and describe Sealand from another point of view. Sealand, after 40 years of struggle, is a fully sovereign state located on a man made island. Due to the cruelties of fate, Sealand had not been recognized by any of it's neighbors, and this has been one factor leading to its impoverished state. As one of the poorest nations in the world, it is likely that Sealand will one day suffer a catastrophic natural disaster and suffer the loss of its homeland. At that time, Sealand will pass into the legion of former states that dot history.
Ok, Devil's Advocate mode off. Sealand makes a claim to statehood. It is fair and NPOV for us to report on that claim, and to report on counterclaims and counter arguments. However, I don't think it is NPOV for us to act as the judge of those claims.
I think the balance the template needs to make is to present all the information available, without passing judgement on any of it. You'll notice I just changed the "properties" fields to "claims", because I realized that "properties" wasn't NPOV. I guess, if I'm trying to make a conclusion, I'd say we cannot attach a label like "Micronation" to Sealand unless all parties (including the "Government" of Sealand) agree that is the proper label. - O^O 14:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
In my view the application of the label "micronation" to ephemeral statelike entities that have an anomalous nature is the only valid option if any sense of neutrality is to be maintained here, because the term is widely understood as applying specifically to those types of entities. Almost every micronation in existence claims to be a legitimate sovereign state, but as neutral observers and recorders of a phenomenon, we cannot be seen to support those. assesssments, because they are largely eccentric minority opinions. So, in summary, I think applying the term "micronation" to Sealand is valid and reasonable, because it is not generally accepted as being something other than that. I'm in general agreement with the other changes you've made, but I'm still a bit unsure of some of the affirmative content of the decarative and constitutive sections. For example, saying that Sealand posesses territory is problematic, as there is no agreement that a concrete and steel structure constitutes "territory" - there have in fact been major arguments on this subject on the talk page in the past, and it remains unresolved. I think we need to note that this point is "disputed", rather than simply affirming it. --Gene_poole 23:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you still think it is problematic, if it is made clear that all that section refers to are the claims of the entity? Sealand claims that it possesses territory, but it does not claim that it has formal diplomatic relations. -O^O
At it's last incarnation the table didn't come remotely close to making that clear, and was far from NPOV. Gene said it best here: "vs entities that might be considered decidedly eccentric or ephemeral, based upon arcane interpretations of law that may not be widely accepted or taken seriously, with pretentions to control over only very limited physical resources and/or populations. I consider the latter to fall within the definition of "micronations", and I certainly view Sealand as conforming closely with that definition." The table implies almost the opposite with the flag and seal and a number of other problems. Just using the word micronation is not enough to make the issue clear when the entire table implies the opposite. - Taxman Talk 13:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Taxman, you are welcome to help us develop this table. The Sealand article has[long had the flag and seal], so that content shouldn't be controversial. To take a strict NPOV approach, all that needs to be done is to specify that these are the trappings claimed by Sealand. -O^O 13:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The table as it is is a severe detriment to the article. I don't have time to help improve it, but as long as it has the heading as principality, the flag and seal the next pieces and nothing to balance that and make clear what I and Gene have explained above, it is horribly POV. Part of the problem is the prominence and placement, the other problem is the lack of balancing ala Gene's quote above. Another is stating defacto recognition which is certainly disputable. The article passed FAC without it and it's addition in it's current state ruins the article. As for the not taken seriously, that is just common sense. No nation has made any statments supporting it's claims which is evidence that the claims are not taken seriously. - Taxman Talk 14:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm taking a break for the rest of the morning. I did just add an NPOV tag to the template, which I think is where the dispute currently is. If you agree, could we remove the tag from the article? I can't speak for Gene, but I do believe that he is also of the mind that we can develop a NPOV table for disputed states. I think the question at hand is how can we develop that table so that it is seen as NPOV by all parties, and what information belongs in that table. I am of the mind that a properly developed table could then be used for many varieties of disputed states. -O^O 14:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Well no, I dispute the article is NPOV with the template. But as a casualty of the edit war the tag was removed. I don't see how the template can be remotely NPOV unless each claim is clearly marked as a claim of Sealand, and even then, that's unbalanced and POV also as they are all one side's claims. That is essentially the problem with the template it supports the claims of sovereignty and that is not NPOV. - Taxman Talk 20:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The whole article is about Sealand. --Billpg 15:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with Taxman that the unrecognised entities infobox template under development is "irredemably POV", however on consideration I do think we should remove the declarative and constitutive sections at the bottom, as these are very much POV, and will certainly be subjects of ongoing dispute if retained. The remaining categories within the template use NPOV terminology that is very clearly differentiated from equivalent values in our country infobox template, so the retention of this template in the suggested modified form should not prove objectionable.--Gene_poole 12:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
By this argument, you could say that anything at all about Sealand is biased. --Billpg 17:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not following your line of reasoning at all.--Gene_poole 23:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
What is Sealand, but an entity that claims nationhood? Take away that claim of nationhood and its just a former army tower. --Billpg 06:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is taking away that claim. It's pretty liberally scattered throughout the article.--Gene_poole 06:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] protection?

