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

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

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

New Decatur Flag
I'd like someone help me by designing a new flag for Decatur. I want to have Vandalia and Decatur having two distinct flags.

Yank 21:18, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2

What is a caretaker?
I have seen a lot of various opinions about what it means to be a caretaker. Personally, I don't agree with most of them. I really think we need to discuss exactly what this term actually means when we use it. Please list your opinions on what a caretaker is? Mitro 16:36, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

A caretaker oversees an article, respecting what other editors have done before while adjusting when necessary (for example, when something a previous editor wrote is clearly ASB, or not plausible within the overall timeline), and after discussion on the topic. He/she acknowledges the previous editors work as those editors and shows respect for that editor's work while doing his/her part to move the article forward. 1983:DD is a living timeline, and articles need to be allowed to be updated on a regular basis as people have time to do so.

I haven't seen a written definition of what a caretaker is anywhere on the wiki, and welcome hammering out exactly what that is. BrianD 18:29, October 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * A caretaker is someone who adopts an article when their creator moves on and no longer edits the article. Their job is to monitor the article and update it as necessary. They should work to their utmost ability to preserve what was previously written by the article's creator and should change nothing in a canonized article from before they adopted it, except for grammar mistakes and the like. Like their title suggests, they maintain the article, not control or rewrite it Caeruleus 18:30, October 26, 2010 (UTC).


 * Ok, but what if someone wants to edit an article that they are not a caretaker of? That has caused the most issues, and IMO some caretakers act like they are the only ones allowed to edit an article. Where do you draw the line? Mitro 18:44, October 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * They ask if they can edit it and if it doesn't alter canon, edit the creator's work, and the caretaker agrees, they should be allowed to. Caretakers aren't the only ones who are allowed to edit them, nor do they even have to edit it imo. Their main job is to make sure the article isn't led astray or heavily altered in a way that destroys the creator's work or alters canon.


 * Not everyone can edit anything either. If 10 different people decided to edit an article, and they were allowed to do so freely, the article would turn into a mess. While I don't think people should necessarily prevent anyone from editing their article, or an article they're caretaker of, people can't just edit freely. Caeruleus 18:49, October 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say that in terms of editing, one should ask the caretaker before making editing anything more then minor grammar or spelling. --Zack 19:27, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

In my mind, people should ask the caretaker before adding any major things to an article, except for lines involving newly proposed states which do not adjust the article in any great way. My edits about the Northwest Alliance on Canada a few months back, being an example. I changed nothing, merely adding a line equivalent to what had been canonized with the Alliance article.

Edits like that should largely be ok without permission. Bigger things, like trade deals and the like, would not be.

Spelling or grammar would also be ok, though I can honestly say in a couple instances in my articles people have done so incorrectly, or the like, so its not always ok.

People who become caretakers or adopt articles should change as little as possible when it comes to the original work, barring ASB stuff. Expanding, like I did with Belarus and Transylvania is fine, when the original nuclear damage cannot possibly make the end result, works as well.

As for a description, a caretaker is someone who guards/primarily edits an article they did not create, but did not adopt. For examples, Ben agreed to take me on as a caretaker with his Yukon article, but I have by no means adopted the thing, and then using what Ven wrote out originally in the Caucasus, I fixed/expanded the things and have full permission to edit freely, making me the effective caretaker of the region. Belarus and Transylvania, however, I have adopted and consider myself as more than a caretaker.

Lordganon 21:19, October 26, 2010 (UTC

For a long time I have been the caretaker of Brazil ITTL, which is quite frankly a rather easy job.HAD 17:17, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

I think a caretaker should pretty much just be in charge of ensuring further edits to an article adhere to established canon. If an original author of an article is no longer active, anyone should be able to make edits to that article, a caretaker simply ensures that what came before is respected.Oerwinde 18:17, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen's Agreement...Huzzah!
Louis once suggested as a way of dealing with the excessive amount of proposals was to have a gentlemen's agreement on the number on the number of outstanding proposals someone was allowed to have. It wouldn't be a rule exactly, but peer pressure would be applied when someone has to many proposals waiting to be canonized. I think three is a good number, thoughts? Mitro 16:36, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Make it loose, and not dogmatic. There may be work going on within a region or topic that makes it necessary to have numerous proposals up at once. Motivation is a concern here: why does someone have say, a dozen proposals up for canonization? Is it part of a project, someone's view that stubs need to be produced for a particular region, personal motivation, trying to fill a perceived void on the TL? I'm also concerned that if the TL settles on a number as a loose guide for a limit, someone will inevitably attack another editor for violating the so-called "rule" that was intended to be more loose than dogmatic. This is where community consensus will be necessary. BrianD 18:35, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think three is a good number as well. Also, if anyone wants this to be enforced, it should be a rule. Caeruleus 18:32, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well, this whole policy seems to be a reactionary one. It seems rather clear to me that Arstarpool inspired this proposal. Certainly we can "encourage" folks to finish their article(s) before they throw another boatload of proposals up. But like Brian said it cannot be dogmatic. Any such rule like that, I cannot support. --Zack 19:56, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Zack and Brian on this. I admit to a bias, given the number I have on the page right now, but I really feel it unfair to punish us all arbitrarily for Arstar's behavior. Heck, at this time several of us have more than three proposals on the page. I mean, for my Ukraine work I added 5 articles to the list alone, and will be doing a general Ukraine article when they're done, making a total of six.

This should be more of a guideline. Basically, that three or less is a good idea, and in the event you have more, you should either be working on them actively, or letting others do so. Heck, there must be a dozen on the proposal list not even at stub stage at this point, some over a month old.

Of course, aiding in other projects shouldn't be held against you in this regard.

Lordganon 20:52, October 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about punishment? Or this being a rule? The title says "gentlemen's agreement." It was only ever supposed to be a guideline.
 * Also this is not due to Arstar. I have been thinking of a way to deal with the large amount of proposals without rushing articles through the graduation process, something I did in the past. Louis did mention this months ago but it was ignored. I brought it up because I recently remembered his proposal. Mitro 21:00, October 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't care less if someone has a 100 proposals on the go, so long as they are working on them and are mostly done by the time they are graduated. Also Mitro, I though you liked a large of proposals saying "having a lot of proposals just shows that the TL is active which is a good thing." does that still stand? --Zack 21:29, October 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies, bad word choice. Lordganon 21:21, October 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure proposals are great and point to a healthy TL. But I don't know about you guys but I follow every single article in this TL (yeah I'm that crazy) and most of the proposals haven't been edited in weeks if not months (and they are not just all Arstar's). That is what I am trying to correct, not the exact number of proposals, but those proposals that are abandoned shortly after creation. Mitro 21:40, October 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its really hurtful to have people pointing fingers at you right in front of you and blaming you for a "punishment"...I feel sick right now from all of this. Arstar 23:19, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose its not really a punishment to most, but in my mind putting any sort of limit is one, as well as adding a rule. I also realize Louis originally proposed it, but given the latest mess with Ogasawara, that it reminded of his idea would not surprise me.

With regards to the ones on the list atm that have not been edited in months - Yank, Jin, and Arstar being the biggest offenders - I feel that we should just ask the author to work on them, and without a response - say a week? - put it up for adoption, barring objections.

Lordganon 11:53, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Combat on Doomsday
Was there any actual fighting? Did either side make significant headway in Europe? I assume that tactical nukes would have destroyed much of the troops on the frontline, but there still must have been survivors. I know there was combat in Finland lasting into 1984, but how long would this last in central Europe (and how long would the survivors have the motivation to fight)? I'm interested in this mostly as my dad was a medic/lab tech in Germany. Depending on how the frontline moved he may have survived and ended up in (probably) North Germany. Of course, deciding what really happened in central Germany, and indeed the frontlines of communism in general, would be a great help to the timeline. Fegaxeyl 17:32, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Given everything that I've ever read, both sides did get out some sort of order over the airwaves warning of both the attack, and telling them to pursue some sort of operations in the region.

Overall, in most cases the front - insomuch as there was one - stayed at the borders.

Besides Finland, fighting occurred in the Finnmark region of Norway, the Fulda Gap in Germany, near Vienna, the Georgia-Turkey border, and the Bulgarian/Turkish-Greek borders. Fulda and the Georgian borders were draws, and the Bulgarians were repulsed.

It depends where he was stationed, really, as to where he'd have ended up or lived.

Lordganon 17:50, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

This is something we've touched on briefly from time to time. We're always left assuming isolated units running around fending for themselves. Like what happened in Prussia, or in Luxembourg with the rogue Belgian unit. These creepy maps seem to have been made by the US DoD in 1987. While it seems clear that nothing of the sort happened in Europe, it is interesting how the USSR's expansion more or less follows the lines in the "Far East" map. Maybe the Soviet troops who initially offered aid to the starving villages of western Alaska were originally there trying to carry out some half-baked invasion plan. As for Germany, I havne't read most of the recent work on it, so you'll have to check some of the newer pages to see what they say about ground troops. Benkarnell 18:05, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Dad was stationed in Rinteln, close to Hanover, which was nuked. Apparently the bridge across the Weser was to be blown in the case of war - my dad's medical base was on the 'wrong side of the Weser'. Although I now know that if he survived (probable) he'd be affiliated with Waldeck-Hesse,

I still can't figure out whether the Reds would have penetrated that far. Presumably Hanover would have provided a nuclear shield, in that Warsaw Pact troops would not want to go through or around it - unless the nuking of the city occurred after the main exchange as a last-ditch option to hold back Red troops. In that case my dad's hospital could well have been occupied by Soviet troops, though given its relative distance from the front and the sheer level of attrition on advancing forces from tactical nukes this may be unlikely. Do we have any idea on the outcome of conflict in central-north Germany?

