File talk:World83DD v1.2.PNG

I think whoever creates the maps for this timeline needs to get started on the new one, as there are a ton of newly confirmed nations to be added to the map. --Yankovic270 03:10, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think anyone would create the maps - as long as it fits with canon and it's approved by the community. I might want to try my hand at some mapmaking myself... --DarthEinstein 03:25, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * XiReney and Fero made the first few world maps. The latest one is mine, and since last June it's become very out of date.  Problem is that I was not following 1983DD for most of August and September, when the flury of activity really began.  I've been trying to read all the new pages from August or later, but just keeping up with current proposals is difficult... anyone is free to ad some or all of the new nations.  Or maybe it would be best to break down the labor?  North America is the worst offender; maybe I can upload a world map with just North America updated, and others can take it from there.  Benkarnell 16:39, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually already started a new map. I decided to build it from the ground up; that is, I'm getting the information from the individual articles instead of from previous world maps. I started with the Americas, and they're about half complete, and I haven't started on the Old World. --DarthEinstein 16:44, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, then. Ground up is probably best: I tried hard to keep it free of errors, but they crept in anyway.  Are you still going to include flags?  They have been sort of a tradition so far, but now there are many, many more of them.  Benkarnell
 * I'll try to put the flags in, but first I'm going to get all the borders. After the borders, then I'll get the names and flags. I also thought of creating maps for each continent simply by slicing up the world map, which we can put on the pages for each continent. --DarthEinstein 17:11, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Hey Darth! What is the soonest time you can estimate the map being finished? --Yankovic270 21:13, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure; so far I've drawn the borders of most nations in North and South America, as well as the Alpine Confed, Celtic Alliance, and the small French nations. After I'm done the rest of Europe, I'll move south to Africa, then to Asia and Oceania. After that, I'll fill in the names and flags. So... there's still lots I have to do. By the way, if you notice any nations missing from the list, put it on. I'm using it as a referance to find all the countries. --DarthEinstein 21:31, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Could you post an image of the North American section on my talk page? I'm curious on how my nations look. By the way, Assiniboia has the borders of the old Red River colony. --Yankovic270 21:44, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I haven't put the names or flags in yet, but if you want me to get a partially finished version, that's fine. --DarthEinstein 02:17, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say (as a comment after a long time), you might put it in a partially finished version when the names are done. Then we could decide if we insert the flags as well... But I would guess a separate map with flags would me optically more proper. I offer to do the "FLAG MAP Work as a first contribution after a long absence. --Xi&#39;Reney 17:55, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Great to have you back! Also, here's a map update: I've drawn the borders for the North and South American and European countries, as well as the African ones except in South Africa, which has really confused me. After I'm done drawing borders in Asia and Oceania, I'll put the names in, and leave a space under each name for a flag. --DarthEinstein 19:50, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just did a whole lot of work on the map, and I think it's ready for people to see the first version. As you can see, the countries are not yet labeled. I'd like to hear any concerns over the borders of the countries first. If you've been following the TL you should be able to recognise most of the countries. The darker grey regions between the NAU and Utah, Utah and the Navajo Nation, and Aceh and Indonesia, represent condominion or contested territory. Any suggestions for the next version are appriciated. --DarthEinstein 23:14, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a little jarring to see so much of Africa, China, Europe, even the eastern U.S. in dark grey. That aside, the map looks good.--BrianD 23:18, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

