Talk:Kingdom of Lovely

This article was nominated for deletion on 01-01-06. The result of the discussion was keep.

Merge How to Start Your Own Country into Lovely (micronation) ?

The article of the TV series is a bit short. Anything that could be expanded on the series has probably already been said in the article on Lovely.

What do you all think? --Billpg 20:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep them seperate. It's, erm, lovely to see that Lovely has been developed, but I think it's important to keep the programme as a seperate article. It can eaily be expanded to include brief episode summaries (where Danny went, who he met, etc...). Some of it might have to be stolen/borrowed fron Lovely, but there's a lot of elements about the programme that need to be discussed (the death row episode, for example). Plus, there's categorisation to think about... The JPS 20:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally an offshoot of the TV series article and people have been paying more attention to this one. I agree with above reply, I think there is enough stuff for a seperate article on the series, like the content of each episode, etc. --Jeffthejiff | Talk 08:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

either a SERIOUS clean-up is needed or a merging. I say merging. (JS) 213.107.255.247 10:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically which aspects would you like cleaning up? It really bugs me when anon users turn up and give vague criticism like this, without any intention of working on it themselves. The JPS 11:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the discussion has dried up and the consensus is against. Is there a protocol to removing the merge tags? --Billpg 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, might as well. It's been there long enough, and, as you say, a consensus has been reached. The tag's got to go sometime! The JPS 20:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

In common with the other micronation articles, I've added an Infobox, following the template used by Sealand. Could someone who knows please feel in the details I've TODO'd please?

In a technical note, what territory does King Danny claim? In particular, does he claim the land on which his block of flat sits? --Billpg 00:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the motto but, as far as I know, the anthem doesn't have a title. Danny claims just his own flat, not the rest of the block or the land it sits on. --Hitchhiker89 15:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you all don't mind, but I'm using this page as a test-bed for Template:Infobox micronation. If the experiment fails and the original infobox is reverted, remember to paste the anthem's composer and any other edits made since. I'd also appreciate your thoughts of the template on the template's talk page. Thanks. --Billpg 22:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category and userbox

I've created a new category, Citizens of Lovely, and userbox, {{User Lovely}} for Wikipedians who are citizens. Feel free to add yourself. --Hitchhiker89 16:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constutional monarchy?

A section of the constiution reads:

"None of the above should be taken to imply any restriction on the King’s power to conduct affairs solely in the light of his own incontrovertible wisdom."

Does that not make him a benevolent absolute monarch?

I wrote that into the infobox because Lovely has both a king and a constitution, but mostly beause that's what Sealand had, from where I copied the original infobox. --Billpg 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the story of such entities as Sealand and Hutt River Province quite liberating. It's always nice to see the small guy take on big brother and try for a taste of freedom (same goes for Radio Caroline and the other radio ships). What I don't understand, however, is why these people always set themselves up as monarchs, kings and princes?! Can anyone enlighten me as to why this might be? --kingboyk 20:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They dont always set themselves up as kings and princes however the implication of being a president means that you either have to be elected or be a dictator. The thing with most micronationalists is that they dont want to have to be elected leader of their own nation. The thing about being King is that it guarantees that unless you abdicate or close down your nation, you remain the leader. Thats why there are less republican micronations around, however there are republican micronations out there. Izax143 11:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's that which really turns me off, I'm afraid: Kings, princes, principalities, etc. Seems to be terribly vain.

On a more serious note, I have plonked a load of maintenance templates onto the article. It doesn't cite sources, it has too many external links, it's written in a friendly/fan tone not an enyclopedic tone, and it doesn't really demonstrate notability (although I think this entity probably is notable). --kingboyk 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship

Citizenship usually brings with it a right of entry and right of abode. If I sign up, can I go live in Danny's flat? :) --kingboyk 03:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? I am an English citizen, but if I am on English land owned by someone else, they have the right to move me off. In Lovely, all the "land" is owned. (Leaving aside that Lovely only claims space, not land.) --Billpg 12:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well our citizenship gives us the right of abode in the United Kingdom. It doesn't give me the right of abode in your house of course. In this instance, though, Lovely is Danny's house - but as you say, all the land is owned so I might have a right of abode and entry but I'd kicked out immediately for trespass. Tough one!

Or is it rather more conceptual - if I become a citizen, does my house secede to Lovely too? --kingboyk 20:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens are encouraged to declare their house, or a room in it, as an embassy of Lovely (one of our slogans is "everyone is an ambassador"). Hitchhiker89^talk 10:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

Where are the official results for the elections (both rounds)? Were these taken purely from counting votes in the thread or have they actually been posted somewhere? I've looked through the forums, the main site and even the Guardian Angel but nowhere can I find any results... Hitchhiker89^talk 14:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are only results in the public domain for round one. 84.67.28.162 20:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barc0de

Why was this section removed out of interest? 84.67.28.162 20:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

Guys, please tell me there's a better picture than that for the coat of arms... --Deville (Talk) 20:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, what's up with the (lack of) flag? --Billpg 21:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, there was a flag pic but it got deleted because of copyrights. I'll look around and see if I can't find something --Deville (Talk) 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, made the flag myself --Deville (Talk) 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still no flag. Anyone know if it was taken off again? Spuddddddd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.97 (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Minister