~Feg

Rinteln atl is located in Northeim, though not too far from Waldeck controlled areas south of the ruins of Detmold. It's around 60km west-southwest from Hanover, with most of that being forested and hilly land. Should be fairly safe from refugees too.

No record of any attacks in the area exists, so I would say that none occurred beyond the border - remember, it's not the primary avenue of attack for an invasion. Besides, the strikes on Braunschweig and Hanover would keep them far, far away in any event. Heck, the Braunschweig strike would likely have been observable from Pact lines, which would have likely kept'em away anyway.

The idea we've all been going with, to an extent, is skirmishing along much of the borders. But in most areas that didn't go much further - running out of ammo/fuel/etc will do that, esp. when no more orders are given. The only (known) place where heavier fighting occurred in Germany was the Fulda Gap, which essentially ended in a draw.

Lordganon 08:18, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be focusing on land combat here. I personally believe that in the events immediately following Doomsday their would have been large battles between NATO and USSR ships. The belief that fleets could be hit by nuclear missiles is one i find difficult if not impossible. All ships in harbor would have been taken out, yes but it would have been difficult to hit all of the USA's, USSR's, French and British fleets.

Therefore i believe that their would have been a huge game of cat and mouse as the much smaller soviet surface fleet tried to draw off NATO forces so that their submarines could get close enough to sink NATO forces either by torpedo or missile. Regardless the eventual winner of this game would always be NATO as eventually ASW carriers like HMS Invincible would have located and destroyed the submarines while the larger American carriers would have engaged and destroyed the soviet fleet. Of course though a relatively large number of Soviet and NATO submarines would be intact and i have long believed this is something we need to take a closer look atVegas adict 10:30, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

As DD was initiated by a computer glitch and not as part of a major pre-planned military invasion by either the USSR or the USA its possible that no invasion occurred from either side until a few days after DD, when some sort of organization of the surviving military units could've taken place, and even then it could've been only small skirmishes or retaliatory strikes (particularly on surviving naval units)--Smoggy80 11:21, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Some sort of order still would have gone out about attacking the enemy, or to prepare for an invasion. Most likely, of course, attacking orders to the soviets and their allies and the reverse to NATO forces.

As for the fleets, I would call that death by bombers. You have to remember, the Soviets did have ships trailing Allied/NATO fleets, and often subs too, so they had an idea of where the carriers were. Between nuclear bombers and the subs, that would likely get the net result, even with the trailing vessels being destroyed after the fleet was notified of events.

Though, the lack of Soviet subs surviving in Siberia might be an issue.

Lordganon 11:51, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be forgetting with the bomber idea is the huge numbers of fighter aircraft a US Carrier fleet can put up in a matter of minutes. During the cold war at least one squadron was always on active duty in preparation for intercept missions, therefore the only bombers theoretically capable of targeting the fleets would be Tu-95 Bears as they carried ALBM's instead of bombs. However a Tu-95 doesn't have the speed of the US fighters and so might not get through although only one would need to.

The point about submarines is a good one, however the US and NATO often also tailed the ships and subs that tailed their ships (The Cat and Mouse idea i mentioned above). I don't doubt that a large percentage of both navies would have been destroyed but i still feel that A) Not all of those destroyed were destroyed by nukes and B) that more of NATO and the US's fleet would have survived, i'm not sure about the soviet fleet though, i reckon most of their surface fleet was wiped out but im not sure about the subsVegas adict 12:42, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

ALBM's were a NATO project that never actually produced anything. You're meaning the Raduga Kh-20 and Kh-22 nuclear missiles, designed for killing ships. Tu-22M Backfires would also have been included in this. They only need one shot on a fleet to kill it/most of it. Odds are fairly good a flight of bombers could manage to get in range - these missiles would detonate in the air near the ships, and not need to hit them at all, meaning little need to aim. And the backfires definitely could get through, being 4x faster. Of course, their range is more limited, but 1500 miles is still a fair ways - roughly the same distance as it is from New York City to Phoenix.

Alternatively, they could also employ a intercontinental bomber and with an airburst bomb on board and drop the thing on the fleet. Couldn't do too much to it, and the effect is the same.

As for the tails, they did know where the things were (GPS, etc.) Even when destroyed, they would know the area where they last were - not too hard to send a flight of bombers to the general region - after all, carrier groups are not that hidden! - and attack it.

Lordganon 13:29, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Lots of media tends to show the Warsaw Pact going on the offensive. But given that they saw it as a US first strike, wouldn't it be likely that they would assume the West was launching a pre-emptive strike? I would imagine that they would prepare for defensive action upon hearing the news of the incoming nuclear strike, and to hold positions whilst the release of the Soviet arsenal bombarded NATO positions.

The West, of course, might also opt for the defensive, given that from their perspective it was a Soviet first strike and therefore would assume an incoming attack. Then again - I don't know enough about military doctrine to be sure of this - the West could have decided to make what gains they could have before tactical nukes started raining down on their bases, and sent every possible vehicle in a massive and bungled assault. If you don't mind me saying I like this idea, because it's stereotypical of World War Three media in that the East goes on the offensive first. Here, on the frontline at least, we're reversing the situation. Fegaxeyl 13:25, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason for the stereotype - that's more or less the strategic doctrine of the two sides. Even in our scenario, it's kinda hard to imagine that changing too much. I mean, in some areas it would be reversed, but overall it's a little suspect.

Lordganon 13:44, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well GLONASS wasn't fully operational in 1983 so i'm not sure all of the ships would have been located. Regardless of the total damage to the NATO surface fleet i suspect more subs survived than we originally suspected. With the surface fleets i don't doubt that some Backfires could reach the target range intact and then if they were using missiles the ABM system on the US ships might protect them. I do agree though that a free-fall bomb from a Backfire would do the job, if they avoided interception and weren't shot down by the SAM's.

I do agree that most of the NATO fleets would have been destroyed but i still feel that there are far more unaccounted NATO ships/subs than we normally take into account. This also might lead to a greater number of nuclear devices unaccounted for which might be in the hands of ex NATO or US allied survivor statesVegas adict 21:18, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Call it satellites in general, or even just radio signals then. Either way, they'll have a rough idea.

The only ships besides subs that really would have held nukes were the carriers, which would have been the primary targets anyway. Having one survive outright, and another (now in Victorian hands) be abandoned after a close hit, is about right. The Victorian carrier would be without them - nukes used, or dumped in the ocean - but ANZC/APA likely got some from theirs.

In my opinion, many of the little guys that survive the blasts would have run out of fuel before getting anywhere. You're right about the subs, however, though they would have no nukes left on board, for sure, since their armament is much more limited.

Some of the NATO nations may have some sort of nukes somewhere still intact, but the chances are slim. The only American survivor states that could have something are the new USA, Vermont, Lincoln, Dakota, Lakota, and nations in Missouri, largely due to the silos and the chances that one survived somewhere.

Despite their limited ranges, the Yak-38 Forger, a Soviet carrier plane, as well as the Su-17 Fitter, the Su-24 Fencer, and even the Su-7 Fitter-A may also have mattered a bit - nuclear bombs are part of their armament and they were common enough.

Lordganon 22:00, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

In response to what Fegaxeyl said, while the media does show the Soviets going on the offensive, that is accurate because that was the actual Soviet plan. The battle plan is called 7 Days to the Rhine. It entailed a massive Soviet military assault against NATO in the event of a NATO first strike attack, which is happens here. Essentially, the Soviets believed that with their vastly larger army, they could quickly drive back NATO, and this happened to be true. While it isn't really account for much in this timeline, the vastly superior size and presence of the Soviet army in eastern Europe would have made reaching the Rhine in seven days possible, even with nuclear strikes. But, since we haven't really considered that at all in this TL, its too late to consider it now.

As for the navies, most of the Soviet and NATO surface fleets would be wiped out. However, a large number of submarines on both sides could have survived. Those submarines, along with surviving surface ships, would have eventually returned to an allied port and joined that survivor nation. Also, if these ships were running out of fuel, they would have just docked at the closest port.

Many NATO survivor nations would have nukes. France, Great Britain, and the United States all had their own nukes. In addition, the United States, through NATO's nuclear sharing program, based their nukes in Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and Greece, all of whom could have several surviving warheads (though their usability is up for debate). In addition, a number of Soviet tactical and mobile nuclear weapons were based in Warsaw Pact countries, and many of these weapons would survive since they were not held at fixed sites.

Caeruleus 04:14, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, while the Soviet plans were that, in practice they were also not very prone to acting without commands from higher-up. And while a plan may be decent, as soon as the enemy is involved, it goes out the window ;) I honestly doubt in this scenario they could carry such a plan out on more than a slight regional basis - only those units in the field would get away to attack, realistically.

With the ships, there's a good chance that they could run out of fuel trying to find a place to refuel - I mean, a lot of those in the middle of the Atlantic could be royally screwed.