Would protecting the page against blanking be acceptable to the genuine editors here? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've protected it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, this is pretty silly. By protecting all these pages we are letting a banned user dictate what pages we can and cannot edit. -O^O 16:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to consider alternatives. As it was, the template was being reverted somthing like every five minutes. The hope now is that, after a couple of days, the childish vandal will lose interest and wander off, and the template can be unprotected. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The "childish vandal" is a Wik sockpuppet. This guy has been systematically vandalising Wikipedia for 3 years, so unless we figure out a way of permanently banning him it's more than likely he'll continue as before. --Gene_poole 01:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Still, he might at least wander off to other articles. (He's been here for three years? He must be, what, ten years old now. Perhaps he'll give up when he reaches eighteen.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD

I was considering putting this on TfD, but got mixed feedback at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Protection policy vs. XfD whether this would be within policy.

Contrary to what is said at the very top of the talk page, this is not at work in progress to generate a new template, useful in more than one article. It is live in Sealand and only in Sealand and there is no reason to assume, that it can or should be used in any other article. The template name couldn'tz be more clear.

So, there is no reason to separate this table from the article corpus at Sealand and having two pages only hinders the process of resolving the content dispute.

Pjacobi 20:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I for one see a big difference between the current state of the template and the intent of the template. My intent, and I believe Gene's intent, all along has been to make this a general purpose template for "micronations" and other non-state entities. I created this template with the name "Sealand table" so that we could work on fleshing it out using just the Sealand article for initial content. My intent was to then move this template to a more permanant name, and to encourage more general use. This entire effort at editing the template got sidelined by the edit-war that User:Wik brought upon us.
It is not fair to judge what Gene and I were attempting to do based upon the current state of any of this. Every time the articles in question are unprotected, a known banned user spawns numerous sockpuppets until the articles are forced back into protection. -O^O 21:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
So, if I acknowledge your noble intent, can we proceed with TfDing this template, as the intent has failed? --Pjacobi 21:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, no, I don't agree to that. User:Wik has made it *impossible* to carry out any work on Sealand. Once the articles are unprotected and Gene and I and other editors are given the opportunity to work on this, I still expect us to come to something workable. If you TfD this template, you are effectively telling Wik (and any other vandals) that they can stop other users from making progress by being annoying enough. -O^O 22:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Before we take that step, and knowing that O^O's intent was frustrated by edit warring, could we not first try moving the template to a suitable new name? It may be that the template will gain more support when seen in a new light, thus obviating the need to delete it. If I knew what name to move it to, I'd do so now in an effort to defuse this problem. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd support that move. I don't know what name to use off the top of my head. "Disputed State Infobox" or "Claimed State Table" come to mind, but those are awkward. I'd vote against "Micronation Table" for a few reasons, the major one being that some of these entities deny being micronations, so it isn't NPOV to assert that they are. -O^O 22:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well it's an infobox and the statehood of the entities in question are subject to dispute, so I'm inclined to go with Template:Disputed State Infobox. Any more ideas or comments before I move it? --Tony SidawayTalk 22:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: If there are good faith objections we can take this to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I'd be performing this move using my powers as an administrator so I must not act without consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to unprotect it, if that's the sticking point. A change of name might see of the vandal, too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Disputed State might be better for symmetry with Template:Infobox Country — indeed we might be able to leverage the primary template. I would be glad to work on a parameterized version of this template under whatever name. Before further work can make much headway, the vandal needs to be removed from the scene. — Davenbelle 03:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I've jumped the gun here, but I've been going a little crazy with creating info box templates for some of the other micronation articles I've been working on, including Avram, Independent State of Aramoana, Province of Bumbunga and Template:Atlantium table. This is the first time I've worked with info boxes. Is there only supposed to be one template for all of these ? --Gene_poole 04:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