I like the map as well but I have some issues. I may have relented on NAU Nebraska, but I respectfully want all of non-NAU Nebraska to be under Lincolnite control, that would give the Lincolnites both more territory and a border right next to the NAU. Plus the loosly-bound nation of Cave City, like the Okanogan to Victoria, is a potential site for future expansion of Virginia. That warrents, at least until official control is obtained, those dots of colour you see marking influence. --Yankovic270 02:19, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Right; I haven't added any "influence dots" yet, so I'll do that for the next version. I'll expand Lincoln also, but keep in mind that the map I built this off of didn't have state borders, so it will be approximate. --DarthEinstein 02:25, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with zones of influence. The map ought to represent definite borders for each country; in some areas (like India, Sikkim) these zones can literally change by the day, or a country can claim influence that it can't realistically maintain. The issue should be discussed, though.--BrianD 02:40, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. The last map did not include claims for that very reason.  Now that we have dozens of new countries, we have to pick and choose what information to show.  This is really good!  It looks so clean, and the colors are easier to distinguish.  THe small changes I'd recommend:
 * Sikkim's independent government was overthrown a couple of weeks ago, IIRC.
 * I don't think that the North American UNion overlaps with Utah; that was an error on my map.
 * The NAU might more accurately be shown as three countries with a common color, like the Nordic countries. (I'm pretty sure that when I made the other map I hadn't actually read the NAU page.)
 * More of central Italy should be no-man's land. My map used diagonal stripes only because the Alpine and Sicilian colors were too hard to tell apart when I used dots.
 * But basically... wow! Benkarnell 03:24, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks about Sikkim, I did not hear about that. So it's part of the UIP now?
 * I'll fix the Utah-NAU border.
 * I'll separate the states for the NAU. While doing this, I tryed to decide what to do about Siberia. With the addition of Mongolia, Uyghuristan and Khazakhstan to it, I thought I might want a solid border like with the Nordic Union and, as you said, the NAU. But I thought they might be too centralized a state for that. What do you think?
 * I based Italy off of the page; for territory it said that they owned it up to Milan. I did think this was odd, and I guess you agree. So will they extend to, say, the ruins of Rome? Also, don't you think Sicily might be able to control the nearby Tunisia also?
 * Thanks for the help! --DarthEinstein 03:42, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, that is odd about Sicily. I think the no-man's-land as I had described it was based on the previous map. Maybe Sicily only claims Italy up to Milan?  Or, Milan was the high-water-mark of their advance, but is not securely under their control?   And I know I have heard something about Sicily controling at least part of Tunisia.  As for the Siberian states, I'm not sure, since that's a family of articles that I also have not read yet.  (Sorry!)  Finally, can I suggest a darkish blue for the NAU?  Benkarnell 04:03, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Okay here's the next update on the map. I haven't added names yet, but I have corrected a few things and added the dots representing influence. If there are any countries I've missed or made the borders wrong for a country let me know. --DarthEinstein 18:40, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. A couple things I'm now noticing, and sorry for not seeing them before:

Benkarnell 22:05, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Namibia's situation is still far from certain. Same iwth South Africa, actually, but at least this approximtes the countries we know are there.
 * The Yugoslav Union is smaller - I think it may have lost Slovenia & Dalmatia for unknown reasons.
 * Manitoba/ Assiniboia is small, but not _that_ small, I think.
 * I don't think Sicily would control all of Tunisia, on its exact original borders.

Wow,this is exactly what I envisioned the USSR would have in terms of land.It's great,good job.--Vladivostok 19:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you missed . Also I know  is pretty small but is there any way you can make sure its identified on the map?  [EDIT] Never mind.  When I zoom on the map I see that you did mark it.  Mitro 20:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Zanzibar will be labeled, though I know right now it's practically invisible from a zoomed out point of view. From what I read about Algeria, it is divided into city-states, and so I wasn't sure how to make any borders. I decided that once I got to the name-adding stage I would just write "Algerian city-states" in the region. And thanks about the USSR, I was unsure if that was accurate. Should the different republics be separated by black lines, though, like with the NAU and Nordic Union? Also I'll correct Tunisia, Assiniboia, and the Yugoslave Union. With regards to South Africa though, I understand that it is in a state of canonical flux or something, so maybe I should just keep those borders for now and it can be corrected later when it calms down. --DarthEinstein 22:28, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,the Union isn't as decentralized as the NAU or the Nordic Union,I think keeping it this way,with the colorless borders in the middle would work fine.--Vladivostok 22:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Once I find a decent map of BC, I'll actually mark New Caledonia/Prince George's borders, as they encompass a lot more than marked. --Oerwinde 20:10, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Bc2010.png shows how BC will be divided next year, but also shows the borders of Prince George/New Caledonia. --Oerwinde 21:37, October 31, 2009 (UTC)