You're forgetting that they also launched a lot of these nukes, and the areas were often hit as well, possibly destroying the things too. Canada was also getting rid of the things at the time, and had never had the things at more than a couple bases. CFBs Bagotville, in Saguenay, Quebec, and Cold Lake, in Alberta, are the only places that had them at all. Bagotville being nuked kills Saguenay as a nation, and Cold Lake was hit to a degree. With Greece, the bases the things were at were destroyed by blasts in/around Athens, Larissa, and Patra. The Netherlands is gone, and so is much of Belgium. And most of the German ones were around Frankfurt and are thus gone too.

At any rate, the general consensus has been that almost all of the things were destroyed or fired. Heck, outside of the new USA, ANZC, and the USSR, the Russian Confederacy and Israel are the only ones that have nukes. There may be some room to quibble on that, but.....

Lordganon 05:45, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

There's a hell of a lot of room to quibble on that, If you think the only ships that carried nukes were carriers and submarines then you are very mistaken. British ships definitely had nuclear depth charges on anything larger than a corvette while soviet cruisers carried ship to ship nuclear missiles and other soviet ships had nuclear SAMs, Depth charges and torpedoes. I'm not sure about the US although i'm sure that its ships had similar equipment. Therefore the number of nations with nukes in the post DD world is likely to be far higher that the 5 mentioned. New Britain could easily have them as could any nation in south Africa, the SAC could have them as could Crimea and other survivor statesVegas adict 16:30, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Beg pardon, then. Did not know the British had them on little ships. The Americans and Soviets sure didn't - their nuclear depth charges were aircraft-deployed, not ship-deployed.

I can find no information on the soviets having any of the mentioned nuclear SAMs on ships, though they were on land. The only real place the US deployed surface-to-air nukes is in Germany. I also find no evidence of ship-to-ship nukes in the Soviet Navy being built until after 1983, though they were in testing at the time.

Nuclear Artillery, again, was deployed near the front in Germany. American forces also had them in northern France and Korea, and the French did have a few of their own. A few seem to have been deployed by the Americans in other NATO members, but only in tiny amounts.

You misinterpret my statement. There may be others that have them, but no states other than what I listed are known to have them. There's room to quibble there, but not much, given that the things would have been used or targeted.

And watch the tongue, fyi.

Lordganon 17:57, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Possible Soviet Strike Targets in Australia-NZ on DD
I have a question concerning possible strikes in 1983 against Australia or New Zealand other than what has already been discussed. I recently obtained a fascinating and very helpful book called Military Balance 1983-1984. It provides a detailed listing of each nation's military forces and their equipment and the locations where were they based across the world at that time. It apparently is a publication which is still issued today. While studying the section regarding the US, I read up on US early warning systems and their various sites which were in place globally. I won't go into detail about everything listed since it would take to long. If anyone is interested I can try to scan and email the pages in reference. However, I took note of the following two groups.

It listed two of the three control stations for the US Defense Support Program (TRW Block 647) as being located in Australia. According to what I found the DSP operated a series of geosynchronous satellites which were used for the early warning tracking of missile launches and nuclear detonations. One facility, Joint Defense Facility Nurrungar (JDFN) was located near Woomera and jointly operated by the Australian DOD and the USAF. The other, known as Pine Gap, was near Alice Springs. I can't help but feel these sites may have been targeted by the Soviets in 1983, likely by small nuclear weapons. The other group I ran across was the USAF Space Detection and Tracing System (SPADATS). One segment was the USAF 496L Spacetrack, which was apparently involved in early warning detection for satellites in orbit. They basically detected, tracked, cataloged, and identified artificial objects around earth. They operated seven optical tracking systems, three in the US and the other four abroad, one of which was based at Mount John, NZ. I am unsure if these sites would have been considered worthy of strikes during WW III. Many were located in areas which were struck.

As I said, I am unsure about these sites and whether they would have been targets. However, I thought I would post this information for your consideration.--Fxgentleman 00:30, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * In general, more strikes in A-NZ would probably explain what we've seen from those two countries better than what we have now. The current state of things doesn't quite seem to explain Oceania's decade of isolation... a few more might actually add to the realism of it all. Benkarnell 03:43, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben, I don't understand how Oceania was isolated? Reagan, Bush, the APA...seems to me the ANZC has been one of the most active nations post-Doomsday. BrianD 04:20, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Miltary bases would've prob been hit with small tactical nukes (approx 5 to 15 KT). Many in the UK were hit with tactical nukes leaving the surrounding area relitivly undamaged--Smoggy80 11:17, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

The reason the UK got the tact nukes is that we were in range of Soviet SRBMs and SCUD type launchers. Aus/NZ is not.HAD 17:12, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

There is an interesting side discussion on Australian nuclear targets on the Protect and Survive thread at alternatehistory.com. http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=164027&page=34 BrianD 04:21, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Australia and New Zealand are allies of NATO that could potentially provide military support to NATO against the Warsaw Pact. Plus, Australia holds American military bases and would be an ideal spot from which to plan, organize, and launch a counterassault against Soviet forces in Asia should Japan and South Korea fall or China backs the Soviets. Also, the Soviets wouldn't want to leave anyone who could pick up the fight if America collapsed. Caeruleus 04:24, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

We can't just go and retrospectivly nuke countries, can we? It would change the whole history of the CANZ, whic is quite plausible.--HAD 12:18, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * As I see it, we can always add to canon, but can't delete anything without hugely important reasons. This falls in the category of adding, IMO, especially snice the ANZ's history is still sort of vague. Benkarnell 14:37, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

The conversation on the alt history thread I linked to earlier can be helpful to us as we work through targets in Australia. Remember that canon has long held that only three cities - Sydney, Melbourne and Perth - were nuked. As caretaker of the ANZC I want to hold to that and not add Brisbane, Auckland and Adelaide to the list. We should discuss Darwin and whether there were bases there that may have been targeted. --BrianD 14:56, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BrianD. Canon (reallly old canon) states that only three Aussie cities were hit, so it must be.HAD 19:26, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Passing question
Is my impression correct that virtually nobody would be aware of what had happened in 1983 and why - that a Soviet military had misinterpreted information received?

Also - if anyone wishes to develop the 'archives as a resource' concept feel free. (It is likely that most governments will have some deep store archives: see WWII storage of artworks in the UL etc) and most of the buildings/underground storage areas will be protected against at least some 'external attack' (and might well be considered desirable habitations by those who found them). Some at least of 'the keepers of the knowledge' would survive, and have particular power thereby. Jackiespeel 00:08, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet government is aware, not of the exact nature of why, though they do know what occurred. Kind of easy when incoming strikes don't exist ;)

I'm sure they'd have told others.

Lordganon 01:02, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, such information could not have been kept secret for long. Even if it was still secret, the whole world knows that the Soviets struck first. Makes me wonder why the rump USSR is not more of a pariah in this world than it is currently protrayed. Mitro 04:10, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even the Japanese have shown somewhat warm relations to the Siberians but yet they ban trade with North American survivor states blaming the war on them. That doesn't make sense, and IMHO relations with the two variations should be at least equal, I.E. both are hated or both are loved. Thoughts? Arstar 04:19, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even the Japanese have shown somewhat warm relations to the Siberians but yet they ban trade with North American survivor states blaming the war on them. That doesn't make sense, and IMHO relations with the two variations should be at least equal, I.E. both are hated or both are loved. Thoughts? Arstar 04:19, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the Siberians would become a pariah. Only Western survivor states would come to hate them really. And, most of the world post-Doomsday isn't Western. Plus, the fact that it was an accident would help ease tensions. While many relations would be tense, they wouldn't be regarded as a pariah, in part because they're too powerful to ignore.

And the Japanese-Siberian relations are plausible. They don't blame the people who did it, just the people who caused the person to do it. Caeruleus 04:33, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone rear ends my car accidently, it probably won't be that hard for me to find forgiveness. If someone accidently starts a nuclear war that kills billions of people, it would be very hard for me to find forgiveness and I think most people would agree. Also the USSR today is not the major power it once was, I mean its outclassed right now by Brazil of all countries. There is no reason for the rest of the world to fear them, except for maybe the odd survivor state in Western Russia (but if they were to combine there might they could potentially end the expansion of Socialist Siberia into Europe). Yes they may have nuclear weapons still, but how can we know some American nuclear sub came into Australia with some nukes left or some South American country decided to build a few nukes just to be safe.
 * The stuff about Japan is canon and harder to change. Also it makes sense in a way due to proximity and human nature (you can't always expect everyone to agree with you in who is right or wrong). Nevertheless, I still stand by my earlier statement, the Siberians are just not hated enough in this TL. Mitro 05:22, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not as bad as it used to be, but it's still a problem. Benkarnell 14:38, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Quick Query
Quick query, I have little time on my hands at the moment. Has Nevada (specifically Las Vegas) been taken as a nation? I can't seem to find it on the map or in the World Country Profiles.

Thanks,

WANNABE EDITOR Charliethecman
 * Las Vegas was destroyed on Doomsday. Most of Nevada is controlled by Sierra Nevada (1983: Doomsday).  Mitro 18:17, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Las Vegas is gone due to a strike, as is the rest of that area of Nevada.

Largely, Nevada is under the control of the Sierra Nevada with parts also under Utah.

There's no room for any more there, really.

Lordganon 18:18, November 1, 2010 (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).

