Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

Former Proposals: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

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

Shanty Towns/Trailer Parks
The question I have to ask is: Is it possible for America, and by extension the world, to be riddled with survivors living in shanty towns? Would it be possible for  pre-Doomsday recreational facilities like campgrounds to transform into makeshift survivor communities? And would it be possible for these people to survive the long term? Yank 17:47, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

There would certainly be some out there. We know of a few of these having happened, such as in NW Florida and Slab City. No doubt that there is more.Lordganon (talk) 11:31, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Changing the Main Map
I'd like to suggest a change to the main map, as I noticed that Lithuania and Courland seem to be reversed while I was brainstorming for what to do with Latgalia. Karlsvognen (talk) 12:47, December 28, 2013 (UTC) Karlsvognen

New Country
Can I make a new country? Like new colorado? Please. - ShadowKnights1234 1/22/14 9:45 (EST)

Elaborate. Nothing preventing you making something, but it being plausible or not is a different story. Lordganon (talk) 10:43, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Holy Russian Empire (And where I can found it!)
I wanted to make another survivor state- I know, I said I was done, but I've been trying to make a Holy Russian Empire on a TL that I don't own for quite some time now :D.

Anyway, the state would be fairly tiny.

Would any of the following towns work? Any of those sound good? As far as I can tell- based on the 2012 map- none of those towns are occupied, and I doubt any of them would have been nuked. Serov and Ukhta have only about 100,000 people, Velsk around 25,000, Shenkursk barely 5,000. Syktyvkar is a bit bigger, with 235,000, but with a name like that...
 * Serov
 * Syktyvkar
 * Ukhta
 * Velsk
 * Shenkursk

22:30, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

Syktyvkar was nuked, and the rest are inside of Siberian territory.

For tiny states, Neftekamsk, Podosinovsky District, Luzsky District, Sokolsky District (Nizhny Novgorod Oblast), Sharyinsky District, Makaryevsky District, Manturovsky District (Kostroma Oblast), Velikoustyugsky District, or Nyuksensky District could work. Have a look on wikipedia for more on each location.

Lordganon (talk) 10:49, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

San Diegan Confederation
Could I please make a new state? I have a few ideas of where I could put it.

My first idea was the San Diegan Confederation. I live in San Diego, and pretty much every San Diegan would rather live here than anywhere else. I know some might be just crazy enough to try and live in their old homes. I know, it would be contaminated. It is believed that their are people living in Chernobyl. I'd bet there would be people trying to live in Julian or El Cajon within a dozen years of doomsday.

I have other ideas, but I will tell you after I hear what you say about this one.

Unalakleet (talk) 22:04, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

Uhh- Chernobyl was just a nuclear leak, and a fairly minor one. San Diego would have taken multiple hits from megaton or above warheads. Nothing's left of the city, and the radiation would still be lethal within a few days in it's outskirts.

Now, perhaps if it were far enough out, say 20-30 miles away from the nearest blast, you could no doubt get a small nation.

22:18, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I hadn't thought of that. Maybe the Channel Islands Confederation? I know the Chumash Republic controls the northern islands, but not some of the southern ones. based on my measurements, San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands would have been fine, but I don't know about Santa Catalina.

I think I'll try and make the Channel Islands Confederation. Who do I talk to about making these?

Unalakleet (talk) 21:25, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

Yea, San Diego and its environs - more than the 20-30 miles, bet on closer to 70 - are toast. Slag. And the area is desert, or borderline desert. No survivors on a meaningful level.

San Clemente was likely the target of a low-yield device. Even if not, the area is not suitable for crops.

Basically, the area is entirely unsuitable for a state to have survived. The islanders would have either died, or fled to Mexico.

Lordganon (talk) 00:07, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

So, I guess Southern California is out. Are there any other open territories? It looks like the Eastern Kola Peninsula was open, but I'm not sure.

Unalakleet (talk) 15:29, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

Might be a bit too cold- tundra and all that.

Africa is gigantic, unexplored, and open. Asia and North America have one or two open spots. South America and Australia are completely filled. Europe, well, might be space for a survivor state but it's going to be tiny.

23:13, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, southern California is out, more or less. You've got to remember, most of it is only inhabited through modern methods, power, and mass irrigation. All are gone atl. And the coast is irradiated wastes, otherwise it would be habitable.

The eastern part of the Kola peninsula is more or less uninhabited. Land is swamps, forest, and tundra anyway.

There is always open areas. But, since the world is a big place, you'll have to narrow it down a bit as to a location before I can really give you ideas.

Lordganon (talk) 23:46, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

So, after analyzing the map, I have narrowed it down to a country in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nunavut (specifically, the Kitikmeot region [and possibly some parts of the southern and western Qikiqtaaluk region and the western parts of the Kivalliq region]), or what was Western China (not the part taken by Tibet or Siberia, of course). I'm not sure if the map I'm looking at is outdated, but at least one of these must be open.

On a completely unrelated note, how do you make a signature?

Unalakleet (talk) 22:49, April 18, 2014 (UTC)

I can help with DRC- I own all the articles written there currently. If you're interested in that, I do have a state there that I'm stuck on what to do with- you can have it, if you want. Here it is.

About the sig, it's pretty simple- go to "preferences" and input something into the box there, then save.

If you want a proper template sig like mine, leave a message on my talkpage- this isn't really the place to go into a massive discussion about it.

23:03, April 18, 2014 (UTC)

That area of Nunavut is almost uninhabited. Really, the whole Canadian north is like that. Parts of the areas in question have also been explored - the only groups encountered have been tribal bands.

A nation in the Congo, not impossible.

A tiny state in that tiny gap in China is, in theory, possible. However... that is really close to the Siberians. Would be like lunch to them.

Really though, Unalakleet, give us an area of the world you'd be interested in, and we can give you ideas. The map can be rather deceiving.

Lordganon (talk) 09:50, April 19, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'll work on Kisangani. Thank you, GusnadGlory. I do plan to talk to you about a template signature. I'm a little busy at the moment, but I will work on it by Monday.

Lordganon, I was thinking an Inuit nation could exist up there. Even if there was only a few of them, they could find other Inuits and invite them into the country.

Also, after about 100 years, would the nuked cities still be contaminated? I mean, look at Hiroshima. The bombs would have gotten more advanced, but still.

Unalakleet (talk) 16:31, April 19, 2014 (UTC)

The bombs are a lot more advanced, and a lot more were dropped than on Hiroshima. Maybe in 100 years things will have cleared up a bit, but right now were are only 31 years since doomsday. Tr0llis (talk) 16:52, April 19, 2014 (UTC)

Not at all realistic to have an Inuit state, Una. You're also forgetting that that area is virtually uninhabited even by them.

"Advanced" is not the right word - stronger is. Hiroshima was 16kt in size. Only the absolute smallest of the ones used on DD were of that scale, and those are passable by now - were within a few months, really. Battlefield nukes, the lot of them.

The strikes themselves, minimum 100kt. About seven times larger than Hiroshima, and giving off far more radiation. Biggest strikes, multi-megaton range. Lot of areas got several of these two types, and sizes in between.

The 100kts, couple decades still. The larger ones, range from many decades to never. The NYC area, for instance, will be millennia, at best.

Lordganon (talk) 07:18, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

Most major cities would also have taken strikes from megaton or above warheads.

Did either side use anything on the lines of Tsar Bomba or Castle Bravo? That is, in the dozens of megaton range?

12:18, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

Bomba, no. Bravo, not impossible. Really, though, we can't know. Lordganon (talk) 22:03, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

Country in Inner Mongolia Province in the former People's Republic of China
I've been eyeballing 1983: Doomsday for a little while and I plan to join in on the timeline. However, what I want to talk about is creating a nation within the Inner Mongolia Province within the former People's Republic of China. The government body within the regime of the nation (which will just be called Mongolian People's Republic) will be composed of members of the former Mongolian People's Party and former party members of the Communist Party of China that have survived.