I respectfully wish that whoever is creating the new map use these borders for Assiniboia. It is an old map of the Red River Colony, another name given for it was Assiniboia. --Yankovic270 20:34, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do that. --DarthEinstein 20:43, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Just a small note on North Germany, though it is not (yet?) included on the map in the article itself, the nation has recently expanded to the formerly Dutch province of Groningen, it might be nice if that were reflected on the map. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:58, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * It is included, just very small. I'll be sure to make the change. --DarthEinstein 16:24, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I think we recently agreed that Belize is smaller, mostly coastal, and that a lot of the inland territory was lost. I could be wrong. Benkarnell 14:07, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think Assiniboia is too large. Mitro 15:04, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

It is not like I am claiming all of Canada between Vctoria and the Remainder Provinces. I don't think Assiniboia's claim is excessive. The only impact is Winnipeg, as they pretty much made the area around it just as much a no-man's-land as the area around Chernobyl. And they did not claim it all at once. Maybe they started with what is shown on the new map so far, and just recently reached these borders. --Yankovic270 15:27, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my biggest problem is that you are basing this on a vague and old colonial map and not on any other evidence on how far the nation could extend its borders. Furthermore what about the Lakota?  They managed to take over most of North and South Dakota and yet that map makes it look like that never happened.  Mitro 15:37, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine. get rid of the colonial map. But Assiniboia still controls at least a small chunk of North Dakota. You said that the Lakota took over most of the Dakotas. It is possible that there is a a small piece that is not in Aboriginal hands. --Yankovic270 15:43, November 3, 2009 (UTC) Umm,there have been some changes to the Kazakh article that were unavoidable,since the regions I picked would have been severely bombed. Here's a map detailing what the Siberians would control,bordered in black. The bombed regions are a closed zone in the USSR. That will be shown in more detail,once Hellerick makes a map showing this.--Vladivostok 20:48, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Can someone give me a report on how the map is coming? Mind that Assiniboia needs to be enlarged and given at least a small piece of North Dakota. But Lets face it. The new map so far only gives the Lakota a small portion of the dakotas. It still is plausible that Assiniboia can get as much North Dakota as possible.And while the southern border of Assiniboia is in question, the Northern isn't. I'd like that border to follow the colonial map as much as possible. --Yankovic270 22:10, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I've enlarged Assiniboia and I've added the new borders for Prince George. I think I'm going to go ahead and add the country names soon. Once that's done I'll upload it again. --DarthEinstein 00:34, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, I still want Assiniboia's borders to bear some resemblance to the map I had chosen. --Yankovic270 04:42, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, they will. --DarthEinstein 05:23, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Again I ask, why should they? Your map is an old map of the colony, it has nothing to do with the present TL.  Mitro 15:17, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because it's a map of an old colony doesn't mean it can't roughly coincide with this country. Yankovic just happened across a map which looked like what he wanted his country to look like. --DarthEinstein 17:01, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

The map shows the borders of the last incarnation of Assiniboia, the Red River Colony. Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of the history of the area would understand that this Assiniboia would mimic the borders of its predecessor as much as possible. Yankovic270 17:21, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would they micmic the borders of the old colony? The likely expansion of the place would be a sphere, not a the shape the map represents.  The old colony map represented a vague idea of the boundries of the colony not based on geography and other factors.  Mitro 18:08, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Mitro, the borders follow a natural watershed; take another look at that map. I don't know hther a confederation of Manitoban towns would be able to, or have a need to, incorporate settlements from North Dakota, especially since the Dakotas were a region of heavy fighting in the late 80s.  (Or am I wrong?)  But the Red River Colony was not a "map coloring exercise" colony; it was indeed based on natural geography.  Yankovic, obviously that's too huge. Or were you joking?  Benkarnell 02:17, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

No I never joke when it comes to my nations. I only changed my idea because of how important the one complaining about it was in the wiki. Now that I have some support I hearby go back to my original idea. Except Assiniboia contains absolutely no former American territory. Yankovic270 02:30, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * As I look at the map again I can see that it did follow the natural geography. That being said it is still too large for the nation in question.
 * When did I become "important"? I don't even have full admin powers.  Sure I'm active but I'm not the boss of 1983: Doomsday or even this Wiki.  Hell I'm going to be gone for a month soon, but I'm sure you guys will survive without me.  Mitro 05:57, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