Kingdom of Macedonia
I moved the old discussion to the Macedonia talk page archive. Arstarpool 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other things needed to be fixed before we graduate this? Arstarpool 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the objection I had about the bunker. It is based on to many assumptions with zero facts. South has already pointed out the prince would survive without it. Any reference to a fictional bunker should be removed. Mitro 01:55, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro, if you'd look at the page, all references have been removed regarding the bunker. Ownerzmcown 02:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh, your right, my bad. On another note, the map posted seems to conflict with the map posted on the Greece article. What is the deal on that? Mitro 03:19, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Owner, just fix it quick. Mitro, when he's done lets try to get this graduated quick. Owner's put a lot of work into it, and I think its time he gets his pay. Arstarpool 03:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

The Turkey contact dates will have to be adjusted due to issues involving their contact with Greece that would preclude contact with Macedonia.

Lordganon 20:30, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

When should the contact date be, it need to precede the Civil War? Ownerzmcown 21:09, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Just make your story match the 1994 given in the Turkey article for contact (the voyage), though give 1995 for the trip of the king.

Lordganon 21:43, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Also needs a map that removes the Serbian parts, or it needs to explain in the article how Macedonia managed to get a big chunk of Serbia from a nation that is far larger and more populous and experienced in warfare. And that needs to happen after 1989.Oerwinde 00:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

The understanding at the time was that in the aftermath of 1985, much of Serbia was in chaos. As of yet, the Serbia article doesn't say this, though they should, in part. Heck, my Bulgaria articles have even said that from early on.

Lordganon 17:45, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

The Bulgaria articles mention the collapse of Yugoslavia but not much more than that. The Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia articles are better to work from in regards to the status of Serbia.Oerwinde 17:08, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Is my article ever gonna get graduated or what? Ownerzmcown 17:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I offered you some help but you respectfully declined, however my deal is still out to make it slightly smaller and more realistic. It's your choice. Arstarpool 20:03, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have gone for that deal myself, Arstar, especially with how it sounded.

Owner, you have to account for the existence of Serbia somehow. Maybe say something like Serbia left their southern areas undefended while attacking into Bosnia, and Macedonia took some areas over, and having the border fairly fluid today?

Lordganon 00:11, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Serbia would crush Macedonia. I think it more likely they have their OTL borders.Oerwinde 17:09, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Belgrade was nuked, refugees were pouring across the border, and Serbia was fighting wars to the north. Assuming Macedonia was stable at the time, they could have fairly easily seized areas of southern Serbia, such as southern Kosovo and surrounding areas. But, once the Serbia situation is clarified, this should be graduated. Caeruleus 03:10, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've changed the map, I believe all things are in order and my article should be graduated. Ownerzmcown 00:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Good for changing the map - but the rest of the article has not been edited, as per suggestions on the talk page. In light of the situation in Yugoslavia, it makes no sense and still needs to be changed before it can be graduated.

Lordganon 00:35, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Look, one, the list of things on the talk page has gotten to long under the Serbia section and I have too short of an attention span to read it all, and two, can you just tell me what to change here? Ownerzmcown 02:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, though I don't see how the list I left is hard to find, lol.


 * Remove the part about the Yugoslavian collapse - never really occurred that way.
 * Have them run into Serbian troops while attempting to get deeper into Serbia instead of local warlords.
 * A sentence about something along the lines of Serbian troops never knew they were more than rebels or Croatian forces - both would likely be present in parts of the area.
 * Come to think of it, have the original goal being a strong monarchy - not constitutional - but made that way in a compromise with the locals.
 * Have them take over parts of southern Serbia, in the process of gaining Macedonia that were relatively undefended.
 * Able to keep these areas due to Serbian preoccupation elsewhere at first, and then later on due to the defenses.
 * Contact with Serbia would be by 1989 at latest, but more likely than not prior to then.
 * Contact with Croatia and Bosnia about the same time.
 * Knowledge of Greece would be gained as well, though for other reasons - Macedonian designs on Northern Greece, call it - contact not made until 1995.
 * The Civil War could be seen as a Serbian attempt through dissidents to regain annexed regions too, and only a failure in the end because of the Turkish troops loaned to them.
 * The collapse of the Kosovo state mentioned in the Serbia article would allow parts of that province to be taken over. Call it to prevent the Serbians from taking it all. May not be canon, but makes sense.
 * Remainder of story holds up, so long as whatever refers back to earlier, edited details, is changed as well.
 * Remember, the existence of Serbia would mean that intervention against Greece would be suicidal - especially with a vengeful Serbian state to their north.

The majority of these will need to be done - but it would better if all of them were.

Lordganon 02:51, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, one, I'm not understanding what you mean when you talk about the Civil War, two, what do you mean by that last part about Greek intervention, and three, when would they probably make contact with Greece, in your opinion? Ownerzmcown 01:12, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

According to your article, there's a Macedonian civil war from 1997-1999. The last part refers to discussions on some talk pages about possible Macedonian attacks on Greece during the Sicily War.

As for contact with Greece, I would say limited contact, either with Heptanesa or Mount Athos, at some point in the late 1980s, with full contact sometime after 1992, when you encounter the Turks. Given the original areas of expansion, I would say that Mount Athos would be the more likely. I'd keep the current year - 1995 - for official relations, like it is now.

Lordganon 01:43, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Is this now archive worthy?HAD 16:17, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Owner will get it done eventually, but as of yet there are still objections.

Lordganon 16:35, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Me and JackOfSpades' proposal for a international organization in the Great Lakes region. Arstarpool 01:34, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to passing as a stub? Arstarpool 00:13, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we get a list of members, that way people don't have to consult the map. Mitro 15:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also London, Pennsylvania and Toledo should become canon first before this is graduated. --GOPZACK 19:00, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this proposal might actually conflict with this article: League of the United American States (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 16:03, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does. The League of the United American States (1983: Doomsday) was a proposed idea as I recall and hadn't even been formally voted on by Superior's Congress. --GOPZACK 16:26, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is my point though. The LUAS is a canon article and pretty much seems similar to this current proposal. If the proposal is graduated, than why would this organization even be proposed if Superior was already a member of the UC in 2007? Mitro 21:28, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah but, LUAS does not even exist yet its a bill purposed by Harold Duke some right-winger in the Congress of Superior. With that said, I really don't know Superior would be a member now that I think about it. In fact I don't know why the other members would want Superior in it. Superior would dominate all decisions made in the UC. --GOPZACK 03:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar became caretaker of Superior, but he may not have been aware of the LUAS (which if I recall correctly was Lahbas' proposal). BrianD 03:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are their any articles he's not a caretaker of? ;) I think your right Lahbas did write that article. --GOPZACK 03:55, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

How does one become a "caretaker" of an article he has not edited? Arstar was appointed to look out for vandalism and "trolls" (which I assume are obnoxious articles offensive and totally irrelevant). I am hard-pressed to keep my own articles updated, much less hop around fixing elements of other folks' articles.

Apart from that, the UC seems workable. It is not the grand scheme to bring the USA back under a new umbrella (an idea I like, by the way). The UC is a locally based organization, and probably would have been founded some time before anyone knew of the LoN. --SouthWriter 04:36, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * He asked Lahbas for permission to adopt Superior (and Wisconsin). BrianD 14:57, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Did Lahbas grant him permission? GOPZACK 01:19, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Zack, yes on Wisconsin, no on Superior. The latter was my misunderstanding. I got Lahbas and Superior mixed up with Mjdoch and Celtic Alliance. Lahbas did give Arstar permission to be caretaker of Wisconsin (with a couple of conditions), and Arstar did in fact ask him for Superior. According to their talk pages Lahbas never responded back in regards to Superior. So as far as I can tell, Lahbas is still caretaker for Superior.

Ah, I don't see any radical edits by Arstar on the Superior article so we need not worry about that for now. I still think this alliance can't work with Superior in it. Pennsylvania (if graduated) will be weaker then Arstar's original article, Toledo is in decent shape, Niagara Falls is small and London doesn't have much of an army so Superior would basically run that show with an iron fist. GOPZACK 01:22, August 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait a second. Oerwinde makes reference to Arstar being caretaker of Superior. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Arstarpool#Superior.2FOntario.2FCanada.2FSaguenay_War BrianD 18:03, August 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the adoption rules somebody must ask somebody who hasn't edited in three months or more to adopt a page. If the editor does not respond in a week the article is theirs. Other than a few talk page related edits within the three months Lahbas did not edit, meaning that I am the current caretaker of Superior. However I will return it to Lahbas should he request for it to be returned. Arstarpool 03:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you plan to do with Superior? BrianD 20:55, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is true that someone can adopt an unedited article the article cannot be changed based on QSS. However, it can be continued in a different direction from the last chronological reference (new item in "real time" in most cases). It will have to confirm with the histories of other related articles in order to stay viable as well. I suspect that Arstar has no real drastic changes in mind, though. SouthWriter 15:39, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay guys are there any objections to graduation? Arstar [talk] 06:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay guys are there any objections to graduation? Arstar [talk] 06:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay guys are there any objections to graduation? Arstar [talk] 06:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

nothing has been decided yet--Owen1983 10:39, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

It should wait until the situation in southern Ontario is decided before graduation.

Lordganon 00:35, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Umm ok how 'bout now? Arstar 09:14, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I figure it's ok now, but I'd still rather you waited. Might be a plan to take out the Celtic Alliance part too - honestly, I cannot see them doing that. Canada yes, for one reason or another, but not the Alliance.

