Talk:Principality of Sealand

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.

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)

We're simply discussing the concept of due weight. If one were to try to write a whole standalone article about the Flag of Sealand, they'd better have enough sources discussing it in depth to produce a few paragraphs. But to simply have a small captioned image labeled "Flag of Sealand"? Something small, insignificant, and uncontroversial? The existence of plentiful secondary sources establishes sufficient notability for something so trivial. It can be debated whether or not there is due weight to put the flag in the infobox, as many editors feel that would be inappropriate. But there's no good arguments against having it anywhere. You were edit warring based on a clear misreading of the RfC.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you does not constitute 'edit warring'. And if the flag is 'insignificant', why do we need to include it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Come on, I know you know what I mean. I'm not talking about you edit warring with me, I haven't edited the page in over two months. I'm talking about the most recent revisions to the article, when your edit warring got the page fully protected. I doubt you've already forgotten about that.

As for the second half of that reply, again, I don't doubt that you know what I was saying. Adding the flag to the article is a small and insignificant change, and therefore one where the due weight burden is much lighter than if we were discussing creating a whole article or section about it. The reason why it should be included is, obviously, because it appears in numerous secondary sources.

I'm curious, how far does your view that the flag is unsuitable for inclusion go? Would you also oppose photographs of Sealand where the flag is on a flagpole? There's a good number of them on Wikimedia Commons, and some of them are better quality than some of the pictures we have in the article right now. Do you believe that would also go against the RfC result?

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit interested in responding to bad-faith accusations of edit-warring, or in responding to straw man arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what makes it a "bad faith accusation of edit warring" to note that the current revision of the page has a summary reading "Changed protection settings for "Principality of Sealand": Edit warring / content dispute" following you reverting other editors to remove the flag at least four times, but alright. I also don't know where the strawman was, I just asked you a question to try to figure out what your position is. But if you're not interested in discussing it, that's fine.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What the numerous secondary sources support is mentioning the existence of the flag, which we do. Just because something is mentioned, or even appears in pictures, in IRS sources does not mean it is encyclopedic to include it as an image. JoelleJay (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If you agree that the sources warrant mentioning its existence, and the flag is currently mentioned in 3 different contexts throughout the article, I'd say that's good enough reason to allow the reader to see it. A flag is a purely visual thing, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to repeatedly mention it but intentionally avoid showing it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:56, 27 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)

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)

Then that is an incorrect interpretation of the consensus and should be amended. There was very strong consensus that micronation infoboxes should not have symbols, regardless of sourcing, as demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of editors voting for option B (which left no room for discussion). JoelleJay (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

No. This has already been decided on a community-wide level. DrKay (talk) 19:40, 26 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 of 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)
• None of the above, since this RfC appears to be asking whether abstract 'symbols' can be included in the article. Instead, any RfC should be discussing specific symbols only, and whether coverage in secondary sources is sufficient to justify inclusion of that specific symbol. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose option B. Local relitigation of something already decided at a higher/broader level. DrKay (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  As the previous RfC closer: I specifically left the door open for case-by-case decisions on symbols which may (though it is likely rare) be appropriate to add and comport with guidelines. However, my previous closure only covered infoboxes, not article bodies, and thus is merely informative. TW 22:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option B or A. Per Vanilla Wizard, the RfC allowed flexibility. I'd be fine with it not being in the infobox, and it placed somewhere else in the article. SWinxy (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Invalid RfC. Would an "A" or "B" outcome mean both the flag and coat of arms (and any other "symbols") are permitted somewhere in the article, including in the infobox? The RfC question does not make this clear, and does not mention that discussion of source analyses would still be required to justify DUEness of any given symbol (so !votes that do not address sourcing are not policy-compliant). JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• That is a valid concern and I will try to address it, though I don't think it invalidates the RfC. I think the reason for the confusion is that there are two overlapping points of contention to sort out: 1) how editors interpret the Village Pump RfC (in short, what is allowable), and 2) if sourcing justifies inclusion (in short, what is due). I can see how this would make the "outcomes" confusing and I apologize for that.

The language in the suggested "options" only asked about the former because I assumed discussion about the latter would follow naturally, as it had already been happening in the earlier discussions where you and I went back-and-forth about due weight. For example, if someone states their preference is for option B, that necessarily implies they believe there is due weight to go that route. I did not think it needed to be explicitly stated, but I was mistaken and I'll add a note below the question to clear that up.

I figured the question about what is allowable was the origin of this issue, as everyone seems to have their own opinion about what the Village Pump RfC meant. My reading of it is that it affects only the infobox and we should go by what the closer said unless and until their close is reviewed by an uninvolved third party. Others, yourself included, have argued that under no circumstances can the infobox display symbols, regardless of sources. One other went even farther and cited the Village Pump RfC as an edit summary justification for removing the flag and arms from the whole article. My assumption of your position is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you oppose inclusion in the infobox because of the Village Pump RfC, but oppose inclusion in the article for a different reason, which is that you don't believe there is due weight for it. I expect a lot of editors will have a very nuanced opinion like yours and hope that this will be an opportunity for editors to express those opinions so this subject can be put to rest.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Actually, I take that back. JoelleJay, I thought about it some more, and I agree with you. This is an invalid RfC and it needs to be withdrawn and restarted with a more focused question. I just don't agree why it's an invalid RfC. This RfC question is invalid because this RfC is not the place to ask people what they think of that RfC. The Village Pump RfC is closed, what's done is done. Many editors may disagree with the closer's interpretation of the discussion, but the result is still the result unless it's changed at the right venue.

Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, "In general, deletions are discussed at WP:Deletion review, moves are discussed at WP:Move review, and other closures (including requests for comment) are discussed at WP:AN."

To put it bluntly, my mistake was acting as though it mattered how anyone interprets that discussion. I should have been asking only about due weight instead of trying to lump the two issues together. Yes, many editors disagree, but they'll have to take those disagreements to WP:AN. Right here, at this time, on this talk page, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the Village Pump RfC and whether the door should have been fully closed on the infobox question.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Notifying users who participated in the above discussions about this topic and/or made related edits in the article's revision history as they may want to weigh in: @Bennett1203, Hammersoft, JoelleJay, Loytra, and Swiãtopôłk:. That should be everyone (excluding those who've already participated here), but if I missed any please let me know.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about the RfC wording

• 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)
    • The discussion above noted the minimum requirement that symbols need discussion in external sources. Accordingly, it should be asking about specific symbols that are directly sourced. Not abstractions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
      • The RfC is phrased the way it is because there seems to be some disagreement over the implications of the Village Pump RfC. In particular, your view that it affects the entire article, not just the infobox. The Village Pump RfC's closing comment contains no language stating that it affects anything but the infobox question, but you citing a link to that RfC as your reason for deleting the flag from the article suggests this is a point of disagreement that should be settled through an RfC here.

      It should go without saying that how an editor !votes will depend on their assessment of available sources. You may be unimpressed by the available sources and believe inclusion is not justified, in which case your perspective would align with Option C. How one feels about the available sources would also be the difference between Options A and B, as the RfC left open the door to putting symbols in the infobox on a case-by-case basis.

      To reject the question entirely because it didn't specifically differentiate between the flag and the coat of arms just feels needlessly obstructive. Nothing about the language of the question precludes discussing the symbols individually. An RfC is the best way to put this issue to rest, and there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because it could have been phrased slightly differently to ask that editors assess the symbols one at a time. A quick comment asking editors to do that would have sufficed, no need to prematurely declare the RfC dead on arrival and ask for a new one before it's even begun.

       Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

      • • You would do well to read WP:BEFORE WP:RFCBEFORE. If you had taken the time to discuss this properly, rather than rushing headlong into starting an RfC 6 minutes after your first post on the topic, I'm sure we could have avoided all this. As it stands, the RfC doesn't include even include the most obvious response - which is that we need to look at the merits of specific 'symbols' individually. Something which any reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia would be a requirement for inclusion. Not an option that can be overridden by an RfC. And no, you don't get to tell me (or anyone else) what my perspective is, or how you think I should have !voted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
          • Goodness, where do I begin. I'm going to ignore the part where you baselessly accuse me of not taking the time to read the talk sections on the subject before starting the RfC. The bulk of this response is already addressed directly in the comment you are replying to: Nothing about the language of the question precludes discussing the symbols individually. [...] A quick comment asking editors to do that would have sufficed. Re: "I'm sure we could have avoided all this.", again, "all this" also could have been avoided if you just left a comment respectfully saying "I ask that editors comment on both the flag and the arms separately" instead of prematurely throwing a wrench into the process and berating me for failing to predict how you'd react the RfC. The last part is just silly. I am not casting your !vote for you, I simply stated that the reason why I decided to include C in the list of options was my reading of your comments. I do not understand how you found a way to take offense to that. I think we're done here in any case; even though we've never crossed paths until a couple hours ago, I noticed there's something about the way you type that just comes across as too unpleasant for there to be any chance of us ever having a productive conversation with each other. I'll leave you with this: if you or any other editor feel one way about the flag and another way about the arms, there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from leaving a !vote along the lines of "(A) for the flag and (C) for the arms" if that is their choice.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
            • I've just realised I linked WP:BEFORE above instead of WP:RFCBEFORE, which was what I intended. Apologies for that. As for the remainder of your comments, I stand by what I said. Starting an RfC six minutes after first commenting is poor practice. The RfC is poorly thought out, and poorly worded. And, given that it fails to stipulate that 'symbols' must be properly sourced, liable to result in invalid results. Local RfCs cannot overrule global policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option B isn't an option. We've already discussed this multiple times and it is getting aggravating to have to keep on saying NO to this. Option B isn't happening, barring some new community wide consensus that overrides the recently concluded RfC on the matter. As to being in the article? Sure...IF...IF...there are reliable, secondary sources that support discussion regarding the symbol. Just adding it because the micronation has their flag? No. It gets tiring having to deal with leaders of these micronations doing everything they can to make it seem like the Wikipedia article about their fantasy is representing a somehow legitimate country. Enough already. Either come up with reliable, secondary sources to support discussion or drop it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  The closer of the Village Pump RfC already replied to you about this. But as for "It gets tiring having to deal with leaders of these micronations doing everything they can to make it seem like the Wikipedia article about their fantasy is representing a somehow legitimate country. Enough already." — I can assure you none of us are Bates.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  Which is a wildly inaccurate reading of the overwhelming consensus that micronation symbols should never be in infoboxes. Option B did not leave any room for the possibility of symbols, and it had a supermajority of the !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)