Here is my projected map of the nation

The capital will remain in Hohhot (just like in OTL) but may be moved to Baotou, and the country will have an estimated population of about 21,200,000 (2014). I would like to know how I would be able to join this timeline. Any answer will be appreciated, thank you. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo

Your map interferes with some already existing nations, so the border would need to be changed. For one you intersect with the Manchuria Territory of Socialist Siberia. Mscoree (talk) 16:16, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I only filled in portions of the map that weren't colored in, so I didn't know there was an already existing territory in that area. Toţi în unu; Nihil Sine Deo

...Which is why you need to look at more than the map first. Completely ignored the nukes and their effects, too. Lordganon (talk) 14:21, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think the SS would have something to say about that. It would involve guns.

20:41, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

ISIL
Would radical, Sunni Muslim militia rise like ISIL around this time? Considering the fact that Islamic Iraq and other radical Muslim nations may fund a group like that to discriminate Shia Muslims and to destroy Shias in general? Saturn (Talk/Blog) 16:11, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Such a group already exists in the form of the Muslim Liberation Army - though it is more Shia-dominated in theory, most of its members are Sunni.

Past that, closest is the Chechens, who are far worse here than otl.

Lordganon (talk) 11:09, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

ISIL is heavily influenced by the American invasion of Iraq and the Syrian Civil War. While there would undoubtably be radical Muslim groups, I very much doubt they'd resemble ISIL.

12:10, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Revising Lithuanian History
So, Yank and I have decided that Lithuanian histoy can be spiced up a good deal. As such, we have discussed and agreed upon a basic divsion of Lithuania where there will be 3 nations. They are all proposals (although one used to be a stub). They are: Yank will work primarily on the SSR and I shall work on Aukštaitija. Both of us will contriubte to the Samogitia page. Thanks for reading all of this, and please let us know what you think. 00:28, September 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Samogitia (1983: Doomsday) - Located on the site of the former Lithuanian page, Samogitia is located in the OTL region of the same name, with its capital located at Telšiai. Not much will change from the content of the original Lithuania page.
 * Lithuania (1983: Doomsday) - Located in the region of Dzūkija and Suvalkija, this will be the Lithuanian SSR's successor government. They will be closely aligned with West Poland and Eglitis' Latgalian SSR in Latvia. Eventually, (we think) the SSR and Latgalia's SSR will end up invading Samogitia, invoking involvement from Samogitia, Courland, and Aukštaitija. The projected capital is Alytus.
 * Aukštaitija (1983: Doomsday) - This state will occupy the OTL region of Aukštaitija, and shall have its capital at Panevėžys. This state will have tense relations with both the Latgalian SSR and the Lithuanian SSR, and will end up at war with both eventually. PROBABLY at the end of the war, we are thinking that Aukštaitija and Samogitia will unite to form a united Lithuania of some sort, and perhaps a more united Baltic (perhaps with less Nordic influence).

And what, pray tell, made either of you think that was ok? Not only is that page not just his, but the method goes against the rules.

Not only that, but that wouldn't plausible, either.

Reverted, overall.

Lordganon (talk) 15:33, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

Manicouagan Reservoir
Just a simple question I wanted to ask for a while now.

Would it have been plausible for Qúebec and Canadian refugees to flee north inland and then settle around the Manicouagan Reservoir? It appears that Canada (in chaos on doomsday) couldn't stablize the area (or any area tbh), especially within the first few years. My guess is that if enough people immigrate to the area, would it be possible to create a Centralized government to form? Saturn (Talk/Blog) 02:37, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Too far from anywhere for any real number of refugees. Anyone living up there already would also be fairly independent, and be fine.

To put it into perspective, there isn't any towns along the highway that skirts its eastern shore all the way from the St. Lawrence coast, until well into Labrador. And since the coast is fine....

Area is not suitable for sustaining large populations, either. There's a reason why much of the northern forests have basically been written off.

Lordganon (talk) 12:51, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

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

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Counterfeit Goods
Many Counterfeit Goods are produced in places like  Thailand, Peru, and Nigeria are centers of counterfeit goods. With many major companies destroyed on Doomsday, do any of you feel that counterfeiters would try to become legitimate business? ~Gold

It's certainly not impossible on some levels, but riddle me this: With those companies went the customers to buy all of these products. Think about it. Lordganon (talk) 12:03, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what about Heroin? Poppy is produced in Afghanistan, mainly, but it's refined into two types- Thai White and Turkish Brown. Thai White goes Stateside and to the Aussies, Turkish Brown to Europe. Now, you have all the production centers- would they still be producing?

18:31, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Market still exists, just smaller. You'd see other centers start to grow it more, too. Lordganon (talk) 07:38, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

World's Fair
Since the, I am thinking of  making a proposal for a worlds fair page. Does anyone think the first Post-Doomsday world's fair would be held before the Post-Doomsday world's fair. I am thinking of having the first worlds fair take place in Brisbine and the second worlds fair in Isheyemi Nigeria.Goldwind1 (talk) 16:59, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

...Most of that made no sense.

Overall, not impossible for the World's fairs to come back. But it's not going to be until after the Olympics did.

Lordganon (talk) 11:00, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4

2018 Winter Games
Before I forget about this, the bidding for these games is supposed to be decided by the IOC at the end of this month. We know that St. John's and Krasnoyarsk have both bid for it already.

Now, I've got some ideas as to other bids, but I'ma hold off that for now.

Anyone have a nation that they think would bid, realistically?

Lordganon (talk) 10:55, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Guys? Lordganon (talk) 09:40, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Why not Tromsø or Östersund? Yes, they are bidding in real life as well, but almost any Nordic Union country could host the games easily. Shouldn't be Norway probably though, but I'm not familiar with the way they vote for the Olympics. Vladivostok (talk) 19:39, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

Because Trondheim is already hosting the 2014 Games - and that is the second in Europe in a row, as well. Basically nowhere in Europe has a chance, and no one in the NU is going to bid. Lordganon (talk) 09:53, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't leave very many options. Perhaps the Alpine Confederation, what difference does it make if the games would be held twice in a row in Europe? You could always go the exotic route and go with Chile or Peru, but in OTL not a single Winter Olympic Game was held in the Southern Hemisphere. Vladivostok (talk) 11:56, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

That would mean three times, actually - 2010 was in Zurich. It just wouldn't get awarded to Europe.

The only spot in the Southern Hemisphere with winter athletes and the needed facilities is New Zealand - and they just finished hosting a Summer Games atl. Would be no demand.

There's a reason why South America has never had any winter events, and the only real bids even looked into remotely in the south are in Australia, and a stronger one from New Zealand (which may manage to host one day)

More or less a reason why there's never been a Winter Games in the South.

Lordganon (talk) 09:06, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see this before, sorry. So, other than St. John's and Krasnoyarsk, what did you have in mind? I mean, there could be only two bids, it's still rather early for a whole lot of nations to want to spend money on the Olympics after all. Vladivostok (talk) 13:25, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well, Japan placed a bid for it prior to the earthquake and meltdown, and withdrew it after that.

Planning for some combination of the other two bidders for the 2014 Games -Ljubljana and Andorra - and the otl host making bids for this one as well.

Andorra's kind of wish more than anything on their part - not happening, though they are actually trying for it otl. Aside from being in Europe, the concept of a Ljubljana bid is a good one financially, and I could see it happening atl for a future Olympics.

The Korea bid, facilities aside, would be strong in that regard as well.

But, being realistic, only the Siberia and Canada bids would be considered at all likely. And given all things, I strongly suspect that the St. John's bid would win, if for no other reason than it has better access.

Lordganon (talk) 02:08, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

St. John's it is, then. Lordganon (talk) 11:30, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Can the Commonwealth of Susquehanna send athletes to participate in ice skating and cross country skiing? And possibly someone from Greater Hazleton Daeseunglim (talk)

Ice skating, probably not. Don't think they'd have the resources for it. But a cross-country skier or two is probably doable. Lordganon (talk) 05:25, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Reagan's Plane
I have noticed that, in the timeline, the E-4B plane carrying President Reagan crashes in the Pacific due to EMP interference. However, this is highly unlikely. The E-4B is specifically designed to resist such interference - it is built with analog instruments, which are less susceptible to EMP. It is also designed with EMP shielding, so I do not think that it would be likely for it to crash due to EMP. RevenantAscension (talk) 16:01, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

"Resistant" in no way means "immune."