Lordganon 11:16, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I want you to jot down a quick list of everything I should add to the article. The members section has a special note saying it will be fully updated when all the Ontario city-states are completed and for the meantime it is non canon. The Celts are pretty much the super-power of Europe and they joined after the Saguenay War to give the UC some "credibility" and to open the door for more regional nations to join. They amount to an observer/honorary member status, it was a way of some of the member states saying "thanks" for the Saguenay War stuff and to make sure that Superior stays tied down and doesn't start another war or something. But in terms of them being active? No, they just have a guy or ten there just out of being nice. Arstar 17:20, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't think of anything off-hand, other than changing the Treaty of Manchester date to May (the ceasefire is April) and adding a line about Kingston having refused to join, viewing it as some sort of Superior puppetry, or something similar.

Lordganon 20:19, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Celts would join. They would view it as a regional organization, which it is. Canada would likely join, but the Celts are in Europe and wouldn't need the UC for anything. It would just be a pointless expense to maintain an ambassador.--Oerwinde 20:53, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see how it can be puppetry of Superior if Superior wasn't a founding member. But why would it hurt to "maintain" an ambassador? They just "tag along" with the Canadian ambassadors. I imagined it as being that the Celts are observing the politics of the area and reporting it to the LoN. It's really not that far fetched. If Virginia, a second/third world nation can have an ambassador in Tonga in the Pacific than why can't the Celtic Alliance, a first world nation maintain one observer ambassador in a city only about 2,000 miles away? Arstar 21:28, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, have I justified why the Celts are in or is it just keeping the article from being graduated? Arstar 20:53, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I just see it like if the Celts tried to join the West African Union. What would be the point? My point on cost is this: If its a UN type organization, membership would imply fees for the upkeep of the organization, funding administrative staff, sub-organizations etc. If it has any sort of peacekeeping force, then membership would likely require volunteering troops and such. Its not just sending an ambassador.--Oerwinde 09:48, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oer, the CA is the world's 7th most largest economy. I'm sure they can maintain all the costs. They're in no way one of the "struggling to survive" nations we see so often today. So I'm going to graduate and archive this article asap. If more objections come up put it up for review. Arstar 21:06, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone is, in some way, struggling to survive. They are the world's 7th biggest economy only because other economies are so small.  What interest do they have in the goings-on in the Great Lakes, anyway?  Vermont and Canada at least are sending regular expeditions to map the Great Lakes region.  Although I cannot see why Canada would want to join any organization alongside Superior, with which it just fought that war.  Benkarnell 01:04, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Not really. the Celtic Alliance is Ireland and all its economy (which suffered no strikes, well technically it did, on Belfast, but thats in Northern Ireland), plus subsidized, poorer and smaller versions of the UK and France. But what I meant is that compared to all the other members the Celtic Alliance is at least five times as powerful and could definitely maintain there. Both Canada, and Celtica and Saguenay are members of the as a result of the treaty of Manchester. The CA is there to oversee how everything goes and to help give the organization international merit. Also, the organization does not discriminate by a nation's ideals or issues. You don't see the UN in OTL kicking out North Korea or Iran because the US and EU hate their guts, ey? And um, remember that the Celtic Alliance and North Penn forces fought together in the Saguenay War. So by then the ambassadors would have gotten to know each other quite well. Arstar 01:28, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Arstar: It's Ireland. It's a small country with a small population, its status magnified by the fact that all other countries have been brought lower.  And this isn't the UN.  The UN is explicitly for everybody.  This is a specific regional alliance, and if an out-of-region power is going to join, it's because it has extraordinarily strong relations with the members.  Canada joining is the equivalent to, say, Iran joining the Arab League. Benkarnell 03:02, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Quibble about the Celtics all you want, but Canada joined as a result of the Treaty and its new territory in the Great Lakes region at Kingston and Thunder Bay. That comparison really isn't valid.

Lordganon 03:15, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

The C.A. issue isn't a quibble. It's a big, glaring mistake on the page.

There's another problem with Canada's membership. It makes sense for the communities of this region to form a UN-type organization when it seemed to them that there was no hope of a "real" UN emerging. But now that it has, why would Canada, a founding League of Nations member, join this duplicate organization? I can't comment on the treaty because the page doesn't really explain it anywhere - is it on some other page? Benkarnell 03:20, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

The Saguenay War and History of Canada pages explain things fairly well.

The Canadian government views it as a regional organization with an uppity streak, nothing more. It was one of the treaty articles.

Quite frankly, I don't really care for the Celtic part myself. But, as per Arstar's wishes, they have sent a pair of observers with the Canadian Diplomats to the UC. In my mind the basic idea is no one really knows why, but for the Celts it was done to act as a neutral voice, to keep the peace.

Lordganon 07:35, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Canada should be an observer. Full membership is implausible IMO.  Also the Celts being a part of it is implausible as well.  This is a regional organization of North American survivor states stuck in the Great Lakes region.  Despite its hopes of being something more, it would have no attraction to the Celts.  Mitro 14:38, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to discuss the Celts with Arstar. He's the one who insisted on it, not me. My job is to make it as logical as possible, little more.

As for Canada, just because they will eventually be eligible for full membership doesn't mean it'll happen ;)

Lordganon 14:54, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

The Celtic Alliance having membership in the UC doesn't make sense. It's a regional organization with regional goals. I doubt they would let the Celtic Alliance join, much less would the Celtic Alliance have an interest in joining. And, like Benkarnell said, its Ireland. They're not that powerful. Everyone else is just substantially weakened, so they have a chance to rise. The Celtic Alliance does not have the status to demand entry into such an organization or exert major influence in North America outside of Canada.

As for Canada, I could see them possibly joining, however, I doubt they would. Ultimately, due to the redundancy of its current goal, the UC would become a regional unification organization centered around the American Midwest and the southern half of Ontario, Canada. Since Canada clearly wants to reunite the country under its original rule, it would never consent to joining an organization who's goal would ultimately be to incorporate part of southern Ontario into a unified Midwestern state. Or, even if they didn't absorb southern Ontario, neither Canada or the American survivor states would want to unite with one another. Caeruleus 18:39, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

The stated goal of the UC is an international organization, as an heir to the UN, pure and simple. While the ultimate result may be such a state, it is not their goal.

Canada has joined as as result of the Treaty of Manchester, ending the Saguenay War. They view it as a regional organization with delusions of grandeur, and one which can be used to further its goals.

I agree that the Celts joining is illogical, as I've said in here a couple times. Arstar, however, insisted, I don't feel like squabbling with'em over it. So, I made it as logical as possible when writing it in. Take it up with him, or remove it yourselves from everywhere. I ain't gonna get into it with someone over that.

But I consider Canada, providing they stay at more or less the same status, plausible. It was listed on my points for the re-write, and no one argued then, so....

Lordganon 20:41, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Guys do whatever you want about the Celts. If the Celt part isn't gonna make it than fine. I would like this organization to evolve out of being a regional one but if you guys aren't going to let that plan come to fruition than thats okay. If someone has a better idea for a timeframe in which down the road a European, African, or even South American might join or send an ambassador than that would be good. Arstar 04:36, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Rhodope-Vidin War
Call it the Bulgarian finale. Will be ongoing through the month.

Lordganon 02:20, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

It's not done yet.

Lordganon 10:15, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Would any of the American survivor states be interested in putting an American member of the Bulgarian - and Vidinite - Communist Parties on trial?

Lordganon 22:14, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

It would be great "business" for the United Communities; with your permission could the members be tried in Niagara Falls in front the United Communities Post-War Committee? Arstar [talk] 00:05, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Why would the good folks in Bulgaria send people to stand trial in another continent in Niagara Falls by an untested "United Communities Post-War Committee" that only has members in Southern Ontario & North-Central United States, in the post-Doomsday world? If anything they'd go before a LoN war crimes tribunal. --Zack 00:12, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

For starters, we're only talking about a single member, Georgi Pirinski, Jr. He is a Bulgarian-American, born in New York, and has been involved with communist politics in Bulgaria since the 1950s. I figure that someone in America may want him as a patsy for the war - basically, for war crimes, but tried in the USA due to his citizenship, even though he renounced it in the 70s. Something along the lines of him not being a Bulgarian, so they can't try him (in their opinions) in a Rhodopian court of law.

Glad someone finally answered, but the United Communities are a bit far. Personally, I was hoping for a member of the Dixie Alliance, though most states on the Atlantic coast would work. Heck, Plymouth or the Outer Lands would be nice.

But barring no good answers, I will be either giving him up to an area state or having Rhodope try him anyway.

