Talk:1983: Doomsday/Archive 8

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

Former Proposals: | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5

War!
Moved to: Talk:2009 Saguenay War (1983: Doomsday). Please direct all questions, comments, concerns, etc. about the Saugenay War (or whatever its name will eventually be) there please. Mitro 18:31, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Proposition for the Condition of Asia
Discussion moved to. Mitro 18:17, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

New Britain-LoN
Would anyone be adverse to New Britain joining the LoN? They technically don't occupy KwXhosa anymore, though KwaXhosa is bound by treaty not to attack NB. Bob 17:12, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not going to join immediately, certainly, since the LoN seems to act very slowly on these matters. Do they have a friendly nation that is a member of the LoN that can "sponsor their membership", if you will?  That would probably improve their chances.  Canada might work - looking thru the news, NB seems to have gone out of its way to strengthen ties with Canada in recent months.  Benkarnell 21:07, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * So if Canada said that NB was in a position to rejoin then they could albeit after some time. Also how come the LoN reacts so slowly. Surely they want to react swiftly enough to prevent another world war occuring? Bob 15:59, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they're much quicker to respond to a crisis than they are on issues like membership. Even our UN would't just drop sanctions and say "all's forgiven" after a week or so of compliance... or would they?  It may be that sanctions have been lifted for now, and I'm sure they would a team (likely from the RZA) to travel to KwaXhosa and report back to the LoN on how the transition to independent rule is going.  Any body would want to make sure that NB is acting in all good faith and is serious about giving up its claims/desires for Xhosa territory or influence.  And that would be required (I'm guessing) just to secure a permanent lifting of sanctions.  Actual membership will probably be a couple of months down the road. As international diplomacy goes, the timetable I'm proposing isn't really that short - look how long the EU takes to add new members.  Look how long it took the UN to recognize the PRC, not the RoC, as the legitimate government of China.   Benkarnell 20:11, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, though the Celtic Alliance would wish to ensure that they renounce all claims to former U.K. territory and claims of royal rights. The Alliance would even consider proposing if the situation regarding occupation was clarified. Mjdoch 09:40, October 20, 2009 (GMT)

New Hawaiian colony
In my latest news article, Hawaii's congress authorized a new colony in Ogasawara, or the Bonin Islands. I'd like some feedback on potential problems with the undertaking. Ogasawara is pretty far away. Do you think that Hawaii has the resources to create and maintain settlements there? Do you think they might come into conflict with Japan? And how do you think the ANZC itself will react to this claim? Benkarnell 21:10, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This discussion has taken off at. I think it would make the most sense for some of the diplomatic groundwork to have been laid in the last year or so. The problem is, I don't know enough about Japan *there*, or its relations with the ANZC and its satellites. Benkarnell 12:55, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

History Pages
I've noticed that some pages have been made for nations' histories. Is each nation supposed to have its own history page? --DarthEinstein 18:16, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I've only been doing that when articles get too large. Still if anyone wants to split the history section of a nation into its own article, that is perfectly fine.  Mitro 16:07, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hawaii probably needs it. That page has turned into a beast.  Benkarnell 20:07, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've generally been waiting until a page reaches 30k before splitting it. I've noticed that on some of the computers I use that if I attempt to edit a page that is over 30k in length there is noticeable lag.  Hawaii isn't there yet but feel free to split it off if you want to.  Mitro 13:59, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Latest archive
I moved an insane amount of discussion to Page 7, and added an equally insane amount of proposal discussion to Proposal Page 4. I apologize if I moved comments that people were hoping to get replies from: feel free to move them back, or ask if you can't find them. It was 92,000 bytes of text that I removed - and this page is still huge! Benkarnell 02:45, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Revising approved articles because of canon
I decided to revise the early history of Vermont and while I don't know if that's allowed, I had the best intentions.

There is a line on the timeline page which reads,

By Christmas, Hawaii is the only US state with a functioning government...

I had Vermont's state government still existing after Doomsday.

I changed the scenario to allow for the survival of Governor Snelling and enough stability within the state to restart the state government soon after DD.

I'm certainly open to correction here, but I want to honor canon and be realistic while doing it. You can't have Vermont with a stable government weeks after the bombs go off when Hawaii has been said all along to have the only functioning state government in December.