The crash was far more due to their telemetry "going." Even flying over the Pacific, their radio equipment would not have been of much use, and both it and their radar - to say nothing of their location equipment - would have been difficult to use, at best, because of residual EMP. Indeed, it took them months to get in contact with anyone with their equipment - the EMP damage to signals was that bad, and only their equipment being designed to be more resistant got them that much. Moreover, you overstate the analog equipment, as a fair portion of the equipment on board was "hardened" gear, not analog.

GPS sats in orbit - the small weak ones first launched - would have been damaged or destroyed by the EMP and/or its atmospheric effects.

And, to add to all that, his plane didn't get out of NYC by much, and likely had damage to its systems, at least to some degree, from area effects of those blasts, be they the EMP ones or otherwise.

The continental EMP going off only made it worse.

So, the crash was primarily a navigation problem. It's not a question of EMP damage to the plane - while there would likely have been a small amount, it's largely insignificant. Rather, their communications and navigational aids would have been weak, or down outright. Heck, for a while after DD even compasses would have had problems compared to normal. Add damage on top of that, from blasts or otherwise, and it's not a good outlook.

And after going off course, they ran out of fuel. The President and everyone else managed to get to some safety, making it to life rafts. They didn't get any further than that.

But, crash due to EMP? Nope.

Lordganon (talk) 10:39, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons
LG, I noticed that there is a page for nuclear weapons... I was wondering if the LoN ever attempted to do a count on known nuclear stockpiles in nations such as the ANZ, and the USSR. Considering the fact that it says in the timeline that the Soviets launched about 1400 nuclear devices, and the US responded in like, it could be assumed that there were only around 7000 total launched, given the occasional launch minutes into WWIII.

The Chinese nuclear stockpile in 1983 were at around 380 nuclear warheads. The US arsenal stood at 23,154 nuclear weapons, and the Soviets were at 35,804. (http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/info/atom2.html). Who is working on that page? It could be assumed that the ANZ, USSR, NAU, and other powers in former nations would have acess to them. Could I create a page that delt with this problem, or adopt the nuclear weapons page. Also, if you have an idea about the exact amount launched, that would be great info. Thanks.Daeseunglim (talk) 16:25, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

It is a community page. Any can edit it, within reason.

Those warhead totals are somewhat inflated - multi-warhead missiles have each warhead counted on there separately. And both launched more than that - many targeted areas were hit multiple times, and there was sub and bomber-launched warheads as well. You far underestimate the amount of time they would have had to make launches in, too. That's in addition to a certain amount being misses, duds, or lost for other reasons. Heck, a massive amount of warheads would have been destroyed by impacts, or prevented from leaving the silos by "glass."

I should probably remove any mentions of exact figures from that timeline article - that is in no way accurate.

China's warheads were either destroyed by Soviet strikes, or wasted upon Soviet cities, mostly already decimated by American missiles.

The vast majority of warheads not launched or dropped were destroyed or rendered inaccessible by the blasts, globally. Your assumptions about who would have them is not remotely accurate, either.

There are five nations that have been agreed upon as having nukes without question - the ANZC, Siberia, Israel, the Russian Confederacy, and New Britain. The latter two of the five, being the weakest, have stockpiles consisting of a few recovered warheads and former nuclear depth charges, respectively. Israel has almost their entire pre-war arsenal, the ANZC has at least part of the arsenal from the former USS Carl Vinson, and maybe more, and the Siberians have managed to retain at least part of the Soviet arsenal (considered to be from isolated launchers and boomers, primarily)

Several others, such as the SAC and the Nordic Union, are known to at least have the ability to manufacture the weapons. Whether they have or not is another question.

Below that, there are nations that may have recovered, salvaged, etc. other weapons. Primarily, these would be nations with former bases on their territory, or along the German front lines, and consist largely of tactical or bomber weaponry. General rule of thumb, is that none of these have them yet, and never will - but that's not going to entirely be the case.

Past that, there's the question of states actively seeking out the weapons, either through recovery, manufacture, or purchase. I know of at least three of these, of the top of my head.

We will not know the exact amount fired off, and nor would they know it in-universe. It would, quite frankly, be impossible to tell.

We already have the community nuclear weapons page. Don't go making something else.

Lordganon (talk) 11:42, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Okay...Did the LoN ever attempt to do a count on these WMD? Another question, did bombers manage to take off and hit targets, were they decimated, or did they survive? I stand corrected too... I guess if a nation was willing to send guys into a radioactive nuclear power plant they could theoretically manufacture nuclear devices. Thanks.Daeseunglim (talk) 14:04, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, i had forgotten about the multiple warhead missile systems. I know that at the time the US had nuclear weapons in South Korea...most of them were removed from South Korea in 1991... All of the missiles would have been launched presumably, and what survived would have been destroyed considering the attacks. My question is would it be feasible for Korea to have nuclear artillery or something along those lines?Daeseunglim (talk) 20:06, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying the the first of those two posts before - missed it going through the list of edits that day, I guess.

LoN has never tried - there would be absolutely no point.

Yes, bombers did take off - not all of them, mind - and bombers up in the air on station went out too. Many would have gotten around their targets, though we've no way to know exactly how many.

Very few would have survived that trip, and most that didn't get destroyed in/around the target zone would have gone down somewhere aftwerwards. The percentage that would have gotten "home" would have been small. That being said, I do know of a few that did - sans bombs, of course, and not at all in reusable condition.

Manufacturing nukes isn't quite that simple - going into such a plant would only get you the very base materials, at best. Not that there really is any such plants, mind - the only plant like that that wouldn't have been hit (as collateral damage) by a nuke is Chernobyl, and that's worse than otl.

Basically, they'd need far more than those materials. There's no way that would allow them to build nukes.

All US nuclear weapons in South Korea were held at Kunsan Air Base - a nuclear target at DD. In any case, it only consisted of bombs and shells, not missiles.

Korea would in no way, shape, or form have any of these weapons.

Lordganon (talk) 04:42, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that additional information...I hadn't thought about the potentiallity that the air base would have been struck. ThanksDaeseunglim (talk) 14:27, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

I found the article stating that the US kept only artillery and bombs. My apologies. Wouldn't the radioactivity levels dropped in the 30 year period? I know areas that were struck hard would still be 'hot', but is it likely that nuclear power plants that were hit or melted down partially would be accessable? The nations desperate to be powerful could use criminals to perform the labor.Daeseunglim (talk) 22:26, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of nuclear plants were not hit, nor did they melt down.

Just having access to a plant does not mean nukes - you also need a great deal of electricity, technology, and knowledge. These three things are scarce, to varying degrees.

Yes, radioactivity would indeed have dropped in the 30 years - locations hit by smaller blasts (i.e. less than 100kt) may even have had it go down to safe levels by now.

The blasts in SK, however, would have been larger - any such weapons on the base - not that they would have survived the blasts and aftermath, let alone the 30 years to the present - would not be at all recoverable.

Lordganon (talk) 09:39, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

I was not thinking about South Korea, but more like the NAU, Texas, and some other North American nations.Daeseunglim (talk) 15:26, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

It would apply to virtually any location where weapons were stored. Lordganon (talk) 06:46, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Available Nations?
My question is this: May I help with your timeline, by making a nation and a page/story for that nation? Which are available for me to make? Reximus55 (talk) 10:38, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Not quite how nations are really "made," I'm afraid.

That being said.... any areas of the world that you are interested in? I can gives you ideas based on that.

Lordganon (talk) 11:15, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

No real ideas, but I would like to work on an article or two about a nation. Are there any that you can think of that need massiver overhaul or redo, or ones that no one has made an article on yet? Reximus55 22:36, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

There are many. What area of the globe? North America? Europe? Asia? Even that little info would be helpful. Lordganon (talk) 09:07, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.... I guess Europe. That would be my top choice. Reximus55 (talk) 01:03, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

is up for adoption right now - that would be the best place to start.