Yes, I am the Foreign Minister before anyone edits it.--Guydrury 20:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Gov. and Elections section

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydrury (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 July

Personally I think that was an excellent change. If you read the edit summary which went with it, (ample) justification was given: "removing government list. this isn't encyclopaedic nor referenced. it's just fun stuff from the forum. doesn't belong here. and too open to argument/vandalism too." I agree with that. It's fluid information, available to those who care through Lovely's official website(s) and not really desirable here, where it has been encouraging some argument. "It gets vandalised" is not a reason to keep something of Wikipedia, but combined with "it's of low value to anybody" and "it's available elsewhere"... the case is stronger. Also, it was unreferenced, which is against guidelines, and it was probably original research. See WP:NOR ("no original research" guide), WP:3RR (3 reverts rules), WP:VERIFY (verifiability rules) and WP:NOT ("what wikipedia is not" guide) for some guidelines... – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue...--Guydrury 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody anonymous keeps putting this stuff back, with various personal comments (stuff like "Ellie does this") and with awful formatting. In the interests of keeping Wikipedia tidy, I'm going to wait a few hours until they've stopped fiddling, then remove it. Unless of course the person reads the edit summary where I drew their attention to this discussion, and perhaps explains here why they think this stuff is worth having. I'd like to emphasise that I don't have an axe to grind (as it happens, I'm a citizen so I'm positive towards the article in general; and I'm not involved in the fora, and have no personal interest in who thinks who is in the government.) In any case, I don't seem to be alone in thinking this stuff should go, if I'm reading the above comment correctly. We could have a poll... if only the anonymous editor would engage on here. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More edits from the anon user, but still no engagement in the discussion, so section removed again. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right you fool. This info is not readily avalible elesewhere, you know the content of citizensrequired.com. Is it just pure coincidence that you decide to remove these sections after you have lost your post as Foreign Minister? --Guydrury 06:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks. Keep that up and you'll be eligible for blocking. Seriously.

Secondly, as it happens I'm not that Kieran. Get your facts right. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, just a little hacked off :(. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydrury (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 July 2006

Then who the doodah are you if your not that Kieran....yet you know who he is??....

Bailiff! Valium!!

*runs off to Media Centre.* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.211.1 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 6 August 2006

Hello. I'm just another Wikipedia editor, who happens to also be a Citizen. I am one of the majority of editors who is trying to make Wikipedia a respected, useful, and usable resource. Lovely is a real thing, which deserves an article, but the fine detail of Lovely politics and personalities would be much, much better placed on a special "Lovely Wiki". One of Danny's other projects, "Join Me" has one of its own, for example. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your a citizen, you are causing a few problems in the country because of your editing. Please could you return the details you have deleted and move everything to a special zone for Lovely, if that is your wish, that's fine by us, as long as whats gone returns. Lovely is meant to be a laugh, if we dont include the stuff about the drool etc, nobody reading it would understand any of it. We want it all back please. Now. Then, by the end of this week it will all be on a 'citie. Do that for us. and we'll be out of your hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.220.6 (talk • contribs) 00:03 (UTC), 7 August 2006

Hiya, and thanks for that (mostly) friendly response. (Friendly apart from the unneccessary threatening tone of "Now.") A few responses for you:

Anyone can "return the details" (though it should only be done if the consensus agreed here is that they should be returned.) Have a look at the "history" tab and you'll find every version of the page, ever. You can copy and paste the bits you need.
I presume, from the placement of your comment, that it's aimed at me. If so please note that I didn't do any of the recent deleting – most of that seems to have been done by an anonymous (not logged in) user as you can see from the history page. I always log in and don't sneak around. If your comment wasn't aimed at me, I apologise for misinterpreting it, but please make it clear who it is aimed at.
You mention a "special zone", but I don't know what you mean. In my previous comment I was referring to a separate Wiki, such as those available at wikia.com for example. Why? Because of the next point:
Finally, I know Lovely is a bit of a laugh. But Wikipedia isn't. It's trying to be a serious encyclopædia.

Thanks in advance for understanding what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Minister

We will continue to use the name David Blunkett in the article, as that was the name he won the elction by. Considering he normally changes his name a few times a week, I think we will stick with this one. Guydrury 13:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old links

I refer to links to sites that are currently closed and are not likely to re-open. We can either create a new section caled 'Archived/Inactive Sites', or remove the links all together? Guydrury 13:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke them in accordance with Wikipedia policy on external links. 62.30.164.158 13:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought but shouldn't there be a link to what is commonly accepted as the current main Lovely site. Its a proboards site though so when I tried to add it it got rejected. Any way around this that anyone knows of?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.162.185 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 1 June 2007

If it can be established that it's really an official site for Lovely, it is probably appropriate. (Because the policy says: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: ... 10. ... discussion forums ...")

So the first step, before getting someone to circumvent the problem with Proboards, is to establish that it is official. Can you please provide a quote from anywhere official which says that it is? Cheers, – Kieran T ^(talk) 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Government, Ministers etc.