Lordganon 03:48, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize this is not "finished" yet, but considering that no article is ever finished in the true sense of the word and so far no one has objected to this ongoing war, are there any objections to graduation? Mitro 04:11, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I can't let it until I finish writing up the war. Almost done, if it helps. Lordganon 05:04, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank and expanded by Ven. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduating this now? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a little optimistic. Many of these countries have fought wars with each other in recent history. For some many to cooperate so quickly seems unlikely. Mitro 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * That, or this could be a totally dysfunctional organization of rivals. (OAS, anyone?)  Benkarnell 15:15, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to adopt this country. General tiu 14:53, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Jnjaycpa. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2jec010 (UTC)
 * This has been a proposal since August. What are we doing with this article?  Mitro 18:20, October 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Like many of Jni's articles, it seems fairly abandoned. If it's still around when I'm done my current projects I'll deal with it. Lordganon 03:29, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Adopted and will resume work on it soon. --XterrorX 10:44, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * This article has been a proposal for a long time with little work done to it. Unless someone is willing to adopt it we should probably consider marking it as obsolete.  Mitro 04:12, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Former obsolete article revived by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is still a lot of discussion going on in this region. What do Vlad, Lordganon, Caer and Owner have to say on this article? Mitro 01:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn`t mesh with canon. The Croatia article doesn`t have Serbia declaring independence from Yugoslavia, and it has it annex Kosovo and Montenegro prior to the dates in the article. Since Vlad seems to be dealing with most of former Yugoslavia aside from Macedonia, I say let him have a go at fleshing it out first.Oerwinde 08:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes no sense for them to be declaring independence.

The region should also be made more chaotic, especially in the areas near Bulgaria.

Going to have to make the Macedonian expansion northward plausible somehow too.

Would make Macedonian interference in the Sicily War much less likely too.

Lordganon 23:10, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the former Yugoslavia is already canon, except for this article. What is going on with it?  Mitro 04:13, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Former stub expanded on by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the Sri Lankan Civil War? What happened to the Tigers? Doomsday probably would have made things go better for them. We could see a divided Sri Lanka. Mitro 01:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * This article has been a proposal for a long time with little work done to it. Unless someone is willing to adopt it we should probably consider marking it as obsolete.  Mitro 04:14, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

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 governnment 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 governnment 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)

Wales
A survivor republic based in southeast Wales. Jnjaycpa 17:53, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think that they would end up joining their fellow Celts in the Celtic Alliance. Besides that the Celtic Alliance article pretty much states what isn't theres of Wales and Scotland is mostly wasteland. Keep that in mind. Arstarpool 19:58, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well are there any objections before I make this obsolete? 01:55, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think he should be given a chance, first. While I think it should be smaller, the thing as a whole is plausible, to a degree. 

Lordganon 02:20, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah but below it seems that there is consensus that we have reached the limit of British states. Mitro 14:15, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Now that Owens Shropshire has been marked obsolete there is a possiblity of expanding Wales into former England (Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worstershire), it's also possible that another existing nation (i think Lancaster is the closest) taking over the area in the future? i've added the idea to the Wales talk page and Jnjaycpa's talk page,something may come of it hopefully--Smoggy80 19:03, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Private Response and Military Defense Services
A private mercenary organization in the military field formed after Doomsday.--Emperor of Trebizond 01:24, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it but it's not really plausible for this sort of community project. An army fleeing to a small island and turning it into a fortress with spotlights and such? Defending from who? Being hired by who? For what purpose? I'm sorry but its a tad, um, unfit for this sort of thing. Arstarpool 08:34, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

There are such real organizations in the world. Who? For What Purpose? Defending it from who? The small island you described is just barely large enough it can be used for this. Besides, it's not one army, but ex-soldier survivors looking for a job that were brought together by someone whose fortune was generally unaffected by Doomsday. See the talk page for more. --Emperor of Trebizond 12:10, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand. There is nobody except the Australians and the South Americans that had fortunes after Doomsday. Trade collapsed, and with it order, so there would be no jobs for a long, long time. You can't just keep things vague like "they meet under the table" in this sort of thing. Everything needs reason. And there are not such"real organizations" in the world. Sure, there are the New York Rangers, but they were founded on practicality Arstarpool 19:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

How do you contact the most prestigious and the best law firms and banks on the planet? Does that have a reason? No, it's awfully vague. You have to have a lot of money, and many important people contact such organizations "under the table". Investors in Australia and South America could have private reasons for funding the PRMDS.--Emperor of Trebizond 16:30, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool, you're comparing two very different things. The SAC and ANZC are nations. The PRMDS is a corporation. Corporations are a dimension we've failed to explore thus far on this timeline. Just because nations collapse doesn't mean corporations would also collapse, and the same goes with how prosperous they are. Many corporations, pre-Doomsday, were well equipped, wealthy, and highly connected. It's very possible that several large, multinational corporations would survive Doomsday relatively intact and be able to reorganize post-Doomsday. Or, another way to look at this is that the post-Doomsday world is a survival of the fittest world. The stronger you are, the wealthier you are. The PRMDS would be formed from various military groups that survived Doomsday, were well trained, and kept their equipment. At first, they would be glorified raiders, but later on, once the states of the Black Sea became interconnected with the rest of the world, they would become a legitimate mercenary force with global reach. Caeruleus 16:39, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm really impressed. That sums up my concept of the PRMDS flawlessly.--Emperor of Trebizond 17:35, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

The SAC is not a nation for one, and neither of you have read enough and don't fully understand how everything works. There aren't investors in the northern hemisphere, where buisness is still at a very basic. Exceptions would be the Celts or the Alpines or the Siberians or maybe even the Nordics but they aren't going to be funding a private militia because they need dirty work done or something. World travel as you portray it is not how it really is, so they would not be launching missions across the world. This "world" isn't how ours is minus the US and Europe and the Soviets, its a world where you can find a degree of normalcy in the Pacific and South America and pretty much everywhere else is struggling at the moment including places like the Alpine Confederation and the Celtic Alliance and Canada and Siberia. If this was reorganized and renamed into something of a local militia it would be more plausible.

The worst part is is that you speak of nations that aren't part of the timeline yet, the Turkey page is still a proposal and isn't going anywhere for a looong time...so this page would remain a proposal until Elazig and Turkey are graduated. Arstarpool 19:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter that your opinion that this would remain a proposal until Elazig and Turkey are graduated? I haven't a problem with that. The PRMDS could've been planned before Doomsday but significantly affected by the results of Doomsday, which made it by far a more possible, attractive, and plausible venture by whoever planned it. They can travel locally to the East or to the West (Furthest to Africa and furthest west to Central Asia). Limited range, but more than enough within that to keep them busy.--Emperor of Trebizond 19:46, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know the SAC is a collection of nations, but it fits into the same category. You're also misinterpreting what this is. This isn't a typical pre-Doomsday corporation that you just go and "invest" in. A more apt comparison would be to the Knights Templar or Knights of Rhodes. These were wealthy, independent, private mercenary organizations that had large amounts of capital and small amounts of territory in which they are based, similar to the PRMDS. They don't need people to invest in them. They acquire their own funds, or, in a post-Doomsday world, simply obtain success in survival which essential means they pay for themselves because in eastern Europe, financial systems broke down post-Doomsday so the typical dynamics of a money-based economy would not apply to as great of an extent.


 * Also, you vastly overestimate the necessary level of stability for this to be plausible. The Alpines, ANZC, SAC, Nordics, Celts, Siberians, Koreans and Japanese are all stable enough. They don't need to be prosperous to be able to pay for mercenaries. African warlords OTL are able to pay for mercenaries, and we all know how poor and unstable they are. The chaos of eastern Europe actually provides a ripe enviroment for them to develop because, like I said, they could start off as glorified bandits, grow wealthy through pillaging, and establish a semi-legitimate international operation by the late 2000s. This article is plausible, though they may not be deploying to Africa until the late 2000s. Caeruleus 19:52, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool has a thing about rushing articles through quickly so don't feel like you have to hurry. I defiantly think this article can work. After Doomsday there would be a lot of "guns for hire" popping up around the world. Also in the anarchy who says they need money? they could raid an armory get all the weapons they need. I'll try not get too philosophical here but money in the post Doomsday world is just pieces of paper. Major currencies would collapse on the commodities market (or whats left of it) and food, water and other necessities would become the new currency. Perhaps now that the situation has stabilized the ANZC Dollar or the currency of South America might appeal to them but initially its the necessities of life that ruled the day. GOPZACK 19:54, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't they use the already existing ruins and temples as bases? That would be more practical then demolishing them (which would be pretty hard post-Doomsday) and building new bases when materials would be scarse. Or they could build using ruins as foundations into new structures. Arstarpool 03:36, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose those temples would be small, ruined, and in their way, probably too unstable to use for much. They seem to be in pretty bad shape--the product of thousands of years..But I've seen remote ruins turned into secure monasteries before, so it wouldn't surprise me. It could also be a waste of explosive. I think I will probably consider this idea.--Emperor of Trebizond 09:35, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Took Arstarpool's idea into effect. I agree that the PRMDS could probably use the foundations of the ruins for their current buildings.--Emperor of Trebizond 02:55, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * This article has been a proposal for a long time with little work done to it. Can it be graduated?  Or is someone willing to adopt it.  If not we should probably consider marking it as obsolete.  Mitro 04:15, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote we graduate it. I've been waiting for someone to raise objections, but none have come up. And the only thing stopping graduation before was a reference to the Sultanate of Turkey article, which is now part of canon.--Emperor of Trebizond 19:23, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Western Ukraine Organization.

Lordganon 12:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Airways (1983: Doomsday)
article by me (under construction)--Owen1983 14:22, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

You should probably have the approval of the caretaker of New Britain before continuing with this.