It makes a bit more sense if all infoboxes of a certain type come from a parametrized template. Micronations being what they are, you might expect to be adding more by-and-by, and then it's nice to be able to say something like {{Infobox Disputed Stated|class=[[Micronation]]latitude=21° 42'S|longitude=0° 18'W|name=Inania|continent=[[Africa]]|currency=Inanian Ningi|government=Hereditary [[constitutional monarchy]]|leadership=Prince Egbert the Inane, Princess Gertrude the Flatulent, Queen Ermintrude the Corpulent|language=Pig latin, Lisp, English|flag=Inanian flag.jpg|coatofarms=Inanian coat of arms.jpg|}}. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the state-hood of Sealand is not so much disputed as you want to imply with the name change. The overwhelming consensus is, that it is not a state. That's the whole content dispute behind all this and you shouldn't hide behind the fact that one of your opponnets is blocked. Also I don't see an answer to my question, whether it should be better to have two places than one for edit-warring. --Pjacobi 09:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he's hiding behind anything. This would just be an alternative name for the template if it's made more generic. Also I'd say that if the people who live in a location say it's a state and defend it against other attempts to assert sovereignty, then there is a de facto statehood dispute, even if there is no case in law to support statehood. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. I wandered away from these articles for awhile; hoping that either the banned user would wander off, or the administrators would deal with him, I'm guessing neither has happened. I'll just make a couple of brief additions to the discussion. First, yes, I was hoping for a parametrized template, otherwise it doesn't make a lot of sense to "templatize" this in the first place. Second, I agree somewhat with Tony's comments immediately above - there is a de facto debate here. Put differently, since the whole "point" of Sealand is that it is an entity that claims to be a state, the NPOV way to deal with this is to present (and cite) the claims made by Sealand, and then present (and cite) the claims made against it. Wikipedia itself must be neutral on whether Sealand is or isn't a state, because that is the point of the whole argument. -O^O 22:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox title

I've reverted the recent change made to the infobox title. I just don't buy the notion that having "Principality of Sealand" as the title of the infobox "promotes" the Sealand position. It doesn't. It simply states the obvious - that this is an article about the micronation known as the "Principality of Sealand". The reader would have to be a complete idiot not to see that it's not a "real" country, given that it's exlicitly stated twice immediately adjacent to the heading. This infobox should have the same genral layout as all others - namely, the bold title of the entity goes at the top. --Gene_poole 11:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

IBTD. While I'm at it I've moved this ugly infobox to a new first chapter overview and moved {{Sealand}} on top of it. Reasons: (1) {{Sealand}} doesn't belong to the external links, (2) the huge {{Sealand table}} obfuscated WP:LEAD and the ToC. The template should be subst'ed and deleted when you're ready with this experiment. Omniplex  08:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Update, it's now organized like this: (1) lead section, (2) ToC, (3) {{Sealand table}}, (4) 1st chapter history, ..., (last-1) references with {{Sealand}} series box, (last) external links. Omniplex  17:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Update, after some fights about getting the apparently ugly table out of sight (below the ToC) I've finally found the real problem: It was designed only for modern browsers supporting CSS. All that's needed to make it now work also on my Netscape Navigator was adding width="300" align="right". Small difference, huge effect. I won't test Lynx (text mode). Omniplex  04:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes and WP:LEAD

JFTR, I've used this table as counterexample for infoboxes considered harmful below WP:LEAD. How about moving to the generalized micronation box? I've copied the width="nnn" aligh="right" trick to this box working with old visual browsers. -- Omniplex 20:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms

Someone needs to modify this template to allow it to display and link Coat of Arms of Sealand. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/a/Template_talk%7ESealand_table_42ed.html"