Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Discussion Archives: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Former Proposals: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16

Useful Resources:

A website showing potential nuclear strikes within the US can be found here. A map showing likely fallout patterns across the USA.

=GENERAL DISCUSSION= The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve article proposals Structured into rough sections for easier navigation.

Countries/Regions/Politics
Archives: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4

Proposition
Discussion moved to Talk:Second American Revolution (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 17:23, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives:Page 1 Be sure to update the map for every 10 new nations or major territorial changes

Maps
Couple months back it was pointed out that with the amount of detail in NA and Europe now in the timeline, having a labeled world map in those areas is almost impossible. Now, I haven't got a world map done yet, though maybe in the next couple weeks, but here's a up-to-date map of North America. Europe will be forthcoming.



Let me know if I missed something somewhere.

Lordganon 15:09, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Amazing map LG! Mitro 15:18, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good map, though Pasco is a bit large and Hattiesburg is a bit small (its supposed to control down to the gulf. Also, unless International Falls/Ft. Frances has incorporated the counties/districts around them - "string of communities" - that looks a little large as well. Overall, though, with these adjustments are minor. SouthWriter 20:22, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! West Texas controls the El Paso region, and jointly administers the remainder of New Mexico with the Navajo Nation. Technically, all of the Texas republics (save Dos Laredos) jointly administer "unincorporated" Texas. By the way, Dos Laredos really only covers the OTL Laredo Texas and Laredo Mexico city borders; it doesn't go down to the Gulf.
 * Hattiesburg does go down officially to the Gulf. Louisiana covers the entire state.
 * There are a number of small yet-to-be-written-on communities in former North Carolina.
 * Isn't there another survivor state in Iowa? What about the northern Indiana survivor states?:
 * BrianD 20:35, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the size of Pasco is more or less correct given the cities and towns listed in the article as being under its control.

The Int. Falls article really isn't complete, but definitely makes in sound like it controls more than just those settlements.

I actually included everything on the latest version of the Texas maps I could find (as a side note, please make one of these besides that whole Texas map you have up right now that's easy to find, lol). Joint areas like that, which outside of the colored areas is largely in theory, aren't getting colored. I'll add the El Paso region, however.

I'm well aware of the communities mentioned in the NC article, but I did not include any of the unmade things anywhere, so they won't be either.

Hattiesburg will be edited.

Larado on the map actually doesn't go farther than the city. If you look smaller you'll find another state, your Rio Grande Republic, between it and the Gulf instead.

How on earth could Louisiana cover the whole state? That makes no sense given what the article says.

Nope, only Lincoln and the Quads in Iowa. And nothing in that area of Indiana. Those things, which the creator refused to make plausible, were obsoleted long ago, and I've no hope of Yank's Indiana thing going anywhere either.

Lordganon 11:38, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Updated for Hatt~ and Texas. Expanded Louisiana a bit as well. Lordganon 11:48, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just noticed an error. is missing from the map. Mitro 14:31, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, its there. Little Violet thing, west of the USA and southeast of Oregon. Lordganon 14:43, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent, I have gone insane. That is the only logical explanation for how I missed that, haha. Mitro 14:50, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, LG, regarding the Texas map. I will get to it no later than mid-week. As your map is covering areas that each nation controls in practice, Louisiana is accurate (it does claim the entire state, however). I didn't see Silver City, New Mexico on the map. --BrianD 20:51, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Like with the NC article communities, there's no article for it at this time, so it's not on the map. I may do those type of communities later, but way I figure it, it will just confuse people. Lordganon 01:39, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Texas, I've started a map like you suggested. Before I upload it I want to review it, including possibly designating where the various survivor states surrounding Texas are. It should be much preferable to the "red Texas" map I have on the West Texas page! BrianD 06:40, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

No doubt, lol.

Map of Europe:



Lordganon 10:03, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

LG, once again, excellent work! May I ask which tools, software, et al you're using to make these maps?

BTW, I've uploaded my Texas map....which is not nearly as nice as these two! :) BrianD 17:53, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

GIMP. Just as good as Photoshop, but doesn't cost a dime. I'll update the map as per the new Texas map you did. Lordganon 01:33, March 29, 2011 (UTC)



Voila. A world map. As noted before, the detail needed to read all of the tiny names just isn't there. All are marked in some fashion, mind, though not always readable. Obvious that we need some sort of caption with links to Europe and North America maps under it as well. Much better map, I think. What about you guys?

Lordganon 20:16, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Excellent map! Finally it's easier to tell what territory is taken. I was wondering if we wanted a blank map that we could use for maps showing statistics and international organizations, much like. It would greatly enhance the articles and provide quick reference for articles like the League of Nations. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:07, April 9, 2011 (UTC)



The map I used as the basis for this. Works perfectly for that type of thing, with the sub-boundaries and all.

About the only thing wrong with the map I made, to me, is that the areas considered uninhabitable for various reasons aren't marked except for the Dutch Wastelands and the Marianas. Meh.

Lordganon 04:30, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Think I will do one of the major uninhabitable zones, lol. Sounds interesting, I think.

Something that has long bothered me is the lack of an updated India map. Now, that changes, lol.



Modern map. I'll be adding it to the appropriate pages, to go along with the 2009 map already on the India page.

Lordganon 15:31, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3

Concerns Regarding Warhead Strength & Need to Standardize
When I first started writing my articles, I did the best I could in calculating the size of the potential warheads Soviet forces might likely have used in a 1983 attack. Recently, I obtained a copy of a book which breaks down in detail what type of weaponry was being used by nations across the world in 1983. One of the areas I found very interesting, details the delivery systems in use at the time for the US-USSR arsenal, how many missiles each side possessed, and the type/size of the warheads involved. I have tried to incorporate this into my articles for accuracy. This said, in reading the numerous articles, I have noted when we describe the warhead size used in attacks, we tend to be all over the place. Given they all basically came from the same location, this does not make sense. I think we should consider trying to standardize the warhead strength based on what actually existed at the time and the delivery systems likely used against the US, primarily subs and ICBMS, rather than what we wish it to be in order to make our story work. I do not believe this would require major rewrites of articles. I do feel this would add to and enforce the realism we are trying to bring into our work. Attached, are the pages listing the USSR strength: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/File:1983DD_USSR_Nuclear_Arsenal.PDF

I have also been pondering a few other thought on this subject. I believe warheads, such as one megaton and larger, would have been used for major urban targets, areas where several targets were clustered together, or hardened sites, such as underground missile silos. Also, although I don't believe the community ever discussed this in regards to the US, I feel there would have been at least two waves of strikes. The first from Soviet subs, the second from missiles inbound from the USSR. Given the hypothetical commands would have been given about 8:45 PM EDT, subs firing from our Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf coasts, could have hit targets beginning as early as 9:00 PM or just after. Such targets would have been primary or deemed important enough to strike quickly. The second wave would begin arriving at about 9:30 PM and begin hitting targets, likely hitting targets again already struck in the first wave.

Please let me know your thoughts, since I feel this is something important enough we should all discuss, given our debate on trying to be accurate in other areas such as the Panama Canal discussion last year. I am placing my thoughts here since I don't know if it should be listed in the Fundamental Issues section. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 01:59, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Given the nature of the attacks, both the subs and the silos would have gotten the order to fire about the same time. The (random) staggering of the attacks as seen on the Associated Press copy of them is pretty well disorganized because of this, and there is no real set time for most of it, or waves.

As for the warhead strength, that is what has been going on in more recent articles. In most cases we haven't even tried to estimate the numbers, as no one post-DD could actually find out anyways in many areas. Though, your list indicates we need to be upping some yields and adjusting others, as the 100kt blast normally used here is.... lacking on that list. 200kt seems to be the most common, and 1MT much more so than previously thought. The 20MT and 5MT, among others, on that list are a bit of a surprise. Interesting, that.....