If anyone else desires to make any further edits please discuss them here first. The exact wording of the Government section can be altered 'til the cows come home. Guydrury 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. You can't force people to discuss first, and you can't stop them editing. Such is wiki. --kingboyk 15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not forcing he's asking politely. Such are manners.

Rename?

Should this be Lovely (micronation) or Kingdom of Lovely? The bold text in the lead and infobox use the latter name; either the article should be moved or that text changed to "Lovely". Which name would be closest to what the independent sources call this entity? --kingboyk 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really no as every real country on Wikipedia is just the common name (e.g The Kingdom of Spain is just Spain. AxG ҈ ^►^talk 15:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you make a very good point there about the names of other micronation articles. We do indeed have articles on Spain not the Kingdom of..., the United Kingdom and not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Would you care to fix the names of any other micronation articles which are over-lengthy per the precedent you have cited? --kingboyk 15:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The country doesn't seem to officially use the term "Kingdom of Lovely". Unfortunately for our purposes, the constitution appears to have been written before the name of the country was chosen, and when announced, the name was given simply as "Lovely" (according to the episode of the How to Start Your Own Country TV programme in which it was covered). – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the bold text be changed to Lovely then, with the Kingdom of... mentioned as an alternative name? --kingboyk 15:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely Football Assosiation

"The LFA had died but was revived on 13 January 2007 by the current President Kris Mantle."

Is this true? If it is, does anyone know where further information can be found about it? I am unable to find any. I was part of Danvers Athletic, who won the Lovely Premier League in 05/06 and I just came across this, and was wondering why we hadn't heard about it!

88.106.196.72 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLinks

Is it necessary to make the word 'photograph' into a wikilink? Can't we assume that most people using a web browser are going to know what a photo is? 12.206.222.20 12:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time for another AfD?

There are 9 Wikipedians who include {{User Lovely}} in their userboxes. Also, can we get this guy's flat's address. I would like to update the lat/long coordinates to five decimal places for those who wish to verify the existence of this landed micro-nation.--Straightpress 13:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very uneasy indeed about publishing this individual person's address, even given its special status. (Unless it's been published already, elsewhere, but I don't believe it has.) There appears to be a lot of animosity around the various internet fora regarding this place and we'd potentially be enabling some to be directed to him personally. I don't see that it adds anything to the article which the existing content doesn't (bearing in mind we have external links which provide contact details.) It's also quite a potential cleanup headache and Pandora's box, in the sense that once the info is published, it becomes hard to delete from the whole internet, even if deleted from WP by an admin.

Regarding the AfD: it's not something we should measure by userboxes, surely. There are a claimed circa 50,000 citizens; that makes the thing notable enough for an article regardless of how many Wikipedians take any interest. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Wallace doesn't live in Lovely anymore

I can't verify this but trust me. I was at a book signing/reading with him yesterday in Bristol and he told me this was true. Don't delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreemDeem (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, when Danny Wallace appeared on the BBC's "Friday Night With Jonathan Ross" TV show recently he said the same thing, that he'd moved out and left a newspaper article on a top shelf. 84.9.55.4 (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny has moved out, and has said many times at book signings amongst other places, that he hopes that one day the new inhabitants will find the newspaper article. However, we can't really cite this as a verifiable reference from a reliable, preferably third-party source. So we need to find a journalist or some such person who's written that they've heard him say this, to be able to cite it as a reference. In the meantime, common sense prevailing, we should simply remove any comments about his living there, without adding hearsay in its place. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

User:NE2 proposed a merge by adding a tag, which User:Ninetyone immediately removed. Given that there are absolutely no third-party reliable sources here, and it's mainly about what people are getting up to in forums and meets, I support the merge. When there are sources in there such as "Hitchhiker89 on the talk page" we know there is a problem. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good hour and a half between addition and removal, some people rather have a habit of slapping a merge tag on a page and then walking away ;)

Now:
- Lovely featured in the Lonely Planet Guide to Micronations [1]
- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/and-wallace-surveyed-his-kingdom-and-declared-it-to-be-lovely-505349.html

I'm sure there's plenty more out there. ninety:one 19:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not a good idea to 'tag and run'.
As the article stands, only the 'History' section is encyclopedic, and that can easily by merged with the main article. The other sections need to be supported by third party sources to establish notability. The sources you quote above are rather brief, and neither provide a source for much of the article. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge away. It is the (rather paltry) end result of a reality tv show, and miles away from Sealand-like notability. One self-published travel guide and one offbeat teaser in a small UK newspaper is a bit lacking. Tarc (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is notable because of the number of people who signed up to be citizens — it outnumbers a considerable number of other countries. But in terms of keeping Wikipedia neat, I've never thought there was a sufficiently clear distinction between the article on the country and the one on the series, so I too would support the merge — especially now that it is clear that momentum for attaining any further serious political recognition of the microstate has been lost. – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not self-published! See Lonely Planet. But yeah, merger might well be for the best. ninety:one 14:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge, even if the micronation is notable on its own it makes sense to set it within the context of the TV program. I've added a merge template to the program's article as there wasn't one there before. Smartse (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Billpg (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]