Thread:Austenasia/@comment-5046118-20120515143430/@comment-1310519-20120515164014

I've explained this before. MicroWiki is an encyclopaedia, therefore we go by verifiable facts. To call it the "Great Intermicronational War" would imply that it was in some way an important, long-lasting, or in any way notable conflict, which it wasn't. It was intermicronational only in so far as that several micronations were involved, but the Afghanistan War isn't called the Third World War for the same reason. "Great Intermicronational War" implies that this conflict was in any way notable outside of the micronations involved, which it wasn't. Even the word "war" is debatable, as there was no armed conflict (a state of armed conflict being the definition of a war).

Read what's actually written in the article - the whole thing was nothing more than a couple of micronations taking sides over a diplomatic spat within a small and young organisation, and in no way deserves a title of such magnitude. The head of UNESCO getting sacked then reinstated again wouldn't be called the "Great International War" just because various countries supported or opposed their reinstatement, now would it?