I allready promised I would abandon any claims to former American territory. Yankovic270 13:18, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * @Yankovic: please do not take criticism to personal here...even though I understand if it touches "your" nations...No one offended you in person. And changes are generally to be made out from discussions and consensus reached, not by decision of someone considered "important" (@ mitro: your long and always fruitful contributions earned you some reputation within this (and the WCRB),, nothign bad about it)...No one is the "god" or "omnipotent institution" of this Timeline, neither Mitro, Benkarnell, me (though a few times I was tempted to think that, I openly admit) or someone else. If I am called upon, I try to find a settlement and thats it basically. I give my comments, and if in a rare situation a decision is needed to be done, ok... but that´s it. --Xi&#39;Reney 21:00, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

just noticed that yugoslavia no longer exsists. --HAD 13:43, November 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, just to get the ball rolling again, I've made some miscellaneous updates to the map. In no particular order:


 * Central America: I added the Yucatan and used dotted lines to represent the Chiapas sepratists. I had Guatemala occupy half of Belize, which I think is canon.  I added El Salvador and Honduras just to show that they exist.  I changed Costa Rica to reflect the current situation and had the Miskito rebels occupying less territory.  I showed Colombia's annexation of the Darien rain forest.
 * North America: Added Eastern exas, Spokane, Chumash, and Delmarva. I erased Soviet Alaska because it's apparently been nixed, but I kept ANZ-Alaska to around the same size, since I doubt they'd have contorl of the entire state.
 * South America: I added a tiny Vatican state around Rio. While I haven't been able to get a straight answer on whether the Vatican's been given sovreignty yet, it will soon. probably.
 * Europe: Got rid of Yugoslavia, added Venice.
 * Africa: I added more "no man's land" around the New Union states, since I doubt they'd be as big as they were previously (just my opinion). I got rid of the big version of DSWA but kept a little bubble in the general area, because (unfortunately IMO) it is canon that a state by that name exists.  I added a rump Orange Free State as well.
 * Southeast Asia / Oceania: I colored in a rump Malaysia based on the current proposal on Singapore (not canon, but seems likely to become so). I fixed some minor errors regarding the borders of East Timor and the location of Christmas Island.  I colored Solomon-Bougainville and Fiji as nations rather than no-man's-lands.
 * I also corrected the borders of Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, and the USSR to conform to 1983 borders. I missed the Caucasus, so that's a mistake.  (For that matter, I also forgot all about Liberia/Monrovia until just now.)
 * All of these should be considered suggestions. I'm not trying to take over the map process, just make a couple minor changes myself rather than ust point out changes that I think should be made.  Benkarnell 14:41, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * The map is ok,but you seem to have forgotten about the Manchurian and Kazakh republics in the USSR. Alaska is gone,but that doesn't effect the rest of the map that Hellerick made--Vladivostok 14:57, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I kno, I skipped that one on purpose because I wanted to leave that to someone more familiar with htose articles. Same with North America - I skipped a lot of the "new" nations because there are some articles that I just haven't read yet.  Benkarnell 15:27, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * What about all those survivor states mentioned on the WCRB report of the southeast US? Mitro 15:57, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are the ones I mean. This version isn't supposed to e definitive.  It just shows a few things that I thought of while looking at it. Benkarnell
 * It's an excellent job. I'm sorry to comment that in my idea of the Rif Republic was situated some to east and in the area of Tangier-Ceuta sought to establish an international mandate similar to areas of the Suez and Panama canals and the Malta-Lampedusa corridor. Do you think good idea? Here I put my idea of how would Morocco [] --Tristanbreiker 19:02, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

I want the same claim I had before. All of West AND East Viginia, the maryland panhandle, the first claim I had for Ohio on the Virginian Expansion section, and All of Kentucky in the Cumberland plateau area. I will not budge from that. --Yankovic270 19:27, December 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yank, it is becoming exhausting. Benkarnell 22:22, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