Lordganon 11:01, March 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * For some odd reason, I did not get notice of this -- or it was lost in clutter in my in box. When I joined the time line just about everyone was assuming that that every hit was a mega-bomb. I planned my main article around that. A little later, I went with the FEMA maps, zooming in and assuming the various sized circles were accurate. The results were about the same, though leaving a lot of room for better conditions. The simulator web sites help also when used in conjuction with the FEMA maps. Have you had a chance to estimate the effect of a majority of the Soviet warheads doing their damage? SouthWriter 03:09, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're not the only one, South: I often have to visit the wiki to make sure I'm caught up on everything.
 * I didn't go as far as you did, South regarding the warhead sizes on the FEMA maps, but I too made the assumption at one time that all of the blasts were "mega-bombs".
 * I think FX is right in bringing up this topic for discussion and in noting its importance. One thing to consider is the perspective we all are writing from: outsiders from a parallel universe (ours), or people within the TL? If we're writing as if we're part of the TL, it's going to be next to impossible to determine exactly when all of the missiles hit and for that matter exactly how much mega-tonnage was used. The best they'll be able to do is make an educated guess, but they'll never know for certain. Perhaps this is one of those things we need to leave shrouded in mystery.BrianD 03:19, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing is, we have to write as "omniscient observers" if we want to keep the time line viable. We have, in the last year especially, built up quite a society in North America and Europe based on assuming a certain magnitude of the destruction. We cannot now go back and assume some other magnitude without re-inventing the time line. The Russian officer who kept this from happening told the interviewer that the counter-attack that would have ensured would have destroyed just a third of the infrastructure of the US.


 * That infrastructure, of course, would have been in population, communication and transportation hubs that would totally cripple us as a united nation. The addition of the EMPs, of course, heightened the disaster. I say this to emphasize that we should go with what we have, assuming the distribution of the bigger bombs indeed were concentrated on the priority targets. The smaller mega-tonnage would probably be aimed at the silos since there were more of them and the evidence of radiation and fallout seems to have been less than if mega-tonnage had been use there.


 * As for writing the WCRB and LoN reports, and even the "wiki" style articles, we are to a large extent restricted to a large amount of mystery. However, as communication has largely been restored in most places in the northern hemisphere, the articles can become more accurate as "local" records and residents are tapped for information. For example, I indeed wrote about "my home town" (the Piedmont of SC) because I have access to such personal recollections of the time. I did the same thing in "inventing" Neonotia (where I grew up). As editors we need to have the facts well in mind even if the articles do not reflect all those facts. Otherwise we are faced with viability problems. With so many things changing, in fact, we have to take all kinds of liberties in assuming what anyone would do it the situations we put them.


 * Well, I'm rambling, so I'll leave it at that. SouthWriter 17:10, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Alternate versions of 1983:DD - where Canada reigns supreme - on the Alternate History website
I was browsing on alternatehistory.com tonight and came across two most interesting threads. I don't recall ever seeing any mention or discussion of them on the talk page.

Not one, but two timelines I would describe as alternate versions of 1983:DD - both on the website's ASB section. Both seem to be well written, and well thought-out. I don't recognize the authors (Ming777 and The Mann) as ever having contributed to 1983:DD, but I could easily be mistaken on that.

The premise is very ASB: 2010 Canada in our timeline ISOTed to 2010 in the 1983:Doomsday TL.

Here are the links (note that you must be a registered member of alternatehistory.com to access them):

Rise of the North

In Defense of Humanity

BrianD 02:14, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Xeight pointed the one out to me a couple weeks back, It's really quite shameful what they are doing, though not a surprise for AH.com

Heck, they've done the same thing to published authors with copyrighted materials. Really not anything that we can do, though I do hate that fact. Extremely ASB, or course. Though, only the one even made for good reading, to be honest.

Lordganon 07:05, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Mine may be the minority (only?) opinion here, but I don't have a problem with them because it's ASB, from the Canadian perspective. Now if they start to move over entire articles and rewrite what we've done as their own work (albeit from the ASB angle), that's when I have a major problem with them. And everyone else would too.

What they've done now, I'm alright with. As you said LG, there really isn't anything we can do. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, they say. This tells me people are paying attention to our efforts.

I also must say I went over there, identified myself as a contributor and admin, and went the route of complimenting the little I read. Blasting them wouldn't do any good, and I really do think their work is comparable to some of the more well-written articles I've seen here.

If nothing else, let's keep the real 1983:DD timeline going, aiming towards excellence.BrianD 04:43, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

2011 Rugby World Cup
With the OTL and the TTL rugby union world cup starting in September, I need to start a page for it, with standings and schedules (or, fixtures and tables as our friends in England and Australia might say). I am proceeding as if it will be hosted in New Zealand ITTL, as it is in our own.

Australia, New Zealand, Tonga/Hawaii and Fiji will be four of the teams, and I'm thinking the UAR will be a fifth (as Argentina in OTL is an up and coming power in the sport). I need help from the editors working on the European countries - are there any countries from former England, Ireland and France besides Celtic Alliance that would likely be in this thing? I also am looking for opinions regarding whether New Britain would be invited or not.

The official website, for whomever is interested in checking out the teams, host cities, schedules, et al is here.

BrianD 04:43, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest using some of the Europa Games results in rugby when writing the page, with regards to the teams. As for the French, most of those nations are just too small and isolated - most otl Rugby players are from the Paris metro or another country anyways, lol - but a look of the otl team should give a clue 100% in that direction. New Britain has been invited back into the LoN, so I don't see why not. Lordganon 04:49, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the French teams, the Alpines, Celts, and Andorra benefit. Most homegrown French players are from areas under atl Andorra, lol. A distant 4th are the Basques, and even further past that Aver~ No one else has any of'em. Most of the guys are born after 1983, but trends tend to stay mostly the same, so.... Lordganon 04:57, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'll start there (Europa Games). What do you think about Japan, in light of Doomsday's butterfly effect on its rugby history, and union likely thought of as a non-American sport (considering Japan's anti-Americanism in TTL)?BrianD 04:58, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Noting as well that I based the Games results off of otl player areas and results as best as possible, mind.

Japan is by far the best team in Asia otl, and I believe that you're right with it increasing post-DD. No hope of winning, but....

Canada is also a must to be included. Fair portion of the otl US teams seem to be from Samoa as well, so that might be a plan too. The other nations in former South Africa should be considered, and Tonga probably wouldn't need Hawaii at all to qualify. Victoria would stand a very good chance at competing too, and doing well.

With the former USA, the vast majority of players seem to be from major centers, tiny city-states, or areas where nothing is established. The new USA claimant and Superior are the only ones with one from their territory. When I was compling lists of sports teams in surviving areas atl from prior to DD for my records, I did notice that Delmarva, Kentucky, and East Tenn. had decent-sized rugby clubs, as well a pair in the new USA and Superior, that survived. Funny enough, Victoria is the biggest inheritor of the American players from otl, lol.

Hope that helps.

Lordganon 05:25, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

It does help, LG. Thanks for your time!

Where did you see Kentucky and East Tennessee as being rugby hotbeds? IMO, American football would be much more popular in both countries. Not to say union wouldn't be played at all, but there it would follow a distant second to its gridiron cousin.

You are co-caretaker with Arstar on Superior and if you say there's rugby there (and want them in the world cup), that's fine by me. Victoria would probably have established the sport, and Mitro (I believe) established it in the MSP (due to Australian and Argentinian influence).

I want to look at the OTL history of rugby in Japan before trying to outline its history in TTL.

Looking back at the rugby page, I had a combined Samoa/Hawaii team and Tonga/Fijian team in the Six Nations. Tonga and Fiji undoubtedly would be separate teams; Hawaii, with under 100,000 people right now is considered a long-term project for the Oceanic powers in terms of developing the sport.