Besides that, there is a few small states in Spain that do not have articles, the member states of the Alpine confederation could use articles, and the International Zone around the Strait of Gibraltar could use one as well.

There's a few states in NW Africa without articles, too, if something close to Europe would work.

Anywhere else in Europe... well, that may be possible. Depends on both the location, and the idea.

Remember that there is canon about Europe in place already that you would need to work with, however.

Lordganon (talk) 05:00, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

If you need Finland, I'd be happy to do that. It wil just be a few days before I can really start, but then I'll spend some serious time on it! 10:24, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

That would be great ^^ Lordganon (talk) 11:47, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

May I help?Ninjasvswarriors (talk) 15:07, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

Course. I recommend, say, a page on the former Congo (both of them) The one and only Guns, who is too lazy to go to source mod and type out his real sig. (talk) 21:18, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

Queen's Speech in the event of a nuclear war
Government papers from 1983 have been released detailing a speech drawn up by officials that Queen Elizabeth II would have given in the event of a nuclear war

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/archived-papers-reveal-queens-world-war-three-speech-115251119.html#oAbaBe3

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23518587

I wonder if this could somehow placed in the article about what happened to Britain in the immediate aftermath of Doomsday

Verence71 (talk) 13:24, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

By everything I've seen about that, it was more of a possible contingency plan than anything, drawn up only in theory. Also something that would be only used even remotely with some warning, which our scenario does not have.

You can see similar items in other countries - I've seen similar types of things out of North America before, for example - the speaker and the small details being the main differences. But those have been acknowledged to have been impractical, at best, in such events. This is probably the same.

Really don't see a need to add something about it. At most, some sort of speech she gives on the Isle of Wight a day or two after DD.

Lordganon (talk) 11:47, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Map Update
Lol, I think we are going to need a map update pretty soon. :D  Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:13, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Westmoreland County, PA
Just wondering about a place in Pennslyvania that I can't find and am not sure about it. Westmoreland county in southwestern pa, is it in the Virginian republic? Thanks for answering, Ipancake13 (talk) 01:42, December 1, 2013 (UTC)

What is left of it, yes. It suffered from Pittsburgh during the war. Lordganon (talk) 12:09, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

Official notice of retirement and releasing my article responsibilities to the community
This is my official notice of retirement from the wiki. I release to the community any and all countries and other concepts and articles I am considered to have responsibility and oversight over. I got my start in fan writing at 1983 Doomsday and I will be forever thankful for the numerous opportunities it gave me, including working with some very talented creators. I wish all of you the best, and perhaps we'll see each other down the road. BrianD (talk) 18:18, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

I wish you luck, and if you don't mind, I wish to become caretaker of all of your articles. Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:23, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Wow Imp. Wow. Just wow. WOW.

00:26, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, no. Others want some too, Imp!!

00:35, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I got here first. :P  Imp (Say Hi?!) 00:49, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it really isn't right, fair, or anything of the sort. Can't just claim all of them. Would render you unable to do any of them justice anyways. Most of them is one thing, but not all.

If it helps, the list on his page isn't all that accurate anyway. There are several on there, like International Falls, where others have/had some degree of control and it falls on them now.

Sports articles, for instance, that he has on there are community articles.

I'll be taking Vermont and the Texas articles, barring objections. Guns, what's your desires?

Lordganon (talk) 16:59, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

LG, you know Guns will claim ALL the aritcles I want :'(  Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:15, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to adopt Louisiana (and its subdivision of Lake Arthur) and the Confederate States of America (Muscle Shoals). I will leave a message on their talk pages, but is it necessary that I message BrianD as well, since he has basically released all his articles here? If I will I have to, but I just want to make sure. Mscoree (talk) 20:07, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

I will take over International Falls, if there are no objections. Regentage (talk) 19:38, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Imp, if that is the case, then work out a compromise with him.

I must object to the concept of Ms doing such strenuously. Same rationale as before. No way it is happening. He has still failed entirely to meet any of those conditions, and, indeed, has quit trying.

International Falls already is under my control, Reg. As I noted above, Brian's list has not been accurate for quite some time.

Lordganon (talk) 14:00, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I quite understood that. What do you mean by "doing such strenuously"? Mscoree (talk) 15:00, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Imp, you insult me. Unless Brian has any articles in Africa, North of Angola, I do not want anything. I was merely stating that others will want some, eg. LG or Fed. I have to agree with LG on the Ms thing too. He has not really done much work on his current articles, and what little he has is generally either ASB or against Canon. 15:27, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

There isn't much harm that can be done on these articles. I merely wish to expand them and work on them alongside some of the other cowriters. Is it possible I could be given a chance? Mscoree (talk) 15:30, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

May I have a relatively undeveloped page? Thank you, 01:01, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

strenuously 1. characterized by vigorous exertion, as action, efforts, life, etc.: a strenuous afternoon of hunting. 2. demanding or requiring vigorous exertion; laborious: To think deeply is a strenuous task. 3. vigorous, energetic, or zealously active: a strenuous person; a strenuous intellect.

Third one.

Sorry to say, Guns, all his articles are in North America.

Ms, you have had many chances, and done nothing with any. Do something there first.

Rex, you've already got two of those, both with serious problems of the same nature. Be a good idea to fix those first. Far as I know, none of these ones done by Brian are "undeveloped" at all anyway.

Lordganon (talk) 05:41, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I know what stenuously means. I was asking what you were trying to say, as I didn't quite understand your phrasing. Mscoree (talk) 23:58, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

He means that he doesn't want you to adopt an article, because you haven't proved to be a plausible editor who works well with others.

00:03, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Or someone who, you know, actually finishes things. Lordganon (talk) 11:33, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

So is that an no for the ones I asked for? I only want to take care of the articles. I haven't "quit trying", I've been actively working in 1983 for some time now. And it's not really stenuous. I only asked for three articles where as Imp claimed all of them at one point. Is there no wait I can be allowed to have these? Mscoree (talk) 02:02, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps after you grad your current ones.

22:05, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Two of my articles are curently up for consideration, but that isn't going very well. Mscoree (talk) 22:22, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Because there are serious and general objections to most of it. If I write a page called the "Global World Empire" that controls all of North America, that doesn't make it a complete article in any sense of the word.

22:33, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Not getting any of them until the others are done. Same principle as the other ones you tried to acquire.

As for Imp, I suspect that was more a joke than anything.

Lordganon (talk) 10:37, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

Fort Indiantown Gap
May I adopt this page? Daeseunglim (talk)

To even consider that, you need to follow the adoption rules. This is unquestionably NOT doing so, Dae. Lordganon (talk) 05:14, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have never adopted a page, so I didn't realize that there was a process. I have seen posted on other pages asking to adopt something, so I did that too. My apologies. Daeseunglim (talk)

...And they did that as the last part of the process. Lordganon (talk) 14:23, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

is this still acitve? because i would like to sign up
title. User:Likercat (talk) 11:45, September 8, 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, and no sign up necessary.

22:50, September 12, 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood
Recently I had an idea involving Hollywood in 1983, and I was wondering if the area would survive doomsday. I don't plan a state or anything, I am asking because I am curious if someone living near Hollywood could escape. I know Los Angeles was nuked, but from what I could tell the part of Hollywood I am asking about would be outside the range of the nuke if Los Angeles was nuked in the center of the city, and no other nukes were launched in the area. I do realize though that it is possible there were other nukes dropped in the area that aren't listed, which is why I wanted to get the community's opinion on the matter. Specifically I was wondering if future musicians Daron Malakian, Serj Tankian, Shavo Odadjian, and John Dolmayan, who all lived and worked in Hollywood and Glendale, could escape Los Anglese. I know leaving the city would probably be a mess, but assuming they were one of the lucky few, is there a place they could flee to? Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 12:58, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

LA was nuked 5 times, as far as I know. All the bombs were 100 kt or higher- I think a megaton or two was also dropped. The blast radius included Santa Clarita and Anaheim, which are both further out than Hollywood. Also, San Jacinto, Santa Barbara, and San Diego were close enough for the fallout to kill everything in LA, even if LA had miraculously escaped.