That is my claim for Virginia, and I will not repeat it again. That is the full extent of Virginia's territory, and I will not budge on every single inch of territory that I claimed for Virginia. I may have rolled over on Western Nebraska, but I will not here. With Nebraska, there was a dispute with the NAU, but there are no canonized nations in the Deep South region besides Kentucky, and the border with them has stabilized. But I agree. The sooner the final version of the new map is available, the better. And don't tell me you never had stubborn beliefs in anything Ben. --Yankovic270 00:16, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Some things, yes. On a team project, especially an Internet creative collaboration like this? ... I have to say... no, actually.  There's not a whole lot of room to be stubborn in a project like this, Yank.  We discuss, we change, we compromise.  That's how it works.  Look at Alaska.  I believed strongly (different from stubborn) that Soviet Alska should be kept in the TL.  I wrote a really long spiel explaining why I thought that.  But it didn't seem to change any minds, so you'll n otice that he other day I uploaded a North America map that did not include Soviet Alaska - that was me accepting that most people disagreed with me, and that i just had to abandon what I wanted.  Another example would be Panama, where the discussion is still ongoing.  I had a certain idea about where that country should be, others had very different ideas, so we're looking for points where we agreed and tried to come up with compromise that would satisfy people.  Honestly, baing "stubborn" on a site like this confuses me.  You have literally infinite leeway to create your own AH scenarios and be as stubborn as you like, yet you chose to get involved in one that has a few dozen people (or so).  That means that the writing and other creative work that you do is all within the dynamic of a large group - very different from an individual creation, where you have final say!  Plenty of people have explained to you why the situation you describe in your ultimatum probably cannot happen; I'm not going to bother repeating them.  But please - I really, really thought that this issue was put to rest.  You're trying to force your way on everybody and drag everyone into a conversation that we've had many, many times already.  Benkarnell 05:52, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ben, how may times do we have to explain to you how implausible Virginia's size is? It is one thing to be stubborn about something when you have valid facts to back you up and other people are just failing to see it, but I have yet to see anything from you that would make your borders of Virginia even remotely plausible.  Now the only thing you have to say is “I will not budge on every single inch of territory that I claimed for Virginia” which honestly means nothing without a valid argument to support your claim.


 * As I and other editors have said before numerous times on several different articles, Virginia only controls most of West Virginia and few small enclaves in surrounding states. It is extremely implausible for them to control all of “East Virginia”, the are was too hard hit and there is to much damage for them to be able to control all of it.  Also there is no way they can control as much of Ohio as you originally suggested for similar reasons.  Also don't forget that West Virginia collapsed into anarchy after Doomsday and was only brought under control by the 101st airborne.  But that did not happen overnight and Virginia is in no shape to reenact Napoleon's conquest of Europe.


 * Furthermore it does not matter that no canon nations exist in the region because all nations need to be PLAUSIBLE. When the nation was first made canon it barely controlled all of West Virginia.  At the rate its going it will control the entire eastern seaboard by January.  The Virginians aren't blitzkrieging across well maintained roads with a well managed logistic trains following them. They are a third world militaristic country dependent on failing 1980s tech and few cheap knockoffs they have been able to produce since then and the surrounding territory is a nuked wasteland that has been left to rot except for those few isolated pockets of civilization who probably won't willingly allow someone to walk in, raise a flag and say “well I guess you are all Virginians now, so give us your money its tax day!”.


 * Remember the TL is happening at real time, so things must progress at the pace they would logically do so. It would take decades for Virginia to reach the size you suggest, not months.  The size of Virginia when it originally graduated was plausible, but not anymore.


 * Seriously Yank, I would pick being reasonable then stubborn any day of the week. Mitro 05:59, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

I am truly sorry for my behavior. --Yankovic270 16:42, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, a great map. Some small constructive criticism:
 * Adding the inner-German border would be a nice touch, I'd say.
 * North Germany recently expanded into 'the former Dutch provinces of Groningen as well as small parts of Drenthe' and now shares a border with Friesland (not depicted on the map in the North Germany article itself).
 * I think the borders of the OFS could be reconsidered. As it is depicted on the map it's territory is historically primarily inhabited by Sesotho people, whereas the Afrikaans speaking south-west of the Free State area is not part of the state (demographic map that might be useful). I'd suggest its core should be shifted further to the south west, perhaps making the state slightly smaller. This change would also bring the state closer to New Britain, which would make the country's intervention more logical. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 17:16, December 7, 2009 (UTC)