I'll look at the southern African nations and the English nations. I would like to hear Smoggy's input on this as well. BrianD 06:21, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Never said hotbeds, lol.

But they had clubs - private clubs, mind - at Doomsday that would have survived in some form. East Tenn and Delmarva are maybe a bit of a stretch, as they were in Knoxville and Annapolis, respectively, though you should have somebody from those groups alive still, especially in Delmarva, all things considered, but Kentucky, the new USA, and Superior all should have something, in part due to the presence of the Lexington Men's Rugby Football Club, Gentlemen of Aspen RFC, and the Traverse Bay Blues, respectively. And those are the only rugby clubs I could find with only basic research, lol.

Truth be told, the city of Victoria and its suburbs, by that same token, has 4 surviving clubs of this nature, including the oldest one on the continent west of Montreal. Combined with others I can't find anything on in its territory and survivors from the mainland, rugby should do pretty well there, lol.

Lordganon 13:33, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

=CURRENT ARTICLE PROPOSALS= Please list any and all current article proposals and their discussion here. If the proposals only involves a specific section of the article, please state that. Also remember to use  when reviewing new articles. To graduate an article, move to have the article graduated and if no one objects the article will be considered canon (see the for more information on this process).

Article by me and Sunkist and Zack. It will be the result of a unification between First Coast, South Florida and Gainesville. Arstarpool 20:45, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to stubby-ness? Arstarpool 20:45, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much I'm restating the same reasons that I had above. Mitro 21:18, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The nation-state of First Coast (East Florida) is itself still a proposal, not having proven its own viability. The date you give for South Florida joining up is in 1996. I am pretty sure you mean 2010. Before you run headlong into this reunification, let's see if you can make First Coast work first. Meanwhile, let's change "Gainseville" back to "North Florida" (Sunkist - formerly known as Perryz - is back and he's the reason Zack changed the name).
 * I haven't researched East Florida, though it looks okay in concept. A balkanized Florida, like a balkanized Texas, does not make sense. Therefore, once we have established "East Florida," we can work on pulling them together, but I think the capital should be in Gainesville (a split capital really isn't necessary). SouthWriter 02:04, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that a balkanized Texas does make sense, at least in the aftermath of Doomsday. The size of Texas, combined with the number of nuclear strikes on State, makes it likely that Texas would split.HAD 18:33, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well any objections now? All three member states are canon now. Arstarpool 02:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well any objections now? All three member states are canon now. Arstarpool 02:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

All three are canon indeed but this is rushing unification of the Florida states. They need to have more stable roadways to interconnect the three nations. I support unification but this is all happening way too fast. Maybe sometime around 2015. --GOPZACK 03:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

That is way to late and all of us will most likely be gone by then. I chose 2011 because it is far enough away and unification has been a planned thing since the 90's. And actually, couldn't they be an "exclave nation", a nation with no access by land but all share sea access? Nevertheless I will make a couple of modifications to the date so that they all unify at the same time. Arstarpool 03:19, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * We must stick to plausibility we may not be here in five years but he have to keep this timeline in good shape for the next "generation" of contributors. An exclave nation would not work in this environment. In Texas reunification works because the nations are almost beside each other, the three Florida's are spread out and in three separate corners. Maybe a partial reunification could work. --GOPZACK 03:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Was thinking about Ocala, 93 Highway, would of Gainesville visted them?, in fact its quite large, wouldent it become some type of city state?--Sunkist- 03:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ocala is only 30 miles south on Fla. 93 ( I - 75 ), so there is no reason why the two cities could not have not only known of each other, but Ocala could have been a city of North Florida. If so it would probably be the southernmost town or city of North Florida. Highway 93 Conecting_Florida.png/or I-75 take turns toward bombed areas somewhere south of Ocala, though. The roads east out of Gainesville sneak between bombed out areas to conect to both St. Augustine and Daytona Beach. If we wanted to put the capital in a centrally located city, Lakeland, a small town which had to deal with refugees from both Tampa and Orlando, would be the best choice. It is about equidistant between Gainevile, Daytona and Ft. Myers (junction of state highway 35 and I-4), but may have suffered as being isolated and overwhelmed. It's survivors probably ended up in South Florida, but some would have certainly gone north towards Ocala.
 * To the right is a map showing the probable roads used between the states. (SouthWriter)
 * Guys are there any objections to graduating this page? Arstarpool 04:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry, Astar. No reason has been given why St. Augustine should be the capital - South Florida is indeed the strongest of the three nations, with international relations to the Caribbean. First Coast (aka East Florida) probably has connections with the Bahamas and perhaps Bermuda (though probably only through the Bahamas). North Florida (aka "Gainesville") has the University of Florida and possibly the remnants of the original state government, making it an obvious center of government as well. First Coast was a late comer in the development of this whole idea of a combined state and should not take the forefront (it is also manifestly weak, being in the midst of so many nuclear strikes). SouthWriter 23:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry, Astar. No reason has been given why St. Augustine should be the capital - South Florida is indeed the strongest of the three nations, with international relations to the Caribbean. First Coast (aka East Florida) probably has connections with the Bahamas and perhaps Bermuda (though probably only through the Bahamas). North Florida (aka "Gainesville") has the University of Florida and possibly the remnants of the original state government, making it an obvious center of government as well. First Coast was a late comer in the development of this whole idea of a combined state and should not take the forefront (it is also manifestly weak, being in the midst of so many nuclear strikes). SouthWriter 23:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

While it may be the only port on the Atlantic, the other side of the peninsula is close enough so that such an argument means little.

Besides, it is also the weakest of the three. If anything, the strongest is the state in southwest Florida. Which is much more likely to be the capital - besides, it's also where the LoN is active.

Lordganon 07:30, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't mind what city becomes the capital, St. Augustine could be..the Croydon of Florida ( Indiana's first capital ) it can be the face of Florida and have its historical meaning, but with out being the real seat of the government, and have one of South Florida's citys host the government...being like Indianapolis.--Sunkist- 08:26, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Even then, the other two nations both would have like seven times the population of First Coast - each. The Corydon comparison isn't really applicable - at least when it was made the capital it was in the most populated area of the state, while St. Augustine isn't.

Lordganon 08:50, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I've given up trying to change people's minds when they disagree but technically St. Augustine was the capital back in the day, of Spanish Florida, and it was one of the first colonial settlements on the East Coast. Arstar 00:10, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what prevents this article from being graduated? Does the capital just have to be changed?  Mitro 16:52, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that was the only issue left, though that may be wrong. Lordganon 22:35, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Have I satisfied the objections to the capital issue? If there aren't any objections to that I'm graduating the article a day from now. Arstar 21:44, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar, you still have St. Augustine as the capital, so the objections remain. More than half the population here is in South Florida, so the capital would be there more likely than not - besides, they are also the strongest and best connected by far.

The largest city, as I'm noticed, is also wrong. Cape Coral-Fort Myers (even taking them separately) is much larger than Gainesville would be.

Lordganon 21:57, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the largest city but what I don't get is that while South Florida might be more economically exposed buts its one of the least favorable places to put a seat of government. You have constant heat, hurricanes, and occasional flooding. If your going to have to call an emergency every month and move upstate you might as well stay there. Believe me, I live in South Florida, and you spend half the year with shutters on your windows or the governor is calling a state of emergency. Besides 2/3 of the nations are in North Florida.

Gainesville is basically "New Miami", as thousands of Miami college students who hate UM go up there to study at UF instead. Personally I wouldn't see anything wrong with this city being the capital but other than the University and immediate areas its pretty poor and boring.

