Talk:Aerican Empire

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

Really?[edit]

It pisses me off that articles about certain fictional characters or people apparently "not notable" get deleted, but this bullshit is allowed to stay. cool double standard, wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.8.206 (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you consider real. The empire does not hold any land, other than some land on Mars, and any land belonging to the citizens. It exists mostly upon the internet, although many of its citizens do treat it as at least a semi-real place. Aericanwizard 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even a real place? Black Omnimon 21:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is rediculous!!! man...it made my tummy shaked up and down non-stop with great pain as a result of over-laughing after reading about this...LOL!!!

http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Seriously? Was this stuff made-up by a 5 year old? This is not a real nation, you can't have a nation in your playpen in Canada, and a nation on a planet millions of mile away. Get a grip, this makes me ashamed to be human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.136.32 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


THIS MICRONATION IS NOT NOTEWORTHY ENOUGH TO DESERVE IT'S OWN PAGE. If I had an acount, Id vote for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.53.233 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is built to become a source of all human knowledge. Just read the mission statement. The Aerican Empire, along with Sealand, is perhaps the most famous micronation and it has more "citizens" than any other internet micronation. It is very noteworthy and it does deserve its own page. Ace Combat Fanatic 15:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are plenty of things Wikipedia tends to deem not noteworthy. This should be one of them. It is nothing but a series of "we're so wacky" jokes, as is this terrible article. Why are you saying that it's "successful" or that it has "active citizenry"? It has no "citizens". It is not "fully functional" if it doesn't serve any function. I mean read this shit: "As a result, modern Imperial culture is filled with references to Star Wars and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and other such institutions." It doesn't matter if it's been mentioned in the Times (dumber things have been)--this is clearly just a nerdy club. "The single most widespread cultural activity within the Empire is gaming." Seriously? This group is completely interchangeable with any other group of neckbeards meeting to play D&D. The "Defense" section down there even brags about this club having a .com website. While that is pretty God Damned Amazing, there are lots of websites, there are lots of nerdy clubs, they are not all noteworthy, and this page should be deleted. 134.173.60.174 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this one is not deleted, I'm going to create these much needed entries for

  • the Jedisia, the colony for the fallen Jedis,
  • the Musturn, the planet hidden behind Saturn that houses the Mustang Space Ranch,
  • the Pord, the next wave of foreign automobile invasion from Poland,
  • the Freeland, the other micronation that houses all free-thinking men and women

and more

Lol, wait, you've resorted to threats now if they don't delete this page? Its been up for deletion many times, and it makes it through it every time. However, those that you are threatening it with would be deleted within seconds of creation. Its not that hard to undo that minuscule damage. :-/ - JWhitt (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find Moronia in this list of micronations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations

Defense[edit]

The Aerican Empire has nearly 100 active citizenry but many have had their citizenship revoked due to inactivity so there has been maybe over a thousand citizens altogether. While most micronations are unrealistic or never last Aerica has existed since the 1980's and it continues to grow and strive towards its goals. How can anyone deny this? It has its own .com website. It has an extremely active citizenry and government. The Aerican Empire is one of the oldest fully functional micronations in existence today. Aerica is a model micronation of what many want but what very few can ever aspire to become. To delete this page would be a direct insult to micronationalism and to every citizen of Aerica.

I fully object to the deletion of this page. What reason is there to delete a glorious nations Wikipedia page? When people are interested in seeing examples of successful micronations they will want to read about The Empire of Aerica. The Empire of Aerica has also been mentioned many times via newspapers and I heard even on television a few times. The documentation can all be found on the official website. Thank you. Crud3w4re 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is CyberNations[edit]

[www.cybernations.net]. It's basically a text-game where you create yor own country. I have one called Kaszuby. I knew straight away, because "AEGIS" is a major unofficial group of alliances there. you can find out more at their wiki ([1])

  • It's actually totally unrelated, but that is an interesting coicidence. I suppose words like aegis must show up rather frequently in acronym form, since it sounds good and the letters could mean anything. Timcrow 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

As the Aerican Empire is a micronation and not a real country, I have replaced the country infobox with the micronation infobox. This is consistent with the usage established by consensus at the article for practically every other micronation with an article on Wikipedia. PubliusFL 14:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um[edit]

Pluto's not a planet anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.213.255 (talk • contribs)

Why this article?[edit]