Nothing survived. Nothing. Not even the cockroaches.

Ok, maybe some of the cockroaches. But not the humans, sorry.

21:23, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Anything not burned by atomic hellfire outright was burned by the regular fires that started in their aftermath. Lordganon (talk) 12:21, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton and the Tobyhanna Army Depot
I know that realistically Susquehanna would not be able to rebuild Wilkes-Barre or Scranton, but could it have been explored and materials be salvaged from the rubble? I know all the M113's are either destroyed or disabled, and airplanes and other vehicles are either vaporized or disabled.

Would it be realistic for them to have explored the ruins of the city for metal, ammunition, and possibly survivors who may have been desperate/stupid enough to resettle the outskirts of Wilkes-Barre?

Also, would it be possible for the Susquehanna Defense Forces to have explored Tobyhanna Army Depot for ammunition, guns, intact vehicles, and salvageable military equipment?

Thanks! Daeseunglim (talk) 01:21, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Time and fires would have got rid of much of it by now. Looters too.

The outer suburbs probably could be explored, but you'd find little to nothing of interest.

Tobyhanna, probably not hit. Most of its base functions were added well after 1983. As to whether there would be anything salvageable... It's really not that sort of depot. That it originally fell under the Signal Corps speaks volumes - what is here was more or less electronics. Effectively, useless. Most you might find is spare weapons/ammo for guards.

Lordganon (talk) 12:32, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was expecting more light arms and ammunition as well as some fuel. More the point of exploration is to search for useful materials and survivors as well as information especially from Scranton at the Steamtown part. All the trains would be gone or unable to be moved/inoperable. But they have schematics for old model trains on display in parts of it.

It seems that nations like Lincoln could explore their nukes areas. Susquehanna wants to rebuild them, in actuality they will not. I figured exploration around 2015 or 2016 once the area is completely stabilized from the raider war.

Oh yeah, why can't my nation be canonized yet? Thanks!!!

Daeseunglim (talk)

Quite frankly, doubt they even have those items there on a real level.

Far as I can tell that area of Scranton would be near ground zero. Would not bet on it.

Exploring with planes, or low yield sites. Outskirts as well, in general.

On the edges, maybe. Otherwise, no.

Dae, same problem as before: This would be a weak little state, but you have it as being much more than that, which is a problem. Tone it down, as I've noted a few times and given you pointers on how to do.

Lordganon (talk) 12:58, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

Bloomsburg Fair
Hey LG, I realized that the day of Doomsday was the start of the Bloomsburg Fair. I found from our local newspaper that there were about 3,000 people from out of the area working stands and approximately 35,000 people from out of town visiting for the fair.

That would give Susquehanna an additional 35,000 people. Now, I know many would die over time, but could the population be increased a bit?

Thanks Daeseunglim (talk)

As noted on your talk page, you are off on when the Fair ran. Started the Monday before DD, and ended the day before it. Those people would also not have all been there at once. No difference. Lordganon (talk) 11:56, December 17, 2014 (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). {C {C

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

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

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

Thought I'd leave this note here - that I left on its talk page quite some time ago - but the strike list on this article isn't plausible. Lordganon 07:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

This page has been sitting here for over a year, and I handed it over to Fx a while back. Is it at least stub suitable, or should it be obsolete? Arstar 07:31, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

No in both cases. There are major issues with it so we cannot graduate it in any form, yet, it is an article on an established nation, so we cannot mark it as obsolete. Lordganon 07:34, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I am still working on the article and intend to complete it along with Greenland. The only issue I am aware of as of this date which was raised had to do with the strike zones I selected. The areas I selected would have been legitimate and logical military targets of a Soviet attack: NAS Keflavik, the Keflavik Airport, and the Distant Early Warning (DEW) radar stations located in Sangerdi and Hofn.

Although the Doomsday scenario does revolve around a Soviet attack based on the assumption they are under a sudden assault, there is nothing to indicate the Soviets would not have followed up with bombers in a secondary attack on targets. The DEW radar system was designed to detect such incoming bombers. This would make it a target by the USSR. Although this aspect of the war to the best of my knowledge has not been explored in any great way, it was established in the history of Victoria that coastal Canada came under attack by Soviet bombers and they were shot down.

The destruction of DEW radar stations in Greenland and Iceland coupled with the effects produced by the HANEs over the continental US would help to punch holes in the network and leave North America vulnerable to any bomber attacks from that direction. I can not explain why other writers never elaborated on the fate of DEW sites in the US, Canada, and the Faroe Islands. It may have been a simple oversight given how many areas there are to cover. The article on Alaska speaks to multiple attacks on the Aleutian Island chain against military targets. Although it did not specifically clarify the exact targets, there were DEW stations in the islands which almost certainly would have been among sites hit. --Fxgentleman 16:33, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that not a single part of the DEW network was in range of the HANE blasts. By 2,500 miles, at least.

Not a single one of these sites was hit, anywhere. To hit a detection site after its job has been accomplished holds absolutely no point. We've never elaborated about the bombers because whether a site is hit by one or a ICBM doesn't really matter.

And the Alaska article is not referring to them, either. Why? Because those stations in the Aleuts had all been closed in 1969. What it would be referring to is Cold Bay Air Force Station, and likely Unalaska as well.

So, as stated: They were not hit, anywhere.

Lordganon 17:12, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the stations in the Aleutians. The sources I read gave me the impression they were open in 1983. I went back and checked and you are correct. You are also correct that the DEW system ran across the northern border of Canada and Alaska. I was thinking of the Pine Tree Line and the Mid Canada Line which I mistakenly lumped in with the DEW network. It was these two that I was thinking of when I made a reference to the HANE since some of their stations would fall under the EMP line. So my error on those points.

However, could you elaborate further why you think DEW sites would not be hit?

The DEW radar stations were designed to detect bomber(s) with a certainty of at least 99.9% that by the time they crossed the line the bomber(s) location, track direction, and time of detection had been ascertained and transmitted to NORAD. Once the last of the bombers passed the line then yes, you would be correct that the station's purpose has thus been served and to strike it would be pointless because what it was created to detect has already gone through. The question I would have to ask is since the bombers would have to be launched from the USSR and pass over the Polar Cap to reach Canada and the US how long would they take to reach the radar line?

Lets hypothesize for a moment. We know the Soviets received the warning at about 3:40 GMT+3 and launched their ICBMs roughly five minutes later. Since I don't know how long it would take to scramble Soviet bombers lets say hypothetically the first bombers begin scrambling at the same point the missiles are being launched and are airborne roughly ten minutes later or 3:50 GMT+3. At this point we have different groups of bombers inbound. I suggested the radar sites in Iceland were hit at about 4:05 GMT+3. I do not know how long it takes a bomber to leave its base and reach the radar line. But I don't believe that all the bombers would have already reached and over flown the radar line by that time. So logically until that last bomber goes over their existence creates a viable threat to the effectiveness of the Soviet bombers. Thus an early attack on some or all the stations would be a reasonable action on the part of the Soviets. My suggestion is this, I can reduce the attacks to missiles carrying conventional explosive warheads given they are small targets. This would serve the purpose of neutralizing the target while leaving a insignificant footprint on the area. What do you think, I am open to thoughts?--Fxgentleman 00:58, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have always understood that this scenario was basically an accidental war fought long-distance by ICBMs and some SLBMs. If there had been scrambled bombers, they would have been sent out by both the USA and the USSR, and perhaps many NATO and some Warsaw Pact nations as well. All of this means planes in place to shoot down each other, and perhaps a few incoming ICBMs and SLBMs. The accidental war would have been over the Arals and Canada as Bombers met each other. We don't have this in any of our story lines. There is some of it, but not over the lower 48 states. The damage was done by the first strike almost exclusively, as I interpret it. There may have been waves, but as I understand it, it was mostly over in a few hours (except for border wars such as that in Alaska). Introducing bombers is too much for the time line as we have it to absorb, in my opinion. SouthWriter 05:24, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed and considered South's comments I have gone ahead and removed any mention of the narrative regarding the DEW stations. I have to say though it is indeed very confusing from my point of view. I agree with South in that I always subscribed to the theory of how the war evolved, sudden rather than planned using just missiles in the US and Canada. The Victoria article when I read it a time ago had changed my thoughts regarding the whole business since we now had bombers flying in from Russia to attack. I just took it on faith it was simply another part of the story which had never been addressed. Under those conditions I felt DEW stations could not be ignored for the reasons I addressed earlier since they would just be to much of a threat for the Soviets to not strike. Hopefully, sometime in the future, another writer will take up the challenge of addressing the bomber aspect of what occured so we can square that part of the war. --Fxgentleman 06:39, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Basically, Fx, it's what you said in all of that: By the time the bombers arrive at the line, everything (for all purposes) is known. Their existence, and a lot of the details, would already be known by the destruction of any of them could occur. I figure there'd be a few minutes delay with the bomber launches, but it still stands. Destroying them, in this regard, really doesn't accomplish much of anything.

