Talk:Other World Kingdom

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronationsWikipedia:WikiProject MicronationsTemplate:WikiProject MicronationsMicronations articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

I seriously challenge the speedy deletion of this article. I think that OWK is quite notable for the BDSM subculture. Any honest googling will show that. Now you can negate the BDSM subculture, but that's another point. If you have really a problem with this article, let's go for an Afd. But then I will show this example Yab Yum: and this one : Atlantis (brothel) Hektor 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself as the one who placed the speedy tag: It's not about censorship in the slightest--indeed, I have quite a few friends in the BDSM community where I'm at. Can you provide independent references to reliable sources to establish that OWK meets the notability guidelines? --Finngall ^talk 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google it. You have 36000 hits of so. I think that my proposal, to do an Afd is fair. Hektor 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the appropriate references, and I'll revert the tag. With that many hits, it shouldn't be that difficult. --Finngall ^talk 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an independt source Hektor 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, fine, but the refs should be in the article. I'll remove the tags. Take care. --Finngall ^talk 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's an existing article Owk on an entirely different subject. I've added disambiguation links to both articles. --Finngall ^talk 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example of source

The OWK is quoted in the German BDSM dictionary, the book SM-Lexikon by Arne Hoffmann, a notable German journalist and author, as demonstrated in its amazon.de entry : http://www.amazon.de/SM-Lexikon-Arne-Hoffmann/dp/3896025333
Here is a quote from amazon.de : "typische Einrichtungen der deutschen und internationalen SM-Szene (Datenschlag, AG S/MÖff, Schlagworte, Folsom Street Fair, Other World Kingdom, Society of Janus)" This excerpt puts OWK at the same level of notability as Folsom Street Fair and Society of Janus, both of which have wikipedia entries.
Could you please revert the tag ? Hektor 18:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Company or Community

Do you think OWK was built to maximize profit? Reading the web site gave me the feeling that it is more like a social and communal environment for people interested in female domination. The business aspects seemed more like a side-effect. Maybe it also works as a guild for professional dominant females.

At first glance OWK appears to be the Disneyland of BDSM, but Disneyland closes at night, people go home and the attendants vary. It is not a gathering place for the Disney fanatics. It was clearly built for profit. Where as the service that OWK offers have been available for a long time in various parts of the World. I refuse to believe that OWK was built to attract tourists.

Maybe the article could be changed to "OWK is ... and offers various related commercial services." The article seems to currently be very one-sided. It doesn't really mention the social and political aspects that the web site emphasizes. Did you know that OWK has a flag, coat of arms, their own currency (Disneyland has also ;-), some sort of council built up of the people who spend lots of time at the resort and also a queen. I find it odd that the article doesn't mention anything about such details.

--Easyas12c 17:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started a few BDSM related articles, some were unlucky such as Dolcett which got deleted, and some more lucky like OWK. I am no specialist and you are welcome to improve it. It is true that I wrote it with the angle that it is a BDSM-themed "brothel", which is using the relatively low cost of Czech real estate in the countryside and Czech dommes to break even. Maybe I am wrong.Hektor 19:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placement

Since this is a political entity as well, I placed it on the Amazon article. Powerzilla (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does dumb guys be dumb?

Seriously, why would a guy move here? It's, in all, honestly, stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.175.119 (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not the place for extended discussion about such matters, but you can look at malesub... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for real?

Cause if it is, it just shows that women can be just as nutty and aggressive as men. If it's a satirical comment on male domination then it makes a good point.

Perhaps the article over-emphasizes the micronation claims and needs to be clarified to indicate that this is basically a BDSM amusement park for adults. Trying to generalize about gender based on Other World Kingdom is a bit like trying to learn about mice by visiting Walt Disney World Resort. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom?

One odd aspect to this 'Other World', which is supposed to be a matriarchal place where women top men: if it's all about Women over men, why do they call themselves a "Kingdom"? And not an "Other World Queendom?" Just wondering. Doesn't make a lot of sense now, does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.5.132 (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd really have to ask them, but it seems it's no longer a going concern now anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing present tense to past

The available evidence indicates that the estate is gone (and has been for well over a year), and that OWK is now pretty much a website with an associated annual meetup event. As the simplest change, I am revising many present-tense verbs to past tense... AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe description

A lot of the article is written in an in-universe tone, as if the OWK was a true nation state, with real sovereignity, laws, etc., instead of being a fantasy role-playing exercise, albeit one where the role-play was enacted physically. The reality was that the OWK existed physically within the Czech republic, and everyone there was subject to Czech law. The article should be revised to reflect this. -- The Anome (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was almost as real as the Hutt River Principality back when it had the landed estate. If we're going to cover the internal governance structure at all, then it has to be expressed in "in-universe" terms. Anyway, I'm removing "purported" from "purported micronation", since "micronation" by itself already means that. Also, the landed estate is gone, but the government-in-exile (or whatever you want to call it) still seems to exist, so not sure it was a good idea to change all present tense verbs to past (which would give the idea that the organization is completely defunct)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on verb tenses

Someone has changed past tense verbs to present tense, but indiscriminately. Present-tense verbs are probably OK, EXCEPT when describing the landed estate, since that's been gone for years now... AnonMoos (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]