Lol, I was going to request this article get deleted and question it's existence, but then I realized you put a lot of work into it. It's not my say, you must really have planned this out, so all my support goes to you! Praise the Aerican Empire! Lol :-P - J-Whitt (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, as long as someone "put a lot of work" into an article, the notability rule can be ignored?99.100.235.195 (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for the love of all that is sane delete this damn article. this is not an empire, just a nerd who wants to own pluto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.13.183 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? LOL! Whoever invented the flag is a fan of Watchmen or something. Kausill (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nation itself is imaginary, but the social group is real (at least in the same sense that a political party, a fraternity, or a philosophical school are real), and has got some exposure in major media. The article deserves to exist on these grounds, nothing more. Some of the "facts" about Aerica (such as the flag and the territorial claims) are based only on the groups website and therefore are not quite "verifiable", but it is necessary to reproduce them here to give WP readers an idea of the nature of the group. Readers will surely understand that they are only make-believe. By the way, I do believe that the Micronation infobox is a bad idea (since it makes those claims seem like facts), but I am not willing to fight the infobox fans on this one. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aerican Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

Hi Roaminhand. Before we go any further, you said you were "biased".[2] What did you mean by that, precisely? I suspect it means that you shouldn't be editing the article, as it seems likely that you have a conflict of interest.

Secondly, you mentioned that you believe content should be supported by "notable sources". That's not entirely accurate: in WP parlance, they're called reliable sources. They're used to establish notability of a subject (in this case the article on Aerica). Once that's established (which, BTW, is not a given in this case - the number of RS that mention Aerica in a significant way is minimal to none), they're used to support the statements in the article. If there are opposing vewpoints, they're used to determine the "weight" given to each.

YouTube videos by TheFlag&AnthemGuy[3] are not a RS. The Atlanta[4] is reliable, and can be used to support a statement. However it wouldn't be useful in establishing notability of the subject, as the mention of Aerica is "trivial" (rather than "significant").

The Aercia website is not a RS, neither is Molossia's. Wikis, like microwiki, are not reliable either. I don't believe a free paper like the Montreal Mirror would be considered a RS, but I can check on the noticeboard that deals with that if you'd like. Bromley86 (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I deliberately said that I was biased, because it's relevant and I'm not trying to hide it. Let's not confuse "bias" with "conflict." I want the article to be as good as possible. I didn't revert or undo the changes you made on the 11th because those changes made sense to me. I'm not trying to pull a fast one.
Your point about the difference between notable and reliable is well taken, as is your comment about the Aerican website not being a reliable source. I agree with you that it isn't a reliable source. As I see it, it's reasonable to cite it as a source of information in an article which is, in general supported by a reasonable number of reliable sources. I agree with you that reliable sources must be the basis for an article, but I don't agree that they're the only useful references. It's as reliable as quoting a celebrity's biography in their article; it's biased, but it's accepted, if I'm reading the rules correctly.
I would actually be curious if the Mirror is considered a reliable source, totally independent of the rest of this discussion. They were considered a respected local paper back in the day.
So, what would be a fair way to handle this? I don't agree that every unsourced statement can or should be deleted, simply because that would make this a less useful and informative article, and in the end our absolute goal should be to produce a good quality and informative article. I'm certainly willing to spend some time in the next few days trying to replace more references with reliable sources, which is probably possible, but that will obviously take me more than an hour or so. Roaminhand (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find some more reliable sources, that'd be great. I'll hold off editing the article for a bit to give you a chance to add them.
As to deleting unsourced statements: that's likely what will happen. Micronation pages are, in general, full of highly unencyclopaedic fluff that doesn't conform to WP's policies. There's a degree of latitude given to certain things (like, for example, sourcing the coins to the micronation's webpage, as the minting of coins is a real activity, as opposed to (for example) printing a passport out at home), but that doesn't extend to anthems or other unreported vanity items. Motto's are usually kept though, and the micronation's website is probably good for the leader's name. It may be good for the membership (in this case, I think it is).
I'll ask over on RSN about the Mirror. Bromley86 (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help, as well as the patience and the willingness to discuss. I would welcome you checking in over time. If things have to get deleted later... well, I'll certainly object, but I won't make it a war of undo buttons. Roaminhand (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edit[edit]

I just felt 'smiley face' was a little bit too informal so I changed it. Great article by the way. Ooh Saad (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aerican_Empire&oldid=1198080988"