 * That line was written before we knew anything about Vermont. I think it's OK to change it in this case.  The question is: why did the US government not know about it?  They left for Australia assuming that _nothing_ was left in the US.  Was Vermont deliberately hiding?  (Or do conservatives just hate Vermont that much ;)?) Benkarnell 12:53, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * You can also ask that question about Aroostook, Superior, Utah, Texas (assuming it is approved as canon), Dinetah, the NAU. Other than Reagan's trip to Mexico, it seems like Reagan stayed put at Mount Weather and Bush at the Greenbriar. Plus, all the satellites were knocked out, electricity was sporadic and communications were out. I still want to be careful about contradicting what's already been said. Plus, it doesn't preclude city and town governments from operating, and working together, to form a provisional state or regional government. --BrianD 14:49, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote Vermont and West Texas as if the respective nations would have rejoined the US if it had reconstituted itself on American soil; I remember Superior and Aroostook having provisions early on to rejoin the US in such a scenario. West Texas probably would have wanted Bush to show up personally in Midland to believe the legitimacy of any US government; Vermont probably wasn't able to communicate with Bush and the APA until after it disbanded. Just because ham radio operators heard signals from the southern hemisphere, or someone with an operational shortwave radio got a signal from Australia, doesn't mean that North American survivor states would be easily able to communicate with Australia even 10 years after Doomsday. Now, yes. Then, no.--BrianD 15:36, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of those were not yet stabilized - not yet "functioning governments" - by December 1983. Benkarnell 16:30, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet functioning, but in the process of organizing themselves?--BrianD 18:19, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Roughly, I guess. It had to be bad enough that the people surrounding the President could not find one reliable "safe zone" in the US and made the calculated decision to flee to Australia.  Benkarnell 21:19, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * How would they have tracked the entire country, though? Would they have been able to keep track of all 50 states, or did they make their decision based on the best (but not comprehensive) knowledge they had?--BrianD 21:25, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
Hey guys,just wanted to say hi,I'm new to the site and I've already made some proposal nations,I'd like to see what you think about the articles,the first one I kind of screwed up and i could use some help,the other one I was trying to somehow fit into the story and that's about it,hope to get some advice later on --Vladivostok 12:36, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Welcome! Could you give us links to those proposal pages you mentioned? I'd like to read them. Hope you have fun in 1983: Doomsday! --DarthEinstein 15:02, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I found them. They're the articles on Mongolia http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Soviet_Socialist_Republic_of_Mongolia and Tibet http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Tibet%281983:Doomsday%29 --BrianD 15:26, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome, and compliments on your proposals.--BrianD 15:26, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Status of Siberia
I suggest to change the status of the Siberian state. It should not claim to be a republic, it's supposed to claim to be a temporary territorial administration until the pre-war states will be restored. Its official name could be something like The Provisional Authority for Coordination in Statehood and Economics Restoration — PACSER (Временное Управление по Взаимодействию в Государственном и Экономическом Восстановлении — ВУВГЭВ). Its official aim is to restore the pre-war states including the Soviet Union (with all its fifteen republics), Mongolia, and the People's Republic of China. It does not claim to have annexed Alaska — it claims that "its Alaska" is the legal successor of the State of Alaska and it will be re-admitted to the United States as soon the country will be restored (but the Siberian authorities refuse to recognise the regimes that appeared on the former US territory and therefore consider Siberian Alaska the most lawful of all). — Hellerick 06:56, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * You know I was thinking of retooling the Siberia article for quite some time now. I noticed a few potholes and things that wouldn’t happen in our timeline (for example the capital of Sovetskaya Gavan wouldn’t have been hit, but there was another major base near by that would have been plastered). Since I am currently concentrating on Northern Europe at the time I can relinquish control of the article if someone else wants to mess with it.

But before someone dose here are a few of my suggestions I thought of while I considered redoing the page.

First the country would still be called the Soviet Union (although officially it would be called the name you mentioned above).

Secondly the territory would change a bit. I propose that the soviets would lose some territory in the east of Siberia, but would gain some in Central Asia. The territory could stretch from northern Kazakhstan down through the deserts and the Aral Sea into western Uzbekistan and northern Turkmenistan. With a wetter climate these areas could be turned into farming regions to help feed the Soviet population. Later on its territory could expand further east and west.

