Board Thread:Admin Announcements/@comment-5843134-20140719190545/@comment-24553414-20140726030800

Commandante wrote: I think it is necessary to define these nations as nations without real political goal (to be defined precisely, but it is hard enough), and especially without real territory claimed

I agree with the first part of your definition. Although I think the territory part can be challenged. Especially since there are micronations that recognize the authority of their "parent" nations. A prominent example would be Atlantium. Yes some of these nations like Atlantium have physical locations, but many of them do not challenge the authority of the current macronations that claim the territory. Hutt River and Sealand are the few micronations that have challenged macronations and have suceeded in doing so.

At any rate, the point to be made is that we shouldn't be so focused on defining nations, because each nation is different. However, you could divide micronations into 4 categories: Serious nations with a set goal to become a macronation; Serious nations not planning to become macronations; "Play" nations that are made purely for fantasy, fictional, and/or roleplaying purposes; and "Goofy" nations that are not given any serious effort in planning and design. The only micronations we should weed out on microwiki -if the powers at be wish to do so- are those that fall in the latter category: the goofy nations. Anything deeper than that should be left alone. Let micronations decide on their own how they define themselves.