Saint Augustine, however, has both the infrastructure and the cultural significance to be the capital. It is small, yes, (not counting tourists and Canadians and Northerners who fly south for the winter) but it is the oldest continuously inhabited settlement in the US, and it was the capital of Spanish Florida, so it does have some experience as capital. Plus an Atlantic port is pretty needed. Arstar 02:35, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

The population is centered in the south to a large degree - more than half of the population would live there, which should trump or equalize the number of northern states. You have the capital being put in the weakest one of the three, by far, which makes little sense, as others noted.

St. Augustine may have been the capital of Spanish Florida, but it hasnt been the capital in almost 200 years. And that was with the Spanish, not anyone speaking English. I sincerely doubt anyone there would have such an attachment.

I'm aware of the weather reasons for South Florida, but it's Florida. The other two would face similar problems, though maybe not so severe. As for an Atlantic port, South Florida is so close that it's irrelevant.

Quite frankly, even Gainsville would be better - the First Coast is quite frankly too small and impoverished for it even to be a thought.

Lordganon 12:20, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

And since you have South Florida subsidizing First coast with taxes after the union, they would insist on having the capital not there too, and likely in their territory. Lordganon 12:26, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LG I don't see why the future united Florida would give a rip about what the Spanish did many, many moons ago. It really should be Gainsville or the Cape Coral-Fort Myers region. Furthermore, does St. Augustine have the facilities necessary to be a capital? Considering what LG said above regarding poverty in the region that is doubtful. --Zack 00:45, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Can't stay away.. here are some buildings that could be used by the government, large Hotels usually have large ballrooms or parlors that could be converted into a meeting room for the senate or House of Reps.---Sunkist- 06:26, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Way I figure it, a lot of those are part of the College, and would likely be kept as such - education is important, after all. The one hotel would have had guests in it, and I kinda doubt they'd have left in the aftermath of DD. The other would probably have become home to refugees, given its restored condition, even if it was on the college campus.

Not to say they couldn't be used, but it's just kinda problematic, really. Both Gainesville and Cape Coral-Fort Myers would have more - and the university campus in Gainsville is much bigger and could in part be used for the purpose.

Lordganon 08:02, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

LG is right, my objections still stand. --Zack 02:13, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we take a vote to see what should be the capital?

What should be the capital? St. Augustine Cape Coral-Fort Myers area Gainesville Other

Arstar the problem with this poll is that it leaves people open to vote for what they want rather then what is plausible. The best way is still debate. These votes are anonymous and leaves a user open to voting multiple times for the option they desire. --Zack 18:16, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These things work for minor things, like flags, but the capital of a country must be determine by the consensus of the community after some healthy debate.  Mitro 20:16, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

With that the poll is null & void. --Zack 02:59, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Below is some discussion from Sunkist's talk page posted here for transparency

I'm rooting for St. Augustine to be capital, and after that Cape Coral, but Gainesville is total trash redneck world. The only thing worthwhile there is the University, and even that's pretty crappy. Arstar 21:00, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to break in here, guys, but that is a value judgment that is fully out of line! Just because you live and grew up in South Florida doesn't mean you can badmouth the good folk of North Florida. I grew up in North Florida, and indeed we are not as "high class" as the "blue-blood" rich. But we are not less able to run the state!

Gainesville is the logical choice. As it is the home of the state's main university, it has is organizationally set to run things professionally. The "rednecks" you are thinking of are mostly in the western half of the state anyway. So cut with the "trash talk," okay. St.Augustine, on the other hand, in this time line anyway, is an isolated city-state with bombed out cities all around it. Even its Atlantic coast port is inferior to that of Cape Coral's Gulf coast. Access to Mexico, Jamaica, and Cuba, trumps that to the Bahamas and Bermuda (and even the American East Coast as of 2010. My choice would be Gainsville, then Cape Coral. SouthWriter 21:25, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with South, those bigoted remarks do not belong in this wiki. Secondly I encourage the three of you to post your comments regarding the capital for a united Florida on the main 1983: Doomsday talk page so the debate can be open and transparent for all contributors to this timeline. --Zack 21:39, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm allowed to ask another user, who is the co-caretaker on what I thought the capital should be on his talk page if I want.

Also, the reason I wanted St. Augustine as capital is because it balances out the differences between North and South Florida. Even though Miami was destroyed, roughly somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of the Republic of South Florida's population is Hispanic. And I can tell you right now that growing up in South Florida its' like going to a different country once you go above Lake Ockeechobee. Hey, even in our timeline, there's been multiple grassroots movements for South Floridian statehood.

East Florida, or the First Coast if you may is kind of a balanced-out zone between the Southern North and the Northern South. It has a bit of each, or maybe neither, but you catch my point. Arstar 00:36, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, how about this, how about Gainesville will be a long-term, but temporary capital, until a sort of Federal District, which may or may not be centered around St. Augustine is created? 21:20, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Gainesville makes the most sense. Its pretty centralized between the three states, and has the facilities for a capital. If Lakeland is claimed, it would probably make a good location too, being central to all three.--Oerwinde 22:27, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

It really just seems like a waste of time and money to first place the capital in Gainesville then move it to St. Augustine a few year later. Plus as Oerw said above it just makes sense to put it in Gainesville and keep it there. --Zack 02:03, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said that it'll be in St. Augustine for sure, and nobody said it's going to be a few years from now. All I'm saying is that Gainesville isn't going to be the permanent capital forever. Once the situation pacifies completely in Florida a federal district will be created, sometime around 2025 maybe.

So for now let's keep it at Gainesville. Are there any other objections to graduation? FYI the further details will come in when it actually becomes a nation. Arstar 04:49, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Actually changing it would be needed first, as would be a section on a possible federal district somewhere eventually. Lordganon 08:37, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Let also wait for what South thinks. Personally I wouldn't graduate anything on here until Boxing Day (Sunday) seeing as many of us we'll be celebrating Christmas or some incarnation of it. --Zack 15:52, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Mmhmm. And LG, what exactly do you mean? The federal district could likely be on the shores of Lake Okeechobee, near Arcadia where I went recently, or like I said Saint Augustine or Lakeland. 22:37, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

What is going on with this article? There is line saying it would have been formed in January and we are now passed that. Mitro 15:14, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone please finish this article? I don't care where the capital is I just want to get this graduated. Arstar 03:59, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like no one revoked your graduation of Dec. 31, 2010. I changed the capital to Gainesville and updated the info on March 21 and 23.  Once you read this, Arstar, you can archive the above discussion since it is no longer a proposal.  SouthWriter 17:39, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Me & South's proposal for the American Shadow Government post-Doomsday. --GOPZACK 02:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is going on with this article? Little work has been done, are there plans to move it toward graduation? If not is someone willing to adopt it? Mitro 04:18, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat complete from what I can tell, but it's not really enough to warrant a graduation, should we mark it as a stub? If south and Zack would come back to it later, than they could finish it then. Arstar 16:27, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat complete from what I can tell, but it's not really enough to warrant a graduation, should we mark it as a stub? If south and Zack would come back to it later, than they could finish it then. Arstar 16:27, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to conference with South first. --Zack 17:13, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Article about the state of New Zealand. Arstarpool 23:03, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Arstar started this but for whatever reason he doesn't have the time at present to fully develop the article. I'm going to go ahead and get it started this week, and Arstar and everyone is welcome to contribute as they have the time. By the way, New Zealand is not a state :) .... but I see where someone might come to that conclusion, given how the ANZC has been presented thus far, hence the ongoing effort to determine exactly what the Commonwealth is and isn't. BrianD 17:11, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we've been using the word "state" to refer to the members of the ANZC... but what with both Australia and Micronesia consisting of numerous "states" you're right that it's a poor term. "Constituent countries" might actually not be a bad one. Benkarnell 03:27, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I would like ideas on what to do with this article. This is another article that Arstar has begun and then dropped. There are some good ideas here, but (like many of you) my time is limited and I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on the TL in general. I would argue that we need to nail down exactly what the Commonwealth is, and what Australia and New Zealand's roles are within that Commonwealth. The question regarding this article is do we label it as a proposal, or a stub? Deletion isn't really an option. I don't have a lot of ideas for Australia or New Zealand, and I think we should open this to someone who has the interest and the time to spend on it. --BrianD 16:11, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to mark this article as open for adoption. Mitro 16:53, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Article on Australia, State of the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand. Arstarpool 23:03, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know, why is this necessary? It will just repeat the info on the ANZC page. --GOPZACK 00:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm also of the opinion that both proposals, however well-intentioned, are redundant and unnecessary because they would already be covered under the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand article. Australia and New Zealand, as established in this timeline, are one country, not two. Also, FYI I'm a caretaker of the ANZC. BrianD 00:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify I agree that both are redundant, not just this one. Any objections to marking both as obsolete? --GOPZACK 00:17, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have none. Also, I'll get to work on updating the ANZC article this week. Surprisingly, it's one of those articles that is important to the timeline but no one after Xi'Reney really jumped on it. I went ahead and updated it a while back, and again recently with some minor edits. BrianD 00:22, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really Zack? This is just depicting the states of Australia and New Zealand within the Commonwealth, and depicting the former nations before they unified. Brian I know you are a caretaker of the ANZC. There are three pages on the US now, one depicting the former, the in-exile government, and the new, so why can't there just be two on the states Aussie and New Zealand? Arstarpool 02:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really Zack? This is just depicting the states of Australia and New Zealand within the Commonwealth, and depicting the former nations before they unified. Brian I know you are a caretaker of the ANZC. There are three pages on the US now, one depicting the former, the in-exile government, and the new, so why can't there just be two on the states Aussie and New Zealand? Arstarpool 02:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