Lordganon 00:30, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Owen has been banned, is anyone interested in adopting this article? Or else I am going to obsolete it. Mitro 14:23, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do it!HAD 16:17, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Doomsday in the United Kingdom (1983:Doomsday)
article by Smoggy80 I like it --Owen1983 16:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for anyone who is writing a former UK DD article to help fill in details--Smoggy80 17:25, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Article I made right before Zack made Antlers. Mentioned in the Oaklahoma article, I would appreciate if Zack or Brian or someone else could help me out with this one. Arstarpool 18:37, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to help out, let me know how I can do so. BrianD 02:14, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to passing as a stub? Arstar 01:30, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * An objection/ question for Arstarpool, do you have plans to update this in the foreseeable future? Or is this another Ogasawara? --Zack 02:17, October 26, 2010 (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)

Buganda
An article created by me about the most important OTL kingdom on Uganda, which got independence during the Uganda Bush War. Fedelede 00:47, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks good so far but I don't think there would be such a rapid growth of Ganda religion and culture by 2005. Maybe 2015 would be a better target date. Arstarpool 00:37, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Another old proposal, what are the plans for this article? Mitro 04:18, November 1, 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)

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)

A page about one of the associate states of the. --NuclearVacuum 19:29, September 27, 2010 (UTC)




 * I have been doing some research on Long Island attacks for this timeline. Granted I am very peaceful and would never think to attack anybody, I find FEMA's map of New York targets rather, overdone. According to this map, Montauk is attacked, which is not of risk or value to an attack. In my opinion, the Soviets are wasting good bombs on Long Island. Following some links given here, I have found a likely list of the primary, secondary, and tertiary targets of New York State. From what it mentions here, no part of Long Island is a primary target. It does say that the New York City area is a target, but it mentions that area "west of Stony Brook" would be attacked. It was mentioned here that the tertiary targets would be the least likely to be attacked, which could be a savior for LI, as the Brookhaven National Laboratory is listed as a tertiary target, but I think it would be better if it were left out, since New York City would be a better target. Another area I would like to bring up is Fishers Island, which is an island in the Long Island Sound which is only seven miles from New London, Connecticut (which would be attacked). So it would be in the direct line of fire, so it would be a no mans land, this would also make the islands of the Northern Fork quite inhospitable, so sadly they would be gone. I made this map to show a possible scenario for the attacks in the Long Island region. It may need some work, but this is just how I see it. --NuclearVacuum 14:41, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Block Island
Another associate state of the. SouthWriter 03:01, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Aerospace corporation located in the Commonwealth of Victoria.--Oerwinde 06:52, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Chartered Company of Sheppey
Technically a colony of Essex, located on the Isle of Sheppey off the coast of Kent, UK. Rather... different from what has come before in terms of concept, so I'll be interested to see what the community thinks of this. Fegaxeyl 20:14, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Would this be categorized as a nation or a corporation?Oerwinde 08:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

A corporation which holds land. Fegaxeyl 09:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comparable to the East India Company, or other such joint-stock companies from that era.

Lordganon 07:38, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Waterloo Cooperative
Finally got around to doing up an article on Kitchener, different name though after finding out the region is known as the Region of Waterloo, also I couldn't find the demonym of a resident of Kitchener and Waterluvian sounded cool. Oerwinde 08:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

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

Ontario article in relation to the general re-write.

Lordganon 12:54, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ontario article in relation to the general re-write.

Lordganon 12:54, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Chad-Libya War
A war occurring in Africa. CheesyCheese 12:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote on the talk page for this, it is not plausible as written. Read the history of Greece and Egypt and go off of them, not that Libya article, as it goes against what is in the other articles.

The two Chad sides were equal in strength, and the French forces would run out of supplies at the same time the Libyans would. Makes no sense for them to leave like this, or for the Libyans to not crush Chad without them.

A draw, with the boundary at the 15th parallel, and the northern state controlling parts of southern Libya as well would be better.

Lordganon 02:04, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the page so the boundary between the two nations is at the 15th Parallel. I also wrote that contact was lost with Tripoli after Doomsday instead of a nuclear strike, as on the Egypt page it is written that contact was lost with Tripoli after Doomsday. CheesyCheese 20:13, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Much better, though it would likely make more sense for both the French and Libyans to stay put.

Lordganon 03:37, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The main reason Libya invaded Chad was to take control of of the Aouzou Strip. Because Libya was attacked, the Libyans retreated to the Aouzou Strip to make sure it was safe from attack.

The French did not want to help Chad retake the northern half in the real war, and the fact that GUNT and Chad were equal and could not take each other's land, the Libyans leaving, and the nuclear attacks would make them leave. CheesyCheese 15:56, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Libya wasn't attacked on Doomsday. There's no reason at for them to have been.

Thing is cheese, why would they leave with nowhere to go to? The most they could do is retreat to the Central African Republic, which would make very little difference.

Lordganon 16:24, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart (1983: Doomsday)
My second foray into the lives of some people who would have survived Doomsday. I have asked Fxgentleman for some help, as Stewart would be currently living in Delmarva, and I do not want to contradict canon. Tbguy1992 03:48, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Originally created by Arstar, but I have put some work on it due to my knowledge of the area. Mitro 12:53, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

A country to fill the gap between Aralia, Iran and the Emirate of Bukhara. Any objections? SjorskingmaWikistad 12:49, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ashgabat and the east of Turkmenistan would have been hit, due to them being close to borders of Afghanistan and Iran, if I'm not wrong. Besides that, it's a great idea! --Fedelede 13:09, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Most of the territory you claim here is under the control of the Muslim Liberation Army, and the remainder is supposed to have little to no central authorities.

Lordganon 13:18, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well, the point of a open timeline is that things are to be canonical, not "supposed to be". Second, The MLA can indeed have power in Central-Asia, but this country isn't too big (only the western part of Turkmenistan). SjorskingmaWikistad 13:21, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

It says in the starting paragraph almost all of Turkmenistan, and parts of Uzbekistan. What it says later on is irrelevant.

And if it indeed held the territory it does, it would border Aralia, or nearly so - and that was conquered by the Siberians, who would not stop there if they had this juicy tidbit right there next door.

Iran holds a sphere of influence in the area, and the assumption of little to no central authority comes from both that and the Iranian need to set up a buffer state in the area between themselves and the Siberians, which is why they sent the MLA into the area. If this existed as you have written - with even territory size - they would not have done this.

You also fail to take into account nuclear strikes in the region.

Lordganon 13:53, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article. SjorskingmaWikistad 13:59, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I have. You wrote it, but haven't. Seriously.

Lordganon 15:07, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sjor, QSS and QAA states that not only do we respect what was written but also what has been assumed by the community. I haven't worked much on Central Asia, but if general consensus is what LG stated than that should be respected. Mitro 17:29, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, what's the Emirate of Bukhara?HAD 18:41, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit rusty whit my canon at the moment, but I do believe that the article was created by Fedelede, and is an area going back and forth between Siberian, MLA and "native" influence. Sjors, the article does sound like it would be hard to place in the general area, as previous history contradicts the existance of the country.--Vladivostok 19:41, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Effectively, Vladivostok. The Emirate is a nation created by me, influenced by the Socialists, the MLA, and the "royalist" armies, which want a return of a less religious, more historical Emirate. If you read the WCRB headlines, the "royalists" just took over the small city of Guliston. --Fedelede 00:18, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

I move we make this obsolete. It does go against canon, and he has failed to do anything about it.

Lordganon 19:53, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

It's been two weeks, which is far too early to declare this obselete. Also, it is somewhat plausible. The territory of the MLA has always been loosely controlled and fluid, nor is the MLA all-powerful in Central Asia. Siberia also isn't that powerful. Their population and overall resources have been substantially reduced. Even though they were able to conquer Aralia, which would have been somewhat of stretch since they don't control the area between Aralia and Siberia, they would have been unable to advance much further mainly due to the fact that most of the area is lawless.

That being said, there are some changes that are needed. A history needs to be added, a map would be nice (though not necessary), and some other minor things need to be changed. I do like the presence of a disputed zone with the MLA and I wouldn't expect this to ever emerge as a major player, but its existence is plausible. The creator will finish it eventually. Caeruleus 21:01, October 28, 2010 (UTC) You're right, Caeruleus. Bati-Turkestan may be plausible... If the creator reduces the size of the nation, takes in the account of the nuclear strikes (at least Ashgabat, probably Krasnowdosk, Mary and Kerki) and the presence of important powers on the region. Also, why would Turkish be an official language? Fedelede 21:14, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's Turkmen. Probably just miswritten. Caeruleus 22:23, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Vegas. Mitro 14:41, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Originally created by Owen, but other editors have been adding to it. Mitro 14:41, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Bioko
Very short still. Part 2 of Equatorial Guinea. Part of the idea behind this is to show that the WAU can be greedy, too. Bioko will be something like their Afghanistan. The island isn't going to be particularly violent, but the WAU-imposed regime is not going to have any local support. As such, this will need specific approval from Oerwinde. Benkarnell 13:40, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar on the state of California. Mitro 15:34, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Vegas. Mitro 16:31, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:31, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Tess. Mitro 16:31, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

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

Another Owen article that has been approved by others. Mitro 17:32, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Jackiespeel. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

There is several things wrong with the article - see the talk page for details.

To be honest, that combined with the lack of any work since September leads me to think we should just make it obsolete.