And, too, the radiation and EMP from such blasts would screw up any future waves a fair amount.

By the time the bombers get to anywhere that they can be harmed, the EMP and many ICBMs have gone off, crippling a lot of them. Same goes for their adversaries, and most people to whom the data would mean much of anything.

It's really a waste, at best. Largely, entirely ineffective. They know about them the entire time, so there is no point in destroying them.

As for Victoria.... really, those ones would have likely flown over the edges of the continent, and survived the EMP, etc. like that. To assume that the bombers would all fly straight is a little off, in my opinion.

Past that, as South said.

Lordganon 10:10, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

One of the things I learned during my recent research was in 1983 there was an active discussion on going about revamping the entire DEW radar line. I was surprised in my reading to find out how bad a shape the network was actually in, reports describing it as decrept. Soviet bombers could fly under 10k feet and avoid it. Apparently the Soviets had a far better and more effective network to stop US bombers. The Reagan administration was discussing as of 4/83 of spending $2 billion to revamp the entire network and trying to force Canada to cover part of the cost. This data was part of the reason my thoughts were finally swayed. Based on all these points, Soviet bombers would have had no real concerns. Nice to find out how well we were protected in 1983. --Fxgentleman 15:31, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

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


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

Ok to graduate?--Smoggy80 14:59, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No. It's definitely not done. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ganon's assessment on the talk page, Paul McCartney's demise must be mentioned in order for the article to be complete. SouthWriter 04:17, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Something on John's grave, and maybe even Yoko and/or Pete Best would be nice too. Lordganon 08:08, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Jer1818, are you still there? Just a little bit more and this can be graduated. @Ganon, though John was cremated, and his ashes scattered in Central Park, a memorial was erected -- dedicated in 1985. The memorial was a gift from Naples, Italy. More info on this would need to be gathered (I have only been to Wikipedia), but I suspect that this probably didn't get built.

Wikipedia only says Ono continued to live at the Dakota, across the street from Central Park. If she was home in 1983, she probably did not escape. Given her active career, though, she would be a good one to bring through the wreckage if possible.

On the other hand, Pete Best, the Beatles first drummer, had been working as a civil servant in around 15 years in Liverpool when the bombs fell. He got back into music in 1988 in our time line, but could have become popular sooner in this time line. He is known to have been a fan of the Beatle's music though the group apparently did not treat him well after his being replaced with Ringo Starr. I'm for him becoming one of the Celtic Alliance's formost musicians if it could be worked in to the time line.

~South

Well, it was only actually part of the memorial that was from Naples. Yoko and the city did actually start the project in 1981, and "completed" it sometime before the blasts - it was redone in 1984, and the dedication in 1985 was very much a re-dedication, for all purposes. None seems to have been done previously, yet it had obviously been open before that.

Yoko was recording parts of several albums at the time - and she did record in NYC.

Best is a bit of a dilemma - he was in Liverpool working for a number of years, but at some point between 1963 and 1988, he became the training manager for the entire regional division of England, meaning his job likely moved to St Helens, east of Liverpool. Seems that he still lived in Liverpool, but... nothing for sure, there, really.

Lordganon 15:00, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to putting this up for adoption? Lordganon (talk) 10:00, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Adoption tag added. Lordganon (talk) 06:08, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what's the plan for this one, guys? King, are you planning on doing anything with it? Lordganon 22:45, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Are there any objections to making this a stub?Arstar 22:43, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is no reason at all to even consider it at this time. The article is far from done, and unlike the stubs, has entire sections blank. Lordganon 09:39, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Superior Election Articles

 * 1984 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1986 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1988 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1990 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1992 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1994 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)

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

The first two have no basis in canon at all - virtually no reference to numbers and political positions of the two parties or the like with the congress of Superior exist for that era that actually indicate things one way or the other like this. The independent numbers are.... not possible, either. The 1994 one is the only one with some actual accuracy as it currently stands, though even it has to be massively re-written. Lordganon 20:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I think we should mark the first two obsolete and put the last up for adoption. Any objections? Mitro 18:31, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this won't come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to the newsbits and edits with Superior I've been doing lately, but I'm adopting these articles, and am going to be adding many more of them. Lordganon 00:11, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

President ones first, then congress, then governors. Lalalala.... 07:15, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

All right, I believe I'm done with the Presidential elections. The 2012 one is ongoing, obviously, but should be graduated too, I think.

Any objections to their graduation?

Lordganon 14:46, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

All right, they've been graduated. Lordganon 23:00, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Arstar, why on earth did you do that? The articles that I asked about were graduated months ago. Lordganon 11:17, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Arstar: This is now the second time that you've done that. The articles here are proposals and the ones I asked about, as I already told you, were graduated months ago. Lordganon 01:14, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

What's the story on these? Ganon says they're graduated, but they're still have proposal templates on them? SouthWriter 02:29, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

There was several presidential election articles here that were graduated back in October. Arstar's missed that a few times, despite being told about it point-blank, lol. Lordganon 14:35, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

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

So what are we doing with this? It's pretty obvious that Sun's more or less abandoned it. Should we obsolete it? Or what? Lordganon 22:48, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Anything done with it has to tie into Kentucky. I could adopt this, as part of my proposal to flesh out the DDTL state of Indiana. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

That would work well, though I'd talk to Zack about it first. Lordganon 05:30, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Has BrianD adopted this?--Smoggy80 15:04, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

More or less. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

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

I've worked on a few paragraphs. Let me know what you think. SouthWriter 01:46, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

South, you still working on this? BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Brian, since I am no good at creating fictional characters, would you mind adding to this article. You can use the characters that you created for me earlier. I can't get into the evil mindset the way you can. The article can be an extension of your fascinating one on Athens. It will make a great addition to the post DD history of the tri-state area. SouthWriter 04:13, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ok to graduate? --Smoggy80 15:05, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's not done yet - they periodically add to it. By the looks of things, it's about half done.