If you want to work on both articles, here's one idea: Both articles would be good in regards to detailing the history of both Australia and New Zealand pre-Doomsday, and perhaps in clarifying differences between the two post-Doomsday. The differences would be primarily cultural, and also political. Australia and New Zealand are generally one country, as that is what Hawke and Muldoon were working towards after DD hit. Their militaries certainly are unified. But how much sovereignty does Australia have over itself, and New Zealand over itself? I'm wondering if the Australian and New Zealand governments are really a thin layer politically between the ANZC and the Australian states and New Zealand local municipalities. This would be good to explore, and could be touched on in the ANZC article and expanded on in Australia and New Zealand - by both of us, and anyone else who is interested in contributing to one of the most important countries in this timeline. BrianD 02:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar, to compare the US to the ANZC in terms of the number of articles is absurd, they are two very different nations with very different histories post-Doomsday. Now Brian raises a very interesting & good point regarding the government, but couldn't that just go in a sub article to the ANZC page called "Government of the ANZC" or something like that?
 * Finally Arstar your not helping things when your description is, "Do I really need to explain this?" GOPZACK 02:53, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because this page is about the blasted islands of Australia and New Zealand! If you made a couple of pages about the states of Kentucky would I fly off the wall? No! So just let me flesh this proposal out before you fly off the wall! Arstarpool 02:59, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Relax, why such anger? I'm just asking you some questions regarding the article and whether it is needed or not. --GOPZACK 03:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Zack, I thought it was redundant at first, but the more I think about it, the more I see the potential. If it doesn't rewrite canon and contradict what the ANZC has been established to be, then Arstar should have a chance to flesh out his proposals. He will have help, of course :) But there's nothing in principle that prevents anyone from writing an Australia article no more than one on Kootenai. The Australia article could be used to expand on concepts introduced in the ANZC article. This may be something that other editors, like Mitro, BenKarnell and Xi'Reney, who have previously worked on the ANZC, would want to help with as well. BrianD 03:08, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think it has merit Brian I don't mind taking a wait and see approach. I'm the caretaker of many of the islands chains affiliated with the ANZC so if you need any help in that regard let me know. --GOPZACK 03:14, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's one. Do you have any thoughts on how the islands relate to the central government, or to the nation itself, that need to be addressed in the main ANZC article? BrianD 03:18, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its not doubt that Australia is the main member of the Commonwealth, like England in the UK or Russia in the former Soviet Union. So it should be mentioned that Australia is the backbone and core of politics of the CANZ. Also, even though several of the islands may share the same political parties those political parties beliefs may differ from island to island. Arstarpool 03:28, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a graphic in the ANZC article addressing the main political parties for Australia, New Zealand and Samoa. It's never been expanded on, and how politics differ from region to region, and in regards to the Commonwealth in general, would be worth exploring. BrianD 03:32, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I thought of it, both Australia and New Zealand have ceased to exsist on a Federal level. The country is a Federatioon of States (Queensland as one of them for example). The regions of New Zealand have been be amalgamated to form larger States. HAD 08:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is something I've wondered about a lot, and I'm glad somebody has stepped forward to try this. Some important points to consider: (1) Australia is a federal country; New Zealand is not. (2) Both Australia and New Zealand have been around for a while. (3) While Australia may look like the powerhouse, it suffered nuclear attacks on three of its main cities. It's possible that Aukland is the ANZC's largest city.
 * In my own mind, I at first had thought that HAD's suggestion was the most likely: that the government of Australia had ceased to exist, though I figured that NZ as a unitary country would exist as a single state. Now though, I tend to lean toward both governments still existing, with Australia being "sub-federalized". Micronesia already has such a system.
 * Reasons I support such a system: (1) Culturally, Australians would want to maintain a separate political identity; (2) In terms of logistics, diszsolving an entire government would be difficult; (3) Dissolving New Zealand makes even less sense than Australia. If the ANZC were a union of nine states, most of which are Australian, it might give the Aussies undue political weight; (4) Keeping the Australian government emphasizes the ANZC as a union of equals; (5) Even in the ANZC, communication is not what it once was, and I like the idea of the ANZC as a rather loose federation that handles the military and the trade and leaves the four states to fend for themselves on most other issues.
 * Possible objections: The only one I can think of is that three levels of government might result in bureaucratic overlap. If you've got parliaments in Jervis Bay, Canberra, and Brisbane, the potential for waste is obvious.
 * Marc Pasquin, the only contributor AFAIK who actually is Australian, suggested long ago that Australia's state governments were dissolved. While the idea is interesting, I think that the postwar communication slowdown would make the state governments more important than ever. Benkarnell 12:05, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Ben, on communication not being what it once was. I think by now society in general has returned back to 1980s levels in the ANZC, South America, Mexico, and perhaps other places like the Phillippines, parts of Europe and Siberia, Singapore, and the most advanced states in North America. In fact, it's long been canon in this TL that just a couple of years ago that Paul Keating gave a speech that was seen worldwide on TV. It would be most correct to say that technologically TTL is at least a couple of decades behind OTL. I'm also working on the ANZC article now, and initially am being pretty vague as to the layers of government within the Commonwealth. But I expect that the details will get filled in as we continue the discussion of the ANZC government. --BrianD 22:48, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant more in the earlier days, around the time that the ANZC was formed. Its institutions would have been crafted to fit the world of 1995, and at that point we know that people Down Under still had basically no idea what was going on in most of the world. I mentioned communication to argue against the idea of dissolving Australia's state governments. Benkarnell 03:25, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said with New Zealand, Arstar started this but currently doesn't have the time to fully develop it. I'll start the article this week, and everyone is welcome to contribute as they have time. Arstar, as I understand, will write up sections regarding Australia's aboriginal people as he has time. BrianD 17:13, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like ANZ is being presented as a much looser organization than has been understood so far. I think that's fine (and it may be the only way to do this realistically) but I disagree with Australia being militarily independent. A combined military would definitely be one of the main reasons for creating the ANZC, and we've always talked about it having a united armed forces. Benkarnell 03:30, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I would like ideas on what to do with this article. This is another article that Arstar has begun and then dropped. There are some good ideas here, but (like many of you) my time is limited and I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on the TL in general. I would argue that we need to nail down exactly what the Commonwealth is, and what Australia and New Zealand's roles are within that Commonwealth. The question regarding this article is do we label it as a proposal, or a stub? Deletion isn't really an option. I don't have a lot of ideas for Australia or New Zealand, and I think we should open this to someone who has the interest and the time to spend on it. --BrianD 16:10, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to mark this article as open for adoption? Mitro 16:54, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * If nobody's going to come around and adopt this, I think it's stub time. Arstar 00:52, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I oppose that, either adoption or obsolete until someone adopts it. --Zack 02:13, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Right now I'm working on the New Zealand article so I donno if im not never going to come back to this one. Arstar 15:04, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in adopting this? --Zack 15:55, March 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * If no one else is interested, I'll adopt it since I'm already the caretaker for the ANZC. But...if anyone else is willing to adopt it, go for it! BrianD 19:00, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Made this page a while back and South started expanding it. Arstar 09:18, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objections to passing this as a stub for now? Arstar 05:20, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * We should pass stubs only if the subject of the article is firmly encased in canon. Let it remain a proposal until you or South are ready to return to it again or put it up for adoption.  Mitro 16:36, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Owen but improved by others. Mitro 17:32, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Is this article ready for graduation, or do the authors want to fill in a tad bit more? Arstar 05:41, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I would like to do a little more work on the article itself. I realize I'm not the original creator of the idea of Elizabeth City, but I would like to do some work on its early history and then run it by Brian for review. Mitro 16:38, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you run it by Brian yet? I mean, it looks pretty finished, and it's kinda just sitting here. Arstar 07:56, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I need to complete the history, but Brian has already heard the outline and I believe he approves of it. Mitro 03:22, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * As it turned out, I was the primary editor of the Outer Banks, having completed the bulk of a rewrite of the article on September 6, 2010. This rewrite pulled the article out of the review that I had put on it for some implausibility problems it had.  No one objected, so it is canon.  I had not done much with the relationship with Elizabeth City, but I had set it up as the prosperous city of the "fifth state of the Outer Banks."  When the Brazilians discovered the city in 2002 it was already a protectorate of the Outer Banks.  The discovery could not have been more than a stop over in an ambitious exploration of North America.
 * The work Mitro put into the article is admirable and the early history explains a bit of the mystery of the city. But the animosity and rivalry with the Outer Banks, its natural ally, seems misplaced.  However, I have been called "overly optimistic" of late, so I am willing to cut back my article to be more in line with this one.  Perhaps the dam, started by Elizabethans in 2000 and completed with help by 2006 when it began producing electricity, can be removed in favor of the airship factory which was already there in OTL.  The help in restarting production would most naturally come from the Outer Banks rather than Brazil any way.  By the way, the new airships would probably have to be designed to safely use hydrogen given the scarcity of helium.
 * Though the dam seemed a little too optimistic in the original I had decided to keep it, anticipating more discussion. But given the tumultuous history of the 1990's in Elizabeth City as Mitro has laid it out, the dam would not have been a project they would have begun, so that part of the Outer Banks article is certainly open to change.  That is QSS giving in to change, folks, by the only one who can do it (the original editor).  :-)