Third West Alaska would fall under Soviet influence rather quickly (as in just after Doomsday) before the rest of ANZC of Alaska has anything to do with it. This is less do to the desire to take over territory as it is that Western Alaska is closer to Russia than it is to anywhere else in the world.

Finally the leaders of the Soviet Union would all be from the military weather they come back from Afghanistan or were in Siberia/Central Asia all along.

So what do you think about my suggestions?--ShutUpNavi 14:48, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump into the conversation but I also thought that some territory in Central Asia would be a reasonable assumption. Not in the most affected areas obviously but perhaps a provisional Kazahstan Republic,perhaps with only Pavlodar and East Kazahstan stable enough to be in the Soviet Union. I don't see any reason why they would lose any territory in the east,considering that only Yakutsk and Vladivostok were hit in the most eastern regions. I also think that by turning Siberia back into the Soviet Union would make my newly created articles on Mongolia and Alaska fit in perfectly with the TL,as I was finding it rather difficult naming Mongolia any differently than a Soviet Republic and that would mean that Siberia wasn't a republic,but a union or federation. I'd love to write about this part of the world,maybe even push my East Turkestan idea through.--Vladivostok 16:13, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * I like these ideas, especially the different status of Alaska. I assume, therefore, that the USSR considers the ANZC regime to also be a usurper to the title of "successor to the USA".  Establishing the oblast earlier than 1990 makes it much, much harder for the Aussies and Kiwis to do anything about it.  Benkarnell 16:43, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I could alter the timeframe of the attacks,but there needs to be a lot of editing in the Siberian(now Soviet Union?) article. It doesn't specifically say that Mongolia or Alaska are part of the Union,even though the map states otherwise.--Vladivostok 16:59, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

I have a concern with Alaska. I have been toying with the idea of having a surprise Siberian attack happen sometime in 1993-1994 as part of my article. The war would be short and it would end quickly with the APA agreeing to cede western Alaska and there would be a symbolic peace ending Doomsday day between Siberia and the APA. The events of the short war however would be a blow to American morale and convince Bush to end the APA, which is currently not really explained sufficiently IMO on why he did so in canon. Bush would see his failure of holding on to all of Alaska as a sign that the APA/USA could not possibly exist anymore as a sovereign nation in the post-Doomsday world and convince him to cede control over the Australia and later ANZC. Mitro 00:28, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

My idea is that "Siberia" is in fact a kind of union of survivalist regimes. After the war there was a complicated issue of who is the highest authority, and who is the successor of the Soviet government. So they came to an agreement — none of them is the successor. The Soviet government will be re-established later, when the problems of vital importance will be solved. Plus, the agreement guarantees non-Soviet groups (from Mongolia, China etc.) that their territories won't be absorbed in the future. Siberia did not conquer Alaska — Western Alaska started as a local survivalist group that came into the Siberian sphere of influence simply because the Siberians were the first "civilized power" they came into contact with, and they heavily depended on them in the first years after the Doomsday. The Siberians consider ANZAC (with its "puppet" organizations like APA) "predators" who are trying to take over the North while it lies in ruins and can't defend itself. — Hellerick 13:06, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,Hellerick,I unfortunately didn't see your suggestion. I have just added new content,nothing was erased,i just wanted everybody to see a couple of my ideas. Unfortunately,I'm not that good at editing for now,so I didn't add links to newly made republics because I just don't know how. If i was hasty with my decision to edit,I'll remove the new content myself.

--Vladivostok 19:43, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

So,should I wait for the screening process for knew articles,or say that I'm,more or less,finished with the USSR page and it's associated articles?--Vladivostok 19:32, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Recent news item
I have to object to this item that was recently added to the news section:

"October 19, 2009, 19:53 GMT: KwaXhosan Terror strikes British industry: Rhoflag.png Kwaxhosa.jpg PORT ELIZABETH - In the areas where New Britain has been heavily industrialising, KwaXhosa has made a shocking move and has captured key industrial areas. KwaXhosa fielded mechanical infantry purchased from Sicily and has deprived New Britain of its industrial strength. Parliament is encouraging workers to passively resist and refuse to work in the factories. To support them, New Britain is printing more money to pay them."