The Ipswich Incident
Ongoing article. Semi-collaboration between Verence and I. Fegaxeyl 21:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Feg, Verence, what's the story here? Lordganon 22:52, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by GB not previously put here. It's got..... major issues, but is indeed a start. Lordganon 11:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Is GB still the owner of this article? I have read through it and would like to take it over and expand it based on research I have been doing and also bring it into line with what I am doing for Delmarva. If anyone can let me know, thanks.--Fxgentleman 13:24, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is. And you are definitely the person who should take over and do the article. Lordganon 14:27, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

What's the progress on this article? FX, you still want to take it over?BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

By my best guess, he's doing some research and will get to it when he's ready. Lordganon 05:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ok to graduate as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:06, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No. There's barely anything here, and what is here... well, it really isn't the case of what would happen. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner regarding this. I had not thought to look at the discussion regarding this for awhile. It is still on my list of things to do and I have not forgotten it. Unfortunately, the duties of my job often take alot of my time and energy and things have been especially hectic since December 2011. If I don't appear to respond and there is a concern/question please just message me on my discussion page or email me and I will respond. Thanks and sorry.--Fxgentleman 22:45, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

More or less what I've been saying about your articles on this list, Fx. No worries, overall - I know some of us are very busy. Lordganon 09:11, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Survivor state in former Slovakia, by Jnjaycpa. Here's hoping that it doesn't end up like all of his other proposals and he actually works on it. Lordganon 08:00, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

....I suppose I'm not shocked to see this, but since I posted that there has only been two days that it has been edited, and virtually all the problems and blankness remain. Yet, Jnjaycpa has been around. So, what should we do with this? It is somewhat valid, so I'm really not of a mind to make it obsolete. Maybe make if ofa? Lordganon 22:58, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

OFA works for me. It would be good to see Jay return to it and finish it out. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

I have now marked it as open for adoption. Lordganon 01:01, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request this article for adoption. Gatemonger 17:31, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to ask if it has the banner. Power to you, Gate. Lordganon 01:41, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Has this been adopted?--Smoggy80 15:07, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Smog. Gate's clearly done so. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Since most of the history is written out, can we make this a stub? Arstar 21:47, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

There is a long list of objections to its current content on its talk page, and there's no mention of this anywhere but here. So I must object to the idea of making it a stub. Lordganon (talk) 23:41, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I have Gate's permission to adopt Nitra. Aside from those listed on the talk page, what else do I need to do to this article? Godfrey Raphael (talk) 09:29, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Article by Feg and Vegas. Lordganon 11:32, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be all finished now, so any objections to graduation?--Smoggy80 14:54, August 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing I noticed: No casualties or losses mentioned or listed on the template. I think it needs to be fleshed out just a bit, but I don't know much about 'battle articles' (the only war I did was incorporated into the main article).


 * Before we graduate this one, and the one below it, I thought I'd point out the irony of the two being adjacent: The Invasion of Kent & Superman! :-)


 * SouthWriter 04:56, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And, too, the invasion goes from 15th May, 2011 to 2nd June, 2011, but only May 15th-17th is written down. Not even any idea what the consequences/results are, either.

Basically, it is over, but there's no events listed right now. We could probably get away with stubbing it, but... I would really rather avoid that.

Lordganon 06:54, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, since then Vegas has added a little to this, but it remains mostly the same. Feg, Vegas, what's happening with it? Lordganon 22:59, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Is this article finished? can it be graduated?--Smoggy80 15:08, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No to both counts. There's basically nothing here. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation as a stub? Lordganon (talk) 10:09, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Article by a new user for the Nordic Union member of Denmark. Currently, it is horribly formatted and filled with errors in general. Lordganon 05:00, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better now, ok to graduate?--Smoggy80 15:09, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

There has been no improvements, nor is it complete. So, no. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by me about post-Doomsday Tanganyika. Caeruleus 20:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

This article is complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 04:08, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

The idea that all of these states would have good relations with the Tanganyika remnant and join that organization makes no sense at all.

Same goes for the situation in most of these states. Have a good, hard, long look at where the economic power in the nation actually is, and where is actually poor: it's not how you show it, at all.

Lordganon 08:29, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * They have good relations with the Republic of Tanganyika for two reasons. First, they have to if they want access to their ports. With Mozambique having a civil war to the south and Kenya allying its export policy with that of Tanganyika's, if they want access to wider markets, they have to be nice to Tanganyika. Second, Tanganyika rejected its goal of reunification in 1990, which removed the immediate threat it presented to the newly indepedent states.


 * Tanganyika controls the ports, the commercial capital, most of the region's industry, and the only operational gold mine. At the very least, Tanganyika would be wealthiest because it could tax any exported through its territory. However, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it. Caeruleus 16:32, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you have a good long look at your EAC article. It specifically states that unifying the area is its long-term goal. So no, it has not rejected it.

Ports are overrated whenever you write something. Note the big lake in the northeast? The population around that lake is self-sustaining, and not dependent on the rest of the area or those ports at all. Largest inland fishery in the world. There is no economic pressure that can be done to them, for they have no need to export.

Operational Gold mine? No gold mines were operational at the time. Most only opened in the late 1990s, and the others went out of business by the 1950s. And they would all be in the breakaway states, too.

Commercial Capital means little - and that city would be where most deaths and refugees occur. With exports and imports gone or sharply reduced, the "commercial" aspect goes.

So does industry, which is almost non-existant. Especially since until recently, there was basically nothing in that direction. Most of the exports and agriculture are from the breakaway states. Those on the lake are going to have a higher GNP ratio than Tan~ itself. It's also dependent on them for food, which you failed to notice.

Who's got the economic power? In some regards, Tan~ has some but overall? Not them, by a long shot.

And all that avoids entirely the aspect of relations in general. These states revolted. And you are trying to make them have good relations. That is ridiculous. A few of them, sure. But all? That is just not possible. Each and every time a nation has broken up, especially by force, not all of the parts have been friendly. And yet, you have them all loving each other. That's impossible and makes no sense whatsoever.

Lordganon 02:04, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Please read through the new updates. Any remaining objections? Caeruleus 03:17, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement, though you missed the point about economic power, and population.

The states on the lake are not dependent on the rest of the nation, in any real way. The population overall fails to include any real number of deaths or refugees.

Lordganon 06:30, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The economic power portions have been revised. The poulation is fine. It's 10 million less than OTL, which is more than enough to count for the number of deaths and refugees. Caeruleus 07:20, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

No. Half the article reads like it is an article on the remnant, the other half reads like an article on the area. If it is overall, that may work as a population. But for the remnant, not in the least. By and large, it appears to be the remnant.

Lordganon 08:01, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the total population of the entirety of Greater Tanganyika. Caeruleus 08:19, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to re-write the article. That is only about a quarter of what it actually says. Most of it is an article on The remnant. Lordganon 09:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It progresses from talking about the remnant to the survivor states, while remaining somewhat focused on the remnant in the context of the other survivor states. After a certain point, "Tanganyika" stops referring to the remnant and begins referring to the region. I'll go through and change references to the region to Greater Tanganyika" in order to clarify that. Caeruleus 13:34, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Much better. Lordganon 19:18, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

with the improvements is it ok to graduate this article then?--Smoggy80 15:10, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

There are still problems with the "focus," so to speak, of the article. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I vote for graduation. This article demonstrates a sincere effort that should be recognized by the community as part of the time line. SouthWriter 03:19, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

And to that, I have to object. Half of the article is still on the nation-state, and half of it is on the former nation. As I said, there's a problem with the focus of the article. He's done work to improve it in that regard, but the problem has definitely persisted, and needs to be fixed prior to graduation. Lordganon 15:02, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Article by me about Kenya. Caeruleus 19:55, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

This article is complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 04:06, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

That this remains intact while most of Africa collapses, despite the major drought just after Doomsday, makes no sense. Earlier on, you had a couple of the provinces go. And yet, then you had them re-join. That is not plausible.

Lordganon 08:33, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

And, to add, there's several statements in it, such as "largest economy in East Africa" which are suspect, and probably not true at all. Lordganon 08:56, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the largest economy in East Africa OTL and that would hold true here as well.


 * As for the drought, droughts don't necessarily cause a collapse of government. The only thing that is assured to happen is a higher death toll for the duration of the drought. During droughts, Kenya does need food aid, but it still produces enough to feed a majority of its population. At most, only a few million have ever needed food aid and, even without aid, the situation could still be handled by the government. Caeruleus 16:04, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, you don't make statements like that. Ever. And, for the record, it is very likely that they are not the largest economy. With the reformation and such that occurred in Ethiopia, it is likely that it, Mozambique, or Madagascar hold the title anyways. Especially given the economic aspects relied on in Kenya, which would have collapsed the economy quickly.

You'll note that I did not say it collapsed. A dictatorship, with a coup attempt barely a year prior, in a multi-ethnic - very multi-ethnic - state with regional divisions. Otl, with massive relief getting sent to them, half of the herds died, and massive amounts of crops. More than half the country is drought-prone. The blasts are on record as warming the earth slightly, making it a touch worse. And, the drought ran from 1983 until 1985, too, throughout all of East Africa. To boot, after that period there was massive floods to make the effect even worse.

http://worldvisionnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/horn-of-africa-drought-map.png

and

http://writingtowellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/horn-of-africa-drought-map-29-july.jpg

While the two maps are from modern droughts, they show the at-risk areas well, in combination. That has long been the same. Think about it.