SouthWriter 15:28, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I got most of the basis for the EC/OB relationship from the article which was Brian's work, hence why I consulted him when writing this article.  Apparently the three articles are starting to contradict each other.  Further discussion may be needed to bring them into order.  [EDIT] I found the info on the dam, however there is no specific mention of EC being that "fifth" state anywhere in the article, which is likely why I did not consider it when writing this article. Obvioulsy Outer Banks is the canonical article andd this is only a proposal, but since other articles but EC as independent around the present we definetly need to figure that one out.Mitro 15:34, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete article resurrected by Arstar. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have a question concerning this article, who currently is the caretaker? I ask because amongst my other work I have been studying up on Iceland out of curiosity and feel I could flesh this out more so it would be realistic. However, I don't wish to intrude on someone else's project. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 15:43, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is Arstar. I think if you ask though he would be willing to let you takeover. I do believe he is trying to shorten his list of proposals. Mitro 19:32, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I spoke with him and he gave me the okay to move forward.--Fxgentleman 03:45, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

An obsolete article resurrected by myself. Its a brigand group made up of former fraternity guys who banded together shortly after Doomsday when chaos broke out across Central Illinois. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Defunct state, armed faction sans territory, something else? Benkarnell 23:06, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * More like what I am doing with the Chinks in Eureka. Just another group of survivors who became hard cases.  Mitro 04:20, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Caer. Mitro 13:43, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is going on with this article? Mitro 16:58, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Him and Fx have been planning it out, and making smallish edits. But they are definitely working on it. Lordganon 22:32, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 17:15, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Per a discussion I had with Arstar some weeks back, I am going to be taking over writing this article. Just thought I would let you know.--Fxgentleman 18:59, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Fx, I know your a busy person and all that, but do you have anything planned for the article? If not, than it may be time to make it obsolete. Arstar 21:26, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave it as a proposal until Fx or someone else wants to work on it. Considering that it is another former state article, there is no sense marking it as obsolete.  Mitro 22:12, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

I have not been online for some time given both the heavy demands of my job and the fact I am currently on vacation and logged in yesterday for the first time via my laptop. It is my intention to return to what I am working on, especially my work on Nevada, Iraq, Greenland, and Iceland among other areas. Per the question, I do have something I am working on for NV and need to finish it. I hope this helps. --Fxgentleman 18:34, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Caer, part of the Turkey set of articles. Just a stub at the moment. Mitro 18:24, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by HAD. Mitro 14:33, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit this chaps. I am rather busy at the moment.HAD 20:25, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

How can we determine if a nations has nukes or not? It is pretty much a fact that the new United States must have at least one remaining nuke as there were many missile silos in Montana, some of which's existence were only revealed recently. Arstar 22:00, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Those silos were also targets on Doomsday. Even if a few missiles remained in the silos they were likely destroyed. Even if they did survive, it takes a lot of tech and experts to keep a nuke in good shape. It isn't the type of technology that will work like it is brand new after storing it underground for 100 years. I really doubt that the survivors in the area would give the time and energy necessary to keep them operational...if there were any left around of course. Mitro 22:04, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Most of the nuclear weapons floating around would be tactical nuclear weapons, such as nuclear artillery, short-range mobile launched solid-fuel missiles, and small aerial bombs, which were assigned to various front line units on both sides. Most of the larger missiles that required silos would either be destroyed during Doomsday or fallen into disrepair, though many nations would now be developing the capabilities to rearm any surviving missiles. Caeruleus 19:26, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 15:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I plan on contributing to this page. Benkarnell 23:03, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take suggestions, and I know you asked me a while back to edit it but I'd rather see what your plans are before you edit it. Arstar 21:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take suggestions, and I know you asked me a while back to edit it but I'd rather see what your plans are before you edit it. Arstar 21:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've posted my general idea to . Benkarnell 17:54, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Some research will have to be done into locating where these places were. Information *is * a valuable resource. Jackiespeel 17:46, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:42, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? Lordganon 14:59, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to allow someone to work the kinks out of it. I just have one request. I request that it is not to be annexed by another nation.

Yank 15:05, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Bob. Mitro 14:21, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by a new user, but edited by several editors. I believe Vlad is trying to adopt it. Mitro 17:44, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I am.--Vladivostok 18:28, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Caer. Mitro 01:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Caer. Mitro 01:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 15:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Could someone rename the file "Gettysburg"? I'm having trouble renaming files at the moment. Arstar 22:26, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Done.

Lordganon 22:30, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If someone is interested in adopting this page, let me know. My only guidelines is that its going to be based in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and is a recently reestablished city-state. Arstar 22:57, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking into making a state here for a while - but those conditions dont fly with my plans. A shame.