This is not plausible. KwaXosha was just recently under New Britain occupation and now apparently they were able to build up their military enough to take them on after just a month of freedom. That does not make sense. Furthermore how was Sicily able to send them weapons when they are pretty much surrounded and cut off by the ADC and LoN? Mitro 00:01, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * No, and indeed NB ended their occupation with _very_ generaous terms, obviously intended to bolster its human rights record with the international community. KwaXhosa could essentially do whatever it wanted, so long as it didn't attack NB, am I right?  Why is it now breaking its treaty with a nation proven to be stronger, since it was occupying its entire territory up until last month?  Unless the KwaXhosa leaders' stated goal is to end up a New British province with no diplomatic consequences for New Britain.  Benkarnell 01:09, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * [EDIT] I thought of this today: NB announced just a couple of weeks ago that it was pulling out of KwaXhosa. It's almost certain that there are still some NB troops in the country in the process of withdrawing.  While there's no way KwaXhosa is in the position to launch a military attack (and no reason they'd want to), there are probably some militant groups who would attack NB soldiers in the process of leaving, for whatever reason.  The article does say "terror" after all - why not "terror"ism?  I don't know what the result of the attacks would be, but NB could possibly use it as a pretext for reversing their withdrawl: KX is "not ready" or what-have-you.  Such would probably still hurt NB diplomatically, however... I'm not sure there's a plausible way for NB to go back on their promises without offending the outside world.  Benkarnell 21:35, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

League of Nations members
What is the official process for application to the League of Nations, according to the timeline? I couldn't find it on the LoN page. As far as getting a nation joining the LoN in canon, is that something the community here has to approve? BTW, Douglas's plane should arrive in Tonga next Monday. He'll meet with Newman on Tuesday, Birch on Wednesday and King Andrew on Friday.--BrianD 02:33, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * We never established that. IMO there are some nations that exist that should have been members of the LoN from the beggining because of their history, but for whatever reason aren't.  We really need to establish the current list of who was a member of the LoN now that there has been so many new nations added to canon.  Mitro 16:32, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's okay, I'm proceeding as if Vermont has never been a member. I'll research how a nation becomes a member of the U.N., and have Vermont follow that format (as the LoN is based partly on the UN). Douglas should make his presentation a week from now. Would it be safe to have the LoN immediately grant Vermont "observer" status, with a vote on full membership to come later in the year?--BrianD 16:50, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the national histories, here are those nations IMO that should be members of the LoN currently:


 * Aland
 * Algeria
 * Alpine Confederation
 * Aroostook
 * Cleveland
 * Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand
 * Bolivia
 * Brazil
 * Canada
 * Celtic Alliance
 * Chile
 * Colombia
 * Cuba
 * Denmark
 * East Caribbean Federation
 * Ecuador
 * Faroe Islands
 * Finland
 * France /RTA
 * Friesland
 * Republica de Galicia (has been in contact long enough with the outside world to be a member)
 * Greece
 * Greenland
 * Guyana Cooperativa
 * Iceland
 * Islamic Indonesian Islands League
 * Madagascar
 * Mexico
 * Monaco
 * Municipal States of the Pacific (If the RZA is a member I can’t see why the MSP should not be as well. Both were formed under ANZC/SAC supervision.)
 * Netherlands Antilles
 * New Britain (maybe an original member though they might be relegated to observer status)
 * North Germany
 * Norway
 * País del Oro/Western Sahara
 * Pakistan
 * Paraguay
 * Peru
 * Philippines
 * Portugal
 * Puerto Rico
 * RZA
 * Republic of San Juan
 * Somaliland
 * Soviet Socialist Siberia
 * Spanish Republic (LoN has a base right next to it, seems odd though they would not be a member)
 * Sweden
 * Sri Lanka
 * Superior
 * Tonga
 * United American Republic
 * Venezuela
 * Vermont
 * Victoria
 * Zanzibar

