Talk:Great Republic of Rough and Ready

California Low‑importance

	California portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Micronations

This redirect 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

The Great Republic of Rough and Ready was founded on 7 April 1850, [...] The United States did not retaliate against this "secession" because its declaration of independence was sent to Washington, DC via Pony Express, on the only ride that lost the mail along the way.

Err, the dates can't be right, surely, since the Pony Express only operated in 1860-61? -- Arwel 12:26, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Every country should have a cool name like this --124.82.2.63 14:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I have suggested a merger into Rough and Ready, California. Both articles are short and would benefit from being united, I believe. --kingboyk 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being short does not mean the articles should be merged. To me, they are two distinct topics: one is about a specific city and one is about a specific secession attempt in history. Short or not, the two topics are only related because they occurred in the same city; they are, however, completely distinct topics. Perhaps the title of this article isn't the best, but to me the topics are distinct enough that they both warrant their own encyclopedia article. I'm going to remove the merge tag. Triddle 08:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring up the merger issue again. I really don't see why they should be separate when both are so short. JoshuaZ 00:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, or simply delete this as lacking any evidence of significance. Either works for me. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an interesting historical curiosity if true, the kind of thing that's worth a sentence or two in a main article. To bad it has absolutely zero reliable sources cited though!

I think, as I originally proposed, that merging would be best; deletion second best. --kingboyk 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

I've placed this in Category:Secessionist towns and cities which contains towns and cities which have declared themselves to be states but without any recognition of this change. This category is a subcategory of Category:Micronations and Category:Secession, which I feel aids navigation and organisation greatly. It also seperates out these places which had real territory but no legitimacy from those in the parent category which mostly had neither. Thoughts? Useful change, or categorisation too far? I'm not entirely sure. (See also Wikipedia:Micronations#Background for reported "types of micronations" and what I've done with categories so far). --kingboyk 12:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]