Irregardless, my research into the area shows that the radiation from strikes in Maryland and DC would have passed to either side, for the most part. The area would have been lightly irradiated, but by no means rendered uninhabitable by it.

Lordganon 23:21, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

...Which is why its recently resettled, but recently can mean a lot of things. Any reinhabitation happening after 1999 is my only request. Arstar 01:43, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

I more-so meant that there'd be no need to resettle it, as no one would have left originally.

No matter.

Lordganon 01:51, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in adopting this article? --Zack 03:11, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I know LG has shown interest in it, but I don't think he's gotten around to working on it so far. Arstar 22:30, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, my idea for this nation doesn't fit with your requirements/guidelines. Without those I'd gladly take a crack at it when I have time. Lordganon 13:58, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

My feelings on putting an article up for adoption before it becomes canon is that whoever adopts it can do whatever they want with it.Oerwinde 01:53, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 03:34, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Yank and later graduated as a stub, but now being expanded on by Vlad. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by MasterSanders. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Since this thing is already mentioned as part of the Outer Lands on that article, would there be objections to graduating it as a stub? Lordganon 11:42, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Westmorland and Furness Alliance
An article created by me due to the split in Rheged --Smoggy80 18:36, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Armachedes.

Lordganon 05:26, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Seoul
It is a city proposal by me, PitaKang. PitaKang 01:24, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's ready. Any objections? PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 21:51, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Same one as I've told you several times now with regards to the terrorists. Lordganon 05:08, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

So.... no more objections? PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 22:30, March 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * What does LG have to say? Mitro 03:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * He's fixed it, though sloppily. Lordganon 11:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you guys have any suggestions to make it better? PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 19:29, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

There's now a whole series of objections to this on its talk page. Lordganon 13:13, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

The_Former_Beatles_(1983:Doomsday)
I started an article on the actives of the Former Beatles(Paul, Ringo,George) following the 1983 Doomsday Event. I hope to finish it soon. Is this an acceptable topic to write about? If not please let me know. (Jer1818)


 * I've moved this section from the archive page to this one. Let's see where the page goes, since for now it's just a recap of the OTL biographies up to 1983. Benkarnell 04:56, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome, Jer! I've made a few comments on the article's talk page. BrianD 06:49, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated Paul's and Ringo's Postdoomsday activities...read them and let me know what you think Jer1818 22:16, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Issaquah-Snoqualmie
I made an article stub for a survivor community in the Cascades near where I live. The geography of the area forms a pretty protected valley in Issaquah (It's located between two mountains and home construction on those mountains had yet to begin in earnest in 1983 - they arrived as a result of the Microsoft boom. This also means that the population would be smaller than in OTL, since Issaquah's growth spurt didn't happen until this past decade.) There are a lot of highlands and whatnot in Issaquah proper to protect the city from the shockwaves 25 miles away in Seattle, although some radiation would probably occur there too.

Snoqualmie itself is located further up the mountains, near the town of North Bend. Don't worry, I'm not trying to turn North Bend into a massive empire like *cough* certain people did, but its protected up in the mountains and is far enough away from Seattle to suggest that it would have survived almost completely intact. I propose Issaquah-Snoqualmie as a minor conurbation of small communities stretching through the Snoqualmie pass from up in the mountains to the foothills. Pasco is pretty far from this area but likely enjoys healthy trade with Issaquah-Snoqualmie thanks to their outposts in central Washington (Ellensburg), as is established in canon. Again, to reiterate, I'm not trying to transform the Issaquah-North Bend corridor into a mighty Cascade empire - it would be a self-sufficient, hectic and maybe even wild-west style survivor town in most of the 1980's saddled with refugees from the Seattle/Bellevue area.

On the note of Victoria, I doubt that at least until the mid-2000's or even now, they would have bothered crossing an irradiated wasteland to get to Issaquah, even though the communities between Issaquah and Snoqualmie technically fall within their claimed territory.

Issaquah, culturally, was much more of a rural and exoburban city in the 1980's, even though today it's full of rich assholes (My personal bias. Fuck those guys.)

KingSweden 19:53, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, looking at the much more zoomed in map on the Victoria History article itself I think it could work in some form. Issaquah is on the border line, and the other community is definitely outside of it. Though, that map is a little old, so.... Definitely could have lived through the blasts, etc. mind - radiation would have went to sea. Oer, thoughts? Lordganon 22:33, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I've got no problems. Victoria is too busy with the Olympia and Aberdeen areas and bringing the newly aquired south into the fold, along with establishing a border with Astoria to worry about some small mountain towns.Oerwinde 09:54, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Superior Election Articles

 * 1994 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)

Though created by an anon, they allegedly follow canon and were originally red linked. Mitro 17:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

The first two have no basis in canon at all - virtually no reference to numbers and political positions of the two parties or the like with the congress of Superior exist for that era that actually indicate things one way or the other like this. The independent numbers are.... not possible, either. The 1994 one is the only one with some actual accuracy as it currently stands, though even it has to be massively re-written. Lordganon 20:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I think we should mark the first two obsolete and put the last up for adoption. Any objections?  Mitro 18:31, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Pita. Mitro 17:22, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 17:23, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Detectivekenny. Mitro 17:24, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Crimson. Mitro 17:25, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

A small city-state in northern New York State, north of the ruins of Syracuse. Lordganon 11:01, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that took longer than I thought it would. Any objections to graduation? Lordganon 14:58, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

This definitely needs some discussion before graduation. No one has commented either here or on the article's talk page. I am not sure why, but I missed the notice when you first put it up. The concept is, as you say, unique. However, I am not sure that even the most ardent of sports fans would agree to be lead by a guy who just happens to be a great athlete. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the captain of a sports team is not always - and perhaps seldom - is the best athlete on the team.

I think if this was just a temporary fix it would be fine, but not if it were to be set in the constitution of a republic. If the Captain were to be the titular head of the republic, it might work. You would need more than his word to install a Manager though. That would at least have to be up to an elected legislator, if not in the hands of the electorate itself. SouthWriter 19:24, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

It depends, quite frankly, on the teams and the philosophy of its owners, managers, and coaches, along with the fans and their whims. I've seen teams where the best player is the captain, and remains as such for their career. Others opt for veteran and leadership experience, even if the guy shouldn't be playing in the league due to age or a lack of skill. Generally, it ends up being the most skilled, so long as they can take the pressure, though on teams without skill they tend to go to the other end, though some do even choose not to have one or to go against logic. By my reckoning, in the NHL - since I'm very familiar with it, as you likely guessed - there are roughly 8 captains that are such because of being vets or by longevity or leadership qualities, 4 teams without captains, and 18 captains that hold it from a combination of skill, experience, and longevity, though all are indeed very skilled, as an example.

The way that this goes down, it's a choice of this, or the collapse of society. It's a pretty neutral and unbiased way of ending a conflict, especially as written, and most wouldn't argue with it too much since it's a pretty definite concept in most regards (i.e. accuracy, speed, etc). I see I missed writing a tiny bit more about why it stuck around, though.

The Captain as I've written things is the titular head of the republic. He does appoint the Manager from the politicians, true enough, but in the most technical sense, that is what the Governor-General, Lieutenant-Governors, and the Queen do in the Commonwealth. Tradition says that they appoint the winner of elections to be the government, but it isn't actually set in stone anywhere. That's the case here. The only thing that the Captain has any absolute control over is Sports and Recreation, which makes sense, all things considered.

Of course, you saying that reminded me where I had left off before last night - took so long I had forgotten, lol. I forgot the rest of the governing structure with regards to elections entirely, lol.