Comments, questions, anyone I missed? Also, a couple of questions of my own:
 * What exactly are the relations of the associated states with Australia? Are they able to represent themselves independently in the LoN or are they mere observers?
 * Are the member nations of the Nordic Union and the SAC represented separately or by the organization? What about the separate components of the RTA? Mitro 17:05, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * One option is to retroactively admit everyone. Another is to stick with the list of members and observer states as they currently exist, and have the LoN go on what amounts to be a large membership drive, recognizing the large number of nation states that have recently become known on a global basis, and have no strikes against them in regards to official membership.--BrianD 17:16, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense but neither of those options are necessary. The reason the LoN membership is as it is currently is because that when the article was first created there were only a small number of nations that were canon at the time.  Now we have a hell of a lot more nation articles, many with histories that make it plausible that they would be a founding member of the LoN.  For whatever reason though, editors (myself included) have consistently said our new nations are not members.  If the contact date is early enough, the nations are recongized by a majority of states and they are not some rogue state like Sicily or a dictatorship like Virginia, there should be nothing stopping an editor from adding their nation as a member.  Mitro 18:15, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * None taken. I needed to know exactly how the process works. With that in mind, unless there are objections Vermont is on its way to becoming a member.--BrianD 21:10, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

My nation of Lincoln might be polite enough to get into the LoN, and the Virginians are in the midst of loosening the iron fist considerably. --Yankovic270 21:22, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Like Mitro says, the list as it currently exists is there because it was written early, before we knew about most of the world. The SAC is listed as a single member because, well, we didn't know a thing about any of the individual South American states.  The Nordic Union is listed as a single member because in the early versions, it did sound like one big country.  It was a little later that Realismadder clarified its status, as a union of independent nations and a re-creation of the Nordic Council.  One of the reasons the ANZC satellites _are_ members is that, at the time, Hawaii was one of the few fully-deceloped nation pages we had, and the list felt empty without it.  Now of course, it's basically canon, and I'd be very sad if "my" country lost its membership status.


 * I would say that any stable nation with an Atlantic, Pacific, or Indian coastline is probably a founding member, no questions asked. So are stable inland nations that were in contact with the "mainstream" world by 2005-ish.  Vermont, it seems, was in contact, but its government was until no wary of the LoN, which is fine.  I'd imagine that the members would want a little more time to "get to know" more recently contacted nations.  Lincoln is as stable & peaceful as can be, but it's probably only been contacted in the last 1-2 years: definitely a good candidate for membership.  Benkarnell 21:50, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Lincoln being added to the list.--BrianD 00:04, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Benkarnell; the founding nations in the League should be nations that can access the wider world, and have been able to do so for several years. The newer nations on the international scene (mainly inland nations) would have to wait. --DarthEinstein 00:23, October 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. And I should add to what I said before: there are plausible justifications for the ANZ satellites being members.  I can imagine a situation where the Brazillian negotiator says, "We demand that the League of Nations have its headquarters in Sao Paulo and that none of your satellite states get to be members!"  The Autralo-Neozealandian negotiator responds, "Rubbish!  The League will be headquartered in Aukland, and all of our sassociated states must be allowed to join!"  The Brazillian says, "Very well.  We'll put the headquarters in Tonga, but none of your satellites can join."  The ANZ-er says, "A Tongan headquarters we can agree to, but our client states must get to join."  "Fine."  Benkarnell 01:35, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the ANZC associated states, especially since the ANZC would not want to be that outnumbered by the South American states. However I don't think Lincoln would be a member. Its too far inland and I really believe that contact with it would be around the same time of the NAU. Mitro 14:06, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

I established the LoN page as a very early site of DD as I tried to imagine a functioning world organisation in the then-current situation. As my focus was on establishing a nearly balanced out system (I still believe) merging the UN and the old League of nations System I did not establish a valid and vivid admission system of new states...Only mentioned a General asssembly decision once a year... but due to the proposal and rapid expansions of the TL adjustments need to be made for sure...Will need to get back into the TL end the developmetns during last weeks as I am now a bit out of the worst in my new job here in Spain and found the time to get involved with 1983: Doomsday again....--Xi&#39;Reney 17:59, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Vermont has applied for membership and is anxious to get in; West Texas would like in, and I would say that if Dinetah and the NAU and other North American states know of it, the LoN knows of it too.--BrianD 20:53, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that poverall we've been asusming a little too much strictness over who can join the League. The only thing that should bar  a country from joining is if it is blatantly, actively ocupying a nation that doesn't want to be occupied.  I've seen reference to nations being blocked for not having a "real democracy".  Virginia, I think.  That shouldn't keep you from joining.  The UN, and the old LoN, have plenty of un-democratic members.  The point of the organization is to encourage dialogue, not democracy.  Benkarnell 21:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

