Talk:List of micronations by CGSC

Sealand and Molossia

Latest comment: 21 May 20211 comment1 person in discussion

Before I correct Sealand and Molossia's scores, I wanted to see if there should be a dialogue. Neither of them meet the criteria based on their population. Molossia has a permanent population of 3 humans and 3 animals, with a 35 humans and 3 animals as citizens. Sealand has a permanent population of a less than a dozen, and while they have a lot of nobles and knights, they are very explicit on their website that neither of those confer Sealandic citizenship. While they are arguably the two most iconic micronations out there, they do not meet the criteria for a 5.0 rating.

Molossia should be 4.6, and Sealand should be 4.4 --DukeBearPeninsula (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Begonia

Latest comment: 8 June 20211 comment1 person in discussion

As I had never heard of Begonia, I looked into it. I am certainly not an authority, but I looked at the entries, mentions, etc associated with the nation. From what I can tell, they would rate a 3 at most for "Sphere of influence," possibly a 2, but I'll give them the benefit of doubt. While a nation is not required to list all of its allies, Begonia clearly states which nations they recognize, as a complete list. This has 9 entities on it, which clearly indicates a rating of 2 for "Allies." This puts them at a 4.0 overall. Based on their MicroWiki entry, they appear to only be a 4 on "Cultural development," but I'm giving them the benefit of doubt. It seems unlikely they are spending at a level to be a 5 for "Budget," but I can't prove otherwise, and we'll go on the honor system.

Given all this, I think the highest we can give Begonia is a 4.0, and that's showing a fair amount of leeway.--DukeBearPeninsula (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rankings

Latest comment: 14 December 20213 comments3 people in discussion

I think the rankings should be adjusted to include ties. Nations could still be listed by rank in alphabetical order as they currently are, but the first nation of each score section would be ranked with a number and all following nations of the same rank would have a - as their rank. For example, Austenasia is alphabetically first in the 5.0 score section, so they would have a 1 in their rank column and all remaining nations in the 5.0 section would have a - in their rank column. Then, the first alphabetical nation in the 4.8 score section would have a 2 in their rank column and all following nations in that section would have a - in their rank column, and so on. A nation ranking fourth but having the same score as the nation ranked first simply due to the alphabet doesn't seem fair. --NewAthens (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is actually how it used to be handled, until the edit made on 19 October 2021 by User:Grand Duke Arthur. I see no reason not to change it back, if you're willing to take the time. --DukeBearPeninsula (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it isn't exactly fair, but I was and am afraid that by doing as you suggested, the ranking number would go like, from 1 to 12. The way it is, while kinda unfair, you can count the number of micronations listed and their position between each other, more alike the the HDI list. Instead of changing, I'd honestly suggest creating a new system for the ranking, if that's possible. Really, I'd be glad. I just did the way it is because it was far less complicated than anything else. Arthur Brum (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CGSC Level 3 of influence sphere

Hello, from how many followers on the official networks can we consider the nation as Relatively known, and does this add up with the sites (for example: Youtube + instagram + twitter), the decision should not be made by the interior committee of Aulpanne that is why I am asking for additional information on level 3 of the sphere of influence.

Liberland

Latest comment: 6 February 20231 comment1 person in discussion

I wouldn't think that Liberland's value would be 5.0, I think it got this status because it is one of the most famous micronations. However, I don't think this gives you the authority to get the maximum score. One of the questions mentions the celebrity, so there is no doubt that he deserves 5 points, but I think he could only get a total of 3.6 points.

Population

for this part, I would give maximum points, although I don't think this is obvious either, since no one lives in the territory of Liberland (I know it's about citizens, but I'll explain in more detail in a moment.) Of course, it has thousands of citizens, but not all of them are necessarily active at the moment. I made it probable that more than fifty people deal with the nation.

Cultural development

I may have graded harshly, but I think Liberland could get two points here. There is no cuisine, no religion, no language, and no sports (and no real sense of nationalism either), so the five points were dropped right away, four and three are not allowed, since there is not much else on the flag apart from the coat of arms and anthem. However, two is just the right score, it definitely meets these conditions.

Allies

According to the constitutive theory, Liberland made contact with independent states and was unsuccessful, since it was never recognized only by the also unrecognized Somaliland. Based on that, I would give one point here.

Sphere of influence

Of course, it is one of the most famous micronations, so 5 points here, and a title from here would be an honor for anyone.

Budget

There is no specific information about the budget. It is likely that they put a lot of money into it, it turned out to be five points.

Good, I know I don't know much about it, but I don't think it's fair to give 5.0 points just because it's imsert. I think this is a suitable scale mainly for microwiki nations. --G.Márton (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]