Lordganon 07:28, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I clarified things to fix your objections. Lordganon 12:45, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

How's it look now? Good to graduate? Lordganon 20:17, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Yank. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Article by an anon. Current content does not make sense, but it could be a peice on the rulers of Sicily. Putting up for adoption. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Sunkist. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Vegas. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Article by South. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Luke. Plausible but needs expansion. Mitro 13:40, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

So what is going on with this article? It's painfully obvious that Luke isn't going to do anything to it. Lordganon 11:41, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Smoggy. Mitro 13:40, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Zoot. Mitro 13:40, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Pita. Implausible and contradicts canon. Pita has abandoned it so I am marking it up for adoption. Mitro 13:40, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Smoggy. Mitro 13:40, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Article on son of JFK who will hopefully be a major figure in the upcoming world event I am moderating. Comments? I also welcome ideas about what he has been doing since surviving Doomsday. Mitro 18:17, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

This is an article by an ambitious and energetic young man going by the user name "God Bless the United States of America." We call him GB for short. He is very young and just learning the ropes, so let's all try to help him in this first attempt at a full article in 1983DD. This is a small isolated community on the coast of North Carolina. It needs help so as not to run all over what we know about Elizabeth City and the Outer Banks (OB being primarily "mine" so far). SouthWriter 14:07, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks South for getting the word out, well anyone can edit the article, I see it as a chance to be another collabertive article for the senior editors to join in to, and allow us young bloods to help. God Bless the United States of America 03:18, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Natchez Accords
A brief overview and history of the Natchez Accords trade and defense agreement amongst three southern U.S. survivor states. BrianD 17:13, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Article by me. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:50, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

An article created by me about a mafia-controlled, short-lived breakaway state in northwestern Colombia. Fed (talk) 01:24, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

An article by Kenny. Essentially, this is a Peruvian colony that he is trying to establish in Spain, which quite frankly violates canon as shown with regards to the SAC nations. Would there be any objections to marking it obsolete, Kenny aside? Lordganon 09:28, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal has JUST been put up, and has ONLY been discussed by LG and Kenny within the last 24 hours. It would not be appropriate to mark it as obsolete so soon. That is, "quite frankly," a powerplay on the part of an administrator to "win" an argument. Sorry, LG, but this article needs to be discussed openly, giving the WHOLE community a chance to weigh the evidence. Having read both Kenny and LG's arguments, I can say its nearly a draw. There needs to be more discussion - and time - before marking this "Obsolete." SouthWriter 14:44, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

More like me trying to get it out in the open, because the thing violates canon and no one else can be bothered to actually say so on the talk page of the article without it being posted here, lol. Fault kenny for not posting it here. Proposal's about a week old, now. Lordganon 00:49, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, LG, the proposal template DOES say it was to be discussed here. Since you had to post the notice here, he didn't read that part either.  Even so, it appears he was making a valiant effort at the discussion page of the article -- an obvious place to discuss the particulars.  So, people, go on over to the article -- and the discussion page -- and check it out.  Kenny's research is impressive, but LG's points have a lot of merit as well.  SouthWriter 01:40, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh, sorry about that. The argument was posted on Castellón's talk page and I responded it there.  Detectivekenny (Info; Talk)  02:02, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Kenny dealing with Arstar's Macau article. Lordganon 09:28, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Article by me to go with my Paraguay article. It somehow didn't get canonized with the other article. It has only a bit of information not on the canonized Paraguay page, there are only three presidents, and all three were presidents in OTL. Objections? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:15, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

Sometimes articles are graduated into canon even though they contradict current canon or are so improbable that they are damaging to the timeline. If you feel an article should not be in canon, mark it with the   template and give your reasons why on the article's talk page and here. If consensus is that you are correct, the article will need to be changed in order to remain in canon. If it is changed the proposal template is removed once someone moves to graduate it back into canon. If the article is not changed in 30 days, the article will be mared as obsolete. If consensus is that you are wrong, however, the proposal template will be removed without having to change the article.

See talk page. Mitro 13:22, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

I've made a series of suggestions on the talk page over how we can fix it with the most minimal amount of changing things. Lordganon 13:32, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that fixes it, though not as I would've liked. Any objections to returning it to dropping the review? Lordganon 20:22, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

and
These two articles contradict each other, in that the one says Walvis is independent, but the other says that it's the capital, despite attempts by Sheen and Arstar to fix it before they somehow got graduated. Lordganon 00:46, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Way I figure it, the best solution would be to just make Walvis Bay obsolete, and remove it from the SA template. Lordganon 09:19, April 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't see how a white state like GSWA could ever hope to control a city as significant as Walvis Bay, when they have to contend with the far-more-powerful SWAPO. Maybe Walvis Bay should become obsolete as an independent nation, but I really doubt that the area would go to GSWA instead.


 * To be honest, the whole area needs a re-think, as nobody seems to have considered the three major wars in the region which were ongoing at the time of Doomsday (Angolan Civil War; Border War; Namibian Independence). - Mister Sheen 11:07, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Not really, Sheen. Walvis Bay was the headquarters of the SA regime there, and the SA troops would go along with this quite readily. Between them, the native Germans and other whites, Africans wanting to be safe, and the German refugees, it's possible. The wars have actually been considered, and the civil war in Namibia that happened after the SA pullout happened earlier, giving a vacuum that the Germans and whites took advantage of. By the time the civil war had ended, they were in strong at their location. The Angolan Civil War has also been dealt with, as that country cannot even remotely be called such any longer, and is currently in 4 main (though 6 may be more accurate, depending what you think of the Soviet Kingdoms) pieces, with the Botswanans making headway in the southeast of that former country too. The pullout of foreign troops in general in the area stops the border war and current hastens the collapse of Angola.

Without foreign support, SWAPO really isn't very strong, and when you factor in their Civil War, it makes it worse. They really couldn't do more than smile and nod at the situation. The History of GSWA makes the whole matter fit nicely, as well.

Lordganon 12:41, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the South African government and military are more successful in remaining in power in Namibia (where they have less troops and supplies; and more opposition from local people) than they are in South Africa itself (where they are already losing cities to rebels by 1985-86, according to ). Surely the troops in Namibia (assuming they didn't return to South Africa itself when they were needed to help combat the rioting) would have a much harder time remaining in power than the troops in South Africa proper.

As for SWAPO, they didn't have much foreign support (unlike their counterparts in Angola), and they still defeated the South Africans just 7 years after Doomsday. Factor in the collapse of South Africa as a unified state and the arrival of the more anti-Apartheid ; and SWAPO would likely be able to dominate a great deal of Namibia by at least 1990 — even if they do have to combat Afrikaaners, Deutchnamibier and the post-Doomsday German immigrants (who would probably not have the same pro-Apartheid tendencies as the native white Africans). - Mister Sheen 20:50, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, but the SA troops did hold the cities pretty good. Walvis was only surrendered after the racists in SA lost, and indeed, the only reason they lost Namibia was international pressure and changes back home.

Even in SA itself, the government manages to keep control over its heartland areas, to some degree, though that did collapse into a few small states. They'll manage the same thing in Namibia.

SWAPO was getting outside aid. Norway, for instance, sent them direct aid starting in he mid-1970s. The Civil War that was fought there afterwards would still happen, weakening them far longer without the outside attempts to make peace.

It'd be the mid-1990s at least by the time the war ended enough for them to do anything, and by that point GSWA is too strong to remove. I never said that they wouldn't control a fair amount of the territory, but the existence of GWSA is quite plausible.

Lordganon 00:47, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone else object to obsoleteing Walvis Bay and removing it from the Template in order to fix this problem? Lordganon 20:18, April 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I was offline for a while, but yeah, that makes sense to me now. - Mister Sheen 20:21, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1, Archive 2

''This subsection is for decisive and vital issues concerning the 1983: Doomsday Timeline. Due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now, each of these issues might have world-spanning consequences that affect dozens of articles. Please treat this section with the necessary respect and do not place discussions that do not belong here.''