/
These two pages don't seem to be working together. The former mentions a "horrifying warlord regime" that existed before 2006, while the other talks of a fairly peaceful nation that existed since Doomsday, which seems to be the successor to South Africa. --DarthEinstein 22:11, October 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, you're right. I wrote the "horrifying warlord" business before we knew exactly what was in the Cape.  Here are karsten's (aka Villa's) original comments.  They should be incorporated more exactly into the both articles (and possibly also the South Africa page):

The fictional Van der Merwe was ultimately replaced with the real-life Marais. Otherwise, this was the plan. It has the extra advantage of helping to explain the origins of New Britain (the Anglo-Africans fled the Cape and settled in Port Elizabeth). Benkarnell 23:25, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * After the attacks the only part of South Africa to remain under effective government control is the almost wholly Europeanised part round Cape Town. As the central government finally collapsed, local authorities assume control of the area.
 * To keep the support of the Coloured population, which was vital in beating down those riots that did occur in the Western Cape region, some Coloureds are appointed to government posts. The most important posts however remain in the hands of the Afrikaners.
 * One of the leaders of a Coloured militia created after Doomsday (I'm calling him Hendrikus van der Merwe for now, just to ease referring to him) grows dissatisfied by the relatively marginal posts given to his kinsfolk (or perhaps better said: grows dissatisfied by the fact that he wasn't among those appointed...) starts revolting against the Cape Town authorities and becomes an uncontrollable menace, ultimately taking over control over the state.
 * Van der Merwe streamlines the Cape into an authoritarian regime and starts some kind of personality cult.
 * Van der Merwe initially targets the Islamic Cape Malay population as a scapegoat for all problems of the RZA.
 * Ultimately, when this loses some of its effect, Van der Merwe also starts targeting another group that is somehow different from the norm: the local Anglophone population. Going as far as passing an edict that fully outlaws usage of the English language and forces people to use Afrikaans.
 * With Anglo-Saxons being actively persecuted, I guess international interference is only an inch away, regardless of the fact that it's happening in Africa...
 * After the interference the first truly free elections of the Cape are held.
 * The new democratic government chooses to remain a member of the New Union of South Africa. Which, being by far its largest member, the RZA has come to dominate.
 * Okay, that works. I'm no South Africa expert though, so if someone else could fix it up that would be good. --DarthEinstein 01:07, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of reading on it. I've been meaning for months to do some serious writing on the topic for DD, but haven't found the inspiration yet, I guess.  Mostly I'm interested in writing a proposal for KwaZulu.  But seriously, until the current growth rate slows a little bit, I don't think yet another proposal is very helpful.  I have yet to read the majority of proposals that are out there, to say nothing of many of the canonical articles.  Benkarnell 05:23, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