Lordganon 19:43, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

It has some problems, but it's far too early to be declared obselete. A Hungarian survivor state would obviously arise after Doomsday. The details of which just need to be clarified. Caeruleus 21:10, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Older revisions of the Alpine article that were deleted in recent updates states that the borders are closed outside of the immediate border of Austria. It mentions security risks.

This page should just list all the Hungarian survivor states post-Doomsday. You can't go wrong on that. Arstar 08:37, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

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

Article by me. Bob 14:23, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 04:23, November 1, 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)

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 SjorskingmaWikistad. Mitro 02:48, November 2, 2010 (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.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the plausibility of this article on it's talk page. Please check it out. Mitro 21:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I should step in here, since I adopted it from Gamb. (Check his and my talk page for more info). But Mitro can you tell me what should be fixed? Arstarpool 23:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, check the talk page. South and Fx are the ones bringing the objections. Mitro 23:03, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its not really an objection per se, I am just agreeing with South the idea of Bermuda breaking off all contact for so long seems a bit odd. That's all.--Fxgentleman 03:49, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * There are numerous things that need addressing, Arstar, and it's all over at the talk page. Mitro saw the lengthy remarks I made there and put the article under review. If you are now responsible for its content, then I hope you will read the comments and consider how to change the article to be more viable. The main thing most comments have in common (Fx and Ben agreeing with me) is that the isolationism is unsustainable.
 * Power, communications and travel would not have ended immediately as it had on the North American continent. Immediate needs would have been rationing of food until shipments could be secured from the Caribbean and South America, for Bermuda has virtually no agriculture of its own. With radio contact available (assuming a near miss nuke postulated by Mito didn't knock out 100% of the electronics with an EMP) to the Bahamas, help would be on the way soon. Venezuelan oil would be available so they would not run out of power "in five months" (highly unlikely, since that too could be rationed to last a lot longer than five months if need be.
 * The American naval base there, receiving the "Gathering Order" would surely have informed the APA of the existence of Bermuda as well. They would have probably left as ordered, but not before meeting up with others in the North Atlantic also on their way to Australia. Tiny Bermuda would not have been left to their banks and hotels, to fend for themselves for 25 years. The whole concept is ludicrous. I'm hoping that at least this can be eased into the story lines of the other articles where appropriate, but as it stands it is totally not viable. SouthWriter 18:00, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say "ludicrous:" what reason would Venezuela have to send more than the most modest and basic aid? I'll repeat what I said on the talk page: I have no problem adjusting the date of first contact for Bermuda, but I'm against any change to the main story of a remote island left almost totally on its own. I think it's fine for Bermudians and outsiders to be aware of one another in a mostly abstract sense, but that need not lead to any sort of regular intercourse between them. Benkarnell 13:25, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

So what is going on with this article? Do the objections still stand? Mitro 14:26, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * SW, would you like to write the adjustments you were thinking about? Otherwise, I can. It's very important to me that Gamb's work be respected, even if parts of it are not wholly likely. I am comfortable with basically minor adjustments to harmonize everything. But older material like Bermuda ought to get precedence; that's the spirit of QSS. Benkarnell 13:10, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * This article was the first article that was ever canonized in the modern canon process. I think that if it lasted this long than a few people's "opinions" would not mean that we have to change everything for them. Arstar 20:30, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Ben, I didn't get a note that you had posted. Though Bermuda is older than much of the other stuff, it is largely implausible as is. It needs a quiet and non-intrusive role in the development of the East Caribbean. It is a bit far, but it would have to have contact and some influence there. I will look it over and see what adjustments need to be made.


 * Arstar, it is odd that you want this island to remain implausible while you challenge articles that are more established on the continent. This place could not have remained isolated without at least enough contact with Bermuda and the rest of the Caribbean. SouthWriter 21:44, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * SW, I feel like we're saying the same things but coming to opposite conclusions. The whole article is implausible? Or just the issue of outside contact? If it's the latter, then my suggestion should please everybody. What else is implausible to you? Benkarnell 03:14, October 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Ben, it will have to be a conscious effort on the part of the governor to cut off trade from the Caribbean and SAC, which would not make sense. The place in OTL (even back in 1983) was a tourism and banking center with very little self-sustaining capacity.  With it's main trading partners destroyed, but with contact definitely available (out of range of the EMPs over America) to the south, this island would not be all that remote.  They would have to contact the rest of the civilized world - most definitely the ECF and the USAR - just to survive.
 * The loss of power early on would not be absolute even if an off-course nuke had exploded, so the panic portrayed (and calmed by the governor) probably would not have been such a problem. The nation could be established as self-sufficient only after establishing expanded trade with the more agriculturally blessed ECF member states.  Over time they could re-establish a sustainable agriculture of their own (not as fast as in the article, though) and chose not to associate very much except as needed.  The islands would bemote, but not isolated.  What happens there in OTL doesn't affect much, and neither would it in TTL. SouthWriter 21:38, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Since Arstar added the "review" template to this and neglected to add it here, I'll do it (>.>;). Seems to be an issue between this article and the Alpine Confederation in regards to the size and territory.

North of Switzerland, the boundaries of the Confederation, outside of a single sentence, have never really been fleshed out. Guess we need to do that now, lol.

Lordganon 07:14, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Swabia-Wurttemburg interpreted the borders the same way I did in my early Germany map. It doesn't conflict with Canon because it wasn't fleshed out. I don't see any issue.Oerwinde 10:05, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Owen has now taken it upon himself to "edit" the article, without permission. Could someone please get rid of all the horrid edits?

Lordganon 12:12, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

there is no issue then Owen1983 12:41, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

....how on earth do you get that? I only asked for a rollback because I have no desire to do eight undos myself.

Lordganon 12:45, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

This is my concern. It is canon that the Alpine Confederation controls the areas around the Rhine River. Now during the current revision I accidentally deleted the specifics but go into the history of the AC right before I started editing it a lot and you will see the exact boundaries. What I don't get is how come only recently was the [provisional] government of Bavaria formed from several small communities when this nation was there? Or better yet how could this state form if there was a very bad refugee crisis in the AC coming from Germany and Italy that they had no other choice but to take control of the lands? Arstar [talk] 01:12, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

The boundaries given in the history are far from exact, Arstar, especially given the loss of Freiburg. An island of authority somewhere in the region would make sense, given the large amount of non-irradiated territory, though the boundaries should likely be adjusted in the south.

Bavaria had more strikes, which also had the effect of isolated much of the area, making that situation plausible. It also has a much greater population as well.

Lordganon 00:45, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that why would the Alpines try to make some form of provisional authority in southern Germany if one existed already? The history states that during the beginning of the refugee crisis it got so bad they had to take control of the areas around them. No matter what, this would apply to much of Swabia-Wurttenburg in some capacity. Sure, in the physical sense, the land there was spared of nuclear strikes, but does that mean that for every plot of land that was spared of the physical effects of Doomsday would also survive the later on stages? Arstar [talk] 02:17, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

What you are missing is that the size of these areas, nor the cities in them, has never been clarified. The best reference says that they took control over areas around the Rhine river south of Freiburg - well away from this area - which would logically extend to the area right around the Bodensee as well. This means that most of the area controlled by this state would be outside alpine control.

The only area that the Alpines have done a provisional authority for is Bavaria. The existence of some sort of state in this area, especially given the late formation dates bandied about, is logical.

As far as I'm concerned, the southern parts of this nation should be either Alpine or uninhabited. But until some sort of boundaries are actually made for the Confederation - following a community consensus - this should not be done.

Lordganon 02:30, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

But why would they create a provisional authority, most likely a fund-draining process, if there was already a functioning government close to Switzerland? Or better yet, why don't they arrange for a unification between the Bavarian communities and Swa-Wurt? Arstar [talk] 03:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Bavarians are very.... independent minded. I doubt they'd go along with something like that (think of what would happen if someone announced Texas would be put under some other state government - the reaction would be similar) even given the situation in the area.

Call the creation of it as making the bordering areas more stable. Couldn't blame them for that at all.

The problem with this article is that no history has been fleshed out worth mentioning - we only have the current picture. Shouldn't be too hard to find out a way to make it possible.

Outside of Augsburg, there doesn't seem to be any Bavarian communities in that area - thus rendering it mostly relatively uninhabited, so they are basically fighting over nothing - but the net result is the distance between the two would render it impossible for one to rule the other.

Lordganon 08:08, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ahh...... much better. Now undo the rest of the bad edits please, lol.

Lordganon 03:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

So what is going on with this article? Do the objections still stand? Mitro 14:27, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - a fair part of the southern areas of the article do conflict with the Alpine Confederation. In my mind, I think Arstar should edit the article as needed, while keeping it canon, to bring it in line, since Jni hasn't and Arstar's the Alpine Caretaker.

Lordganon 03:34, October 16, 2010 (UTC) When I did up the original map of possible German nations, based on the Alpine article I had Ravensburg pretty much as the southernmost area of a Wurttemburg state. Maybe edit the boundaries to be more like that?--Oerwinde 08:08, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

This article was graduated into Canon before it was totally finished, and their has been much discussion about how to try to fit everything in with the timeline, as, I'll admit, I added somethings that may not completely work out. Tbguy1992 14:48, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me what should be changed on this article? Since Tb has sat on his hands since the 3rd, It is quite aparent that I need to do this myself.

Yank 21:27, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is going on with this review? I have seen little work or discussion, do the objections still stand?  Mitro 21:41, October 26, 2010 (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.''