New categoriztion for country pages
I've grouped all 200-ish current country pages into regional subcategories, which can be seen in Category:World Country Profiles (1983: Doomsday). There may be a good way to coordinate them with Category:Continents (1983: Doomsday), maybe eventually reaching a point where everything can be put into a gepgraphic category of some kind. In the meantime, please try to put new country pages into one of the subcategories; that way the categories are easier to use. Benkarnell 05:23, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Your dedication to this timeline continues to impress me. Well done.  Mitro 14:51, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Changes to articles by anonymous users
I had an anonymous user who's apparently quite the rugby union fan make some changes to the sports by country article. How often does this happen, and how is it dealt with here?--BrianD 20:46, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Football or soccer?
An anonymous user has changed 'soccer' to 'football' a few times in the past two days over on the sports by country article. This actually raises a good point: being that this wiki has contributors and readers from all over the globe, should we reference soccer as football (and American football as, well, American football)? I have no objection at all to doing this. --BrianD 19:47, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at this on Wikipedia just now; check out this image. It shows which English speaking countries use which version. The most prominent English-speaking countries in our timeline (ANZC, Celtic Alliance, Canada) use the word soccer. But the non-Anglophone countries are not shown, so I'm not sure about them, especially considering that the SAC is important in the post-Doomsday soccer (or football) world. --DarthEinstein 20:05, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Good conversation on the sport by country talk page regarding this issue. Would love to hear from the other regulars here, including the creator of the Celtic Alliance page, regarding their views on the matter. I'm in favor of calling it football, not soccer.--BrianD 00:32, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly inclined to officially refer to soccer as football (with various exceptions by country, or other codes). But I would like direction from the leaders here before any kind of change is made, or clarification regarding me making it by myself or if it's a group decision.--BrianD 20:42, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Request to block anonymous user
An anonymous user has edited the sports by country articles six times now. I don't have an issue with his 'suggestion' (changed soccer to football), but I have a big problem with the manner in which he is doing it. Can we block this user?--BrianD 20:01, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll give them a warning first, telling him that his edits are unconstructive and he should be bring up any disputes on the talk page. If he ignores it and keeps doing it I will give him a short block.  Mitro 23:38, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good. Thanks. --BrianD 23:40, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Edit War
Im sure you all by now have seen so many undo-edits in the recent changes section, no doubt all coming from the 2nd Sicily-War. Das Taub has been trying to add his own material into the page, and I don't think it fits. Now he's trying to shove it down my throat and he's starting to get get angry; we both are starting to get angry. Is it not right right as the creator of both the Confederation of Greece and the War to decide what's going to happen and what isn't? If anyone could diffuse the situation and stop an edit war, I'd greatly appreciate it. Mr.Xeight 01:11, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Expeditions into the deep South
I'm wondering if those editors who have been here for awhile could tell me what canon says about the southern U.S.? Without taking away the potential for an editor in the future to develop a good scenario for the region, is it possible or probable in the timeline that somebody - perhaps the WCRB - would have already explored the region in the past 26 years?--BrianD 20:30, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that on this page, there has been general agreement that race relations became very, very ugly. And that probably explains why no one has really delved into it: like South Africa, it would mean exploring some of the worst impulses within humanity; but unlike South Africa, the topic very close to many of us, and therefore much less comfortable or safe to explore in our fiction.  Basically: we know about Virginia, Kentucky, and Texas, which all kind of skirt the edges of the Deep South.  And we know the area is vacant enough that Cuban traders have become economically important.  (I imagine them as Cuban versions of the French voyageurs of around 1700, but that's just me.  I haven't done any work in the region.)  There has been talk of the two different races moving and settling into their own segregated clans, enclaves, and micro-states, but that's not canon either.  Benkarnell 21:07, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is a very uncomfortable subject to address. I had a few ideas for the region, and am wondering if I should go for it or abandon the idea, and chalk the south up as this abandoned area full of mysteries that may never be solved.--BrianD 21:11, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was just musing on why no one's touched the Deep South yet. (Part of it is also just that we knew _nothing_ about the interior of the USA until very, very recently.)  But it's no reason to avoid exploring there yourself.  Good writers, after all, never shy away from a topic just because it's unsfe or uncomfortable!
 * I think it's safe to assume that there are no Superior- or Vermont-type survivor states in that region of the continent. The region may be more like old France, with numerous survivor states (albeit more like survivor communities than complex small nations). I can't see, with the large number of states in the region, that someone hasn't explored the region (by now), so I probably will write up a WCRB report on the deep south that's vague, but gives some idea of what's been going on there the past 26 years.--BrianD 22:36, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Those reports on regions are a great new trend: East Texas, the Middle East, Spain. It helps us organize and plan events in a more logical & consistent fashion, rather than just limiting our focus to individual governments and states. Benkarnell 22:42, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Tell me, where is the strongest (that survives DD) KKK stronghold in the south? Because I could see a "whites only state" there. Maybe with its own little genicide of the local African American and Mixed Race populations. Those who don't die flee. --Yankovic270 00:05, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * There are probably a number of sad little pockets like that down there. Benkarnell 22:18, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

I've started the page. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/2009_WCRB_report_on_the_southern_United_States_%281983:_Doomday%29 Please put your suggestions here. I want to be vague and allow for future creation of stories, but give some insight as to why the region has not been a bustling center of activity in the past several years. --BrianD 22:51, October 30, 2009 (UTC)