You have a few million starving people. And no food to give them. Did you know that the average person is only three meals away from civil disobedience? Do the math. Atl, they are going to have trouble feeding the army. Good luck keeping stability like that.

Collapse outright? Not likely. Remain whole? That's crazy.

Lordganon 05:03, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes. Any remaining objections? Caeruleus 03:18, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement. But you fail to actually take the droughts into effect, at all. Lordganon 06:31, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * There's not much to be said about the droughts other than that they happened and had some effects. Caeruleus 07:15, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Not what I mean. You do not go into details about its effects, and mention it in passing, for the most part. Not only that, but a population 2 million lower, only? A fair portion of the area is constantly fought over, a few massive droughts happened, along with general chaos, and only two million lower than otl? Not plausible in any fashion.

Lordganon 08:05, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a minor adjustment to the population. Still, nothing really needs to really be elaborated on about the drought. It happened, there was a famine, and obviously some people died and/or suffered because of it, which contributed to political instability. What else would you like included? Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Better, but you've not gotten the point. You just mention it. It's like a non-event. That just does not work. Lordganon 09:42, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a drought. They happen. It wasn't some seismic event. What happened and what it did are pretty basic. Do you want me to include specific information about what areas were affected and death tolls and such? Caeruleus 13:38, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A massive drought, causing many deaths and society-wide problems. And you just mention it. It's not a question of figures - though some sort of those is a must - but actually mentioning more than "it happened." Currently, you fail to do so. Lordganon 19:21, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Much better, but now you've made it sound like droughts never happen again. They will. Lordganon 21:57, October 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it that there can be a blossoming of the Sahara in Egypt based on a proposed increase of rainfall by mere inches a year while insisting that the droughts and desertification in Kenya remain the same? I have been told that we cannot generally expect the weather to be predictable, but here, on the edge of the equatorial rainforest things remain the same!


 * There is no mention at all of this drought, or any since 1983 for that matter, on the Wikipedia page about Kenya. It should not be a requirement for such to be an article on this wiki either. I agree, droughts happen, and people cope. In the case of this drought, with no help from the USA in 1984, there would have been a few thousand more deaths - maybe even a million in the poorer regions. The people affected, though, are not those who would revolt after a few days. They live day by day any way, gladly receiving aid when it comes, coping in other ways when it doesn't.


 * Meanwhile, back in Nairobi, well away from the suffering, life goes on. The army might fight the neighbors who take advantage of the drought, but the government would at the same time reach out to the Indian Ocean community for aid (Malyasia, Indenesia, and Australia, especially) when the emergency of the famine developed.


 * This is a very good article, though it might be improved with mention of coping without US aid in the particular emergency. I am in favor of graduating it in spite of the lack of dealing with the drought. However, I would say more attention should be shown as to how the new connections with New Britain, Australia and New Zealand would come into play when droughts inevitably come. SouthWriter 18:18, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

South, the Sahara has almost nothing to do with the rainfall, and everything to do with redirecting the river partially.

Google "Kenya drought" and either "1983" or "1984." You'll find that there was a drought then that otl, effected 200,000 people greatly even with massive food imports. This drought is referred to as one of "the most severe resulting in loss of human life and livestock, heavy government expenditure to facilitate response and general high economic losses of unprecedented levels." Which, otl, was followed by massive flooding in 1985. These droughts, btw, hit the region every few years, and especially hard every ten years or so - in 1974, 1984, 1994, and 2004, otl. These hit the entire region. 50-75% of cattle died before food aid came otl - and here, it's not coming. There was severe food shortages, too. This drought has even been called the first in the last century by some. Food crops were 50%, in the case of corn, to 70%, in the case of wheat, lost to it in Kenya. This is a drought that killed three million people in the region. Millions in Kenya were dependent on food imports to survive. And here, there isn't any.

Ever hear the addage "The average person is three meals away from civil unrest?" Think about it. The death toll will be on a disturbing level in this case.

Again, no contact with the outside world during the drought. Nor could they help at all, anyways.

And, the climate changes - wetter, etc. - are unlikely to have much impact here overall. Changes otl aren't, so why would this? And, changes here are not happening in the first few years, either. so there's no impact form them.

So, I say again: The article mentions the drought in passing. Yet, this drought has such an impact, that it needs to actually be dealt with. Caer is failing entirely in that regard.

Lordganon 05:49, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I did do a search for the 1984 drought, and it is seen as a border issue. The fact that the Wikipedia article does not even mention it should be taken as a hint that the Kenyans indeed adjust to these seasonal emergencies. In fact, the actions of President Moi, not the US government, are what mitigated the effects of the drought and accompanying famine. Since trade with the US had vanished in TTL, agreements with nations in the southern hemisphere would have been used instead. This response was touted as a model for famine relief. Far from causing conditions for revolt, the Kenyan government was able to mitigate the situation getting the population through.


 * I know this is counter to my suggestions above, for they were just suggestions lacking LG's superior investigative abilities. I would say that Caer should indeed mention the effort since it even if the Wikipedia article in our day did not. It enhances the article to point out the effectiveness of the Moi regime - no matter where it was able to get outside help. If nothing else, help would be available from surplus in Malaysia and Indonesia (sources of year-long exports to the US and other nations of the north pre-DD).


 * One more thing, the deaths in this drought measured two million in the region, not in Kenya. The losses to Kenya were only 200,000 in its northwestern sector. In a nation of 30,000,000 that is hardly a disaster that would topple a strong regime like the one in Kenya.


 * Long story short, I agree that the drought should be 'dealt with,' but not that it is essential in validating the article. The drought would not, in my opinion, have altered the history of Kenya in this time line any more than it would have int our time line. SouthWriter 20:24, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, South, it is not mentioned in the Kenya article because it was not an issue there otl. However, this is not otl.

They imported millions of tons of food. Millions. That is why they were barely effected otl. Not because the government or the people was able to adjust to anything. But because unlike their neighbors, they were able to import massive amounts of food. Which is not happening here.

You say that it was the actions of the President that "mitigated the effects of the drought and accompanying famine." While that is true, you also missed what he did. He imported food. Which, as established, is not happening.

Again: They have no contact with the outside world until after the drought is long over. At best, it will be 1986 before it is restored between this area and the SAC/ANZC to any degree. And the entire matter is long gone by then.

I said in the region three million died otl. Not in Kenya. Most of those were in Ethiopia, which got no imports, and only a small amount of aid. Here, atl, Kenya gets no food imports, or aid. The impact will be worse. Far, far, worse. Half of crops in the country failed, and a large majority of the herds died off, otl, with imports of food and aid. Go from there.

So, we have millions dying. Which is a heck of a lot worse than otl. And as such, the history is drastically altered.

Caer has failed to deal with the drought itself in any degree, and it needs to be rectified before graduation.

Lordganon 23:27, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am keeping this civil, not going into addressing either of you in second person. As mentioned above, I believe there would be communication and trade with Malaysia and maybe even Indonesia, neither of which would have been embroiled in the politics in Australia or South America (neither of which had formed new alliances to any degree in 1984). Unless we are going to assume that geosynchronous satellites directly above were out of commission (see discussion at bottom of this page) and regular cables across the Indian Ocean were disrupted by by the bombs that hit one city in western Australia, then there is no reason why arrangements could not be made with the governments around the Indian Ocean for at least adequate aid, if not in the amount of the US sent in our time line.


 * I see that Indonesia had early contact with Australia and Malaysia but not with the rest of the world (Africa and South America). Malaysia seems a bit more stable than Indonesia because of its smaller population but lost a third of its land to tiny Brunei. So perhaps they would not have been quite as inclined to help an African nation. But I can't see the lack of contact in that direction as a reason. It is enough to lay out options with no need to be dogmatic on these things. This is a community effort and no one editor - not even an administrator - should have the last word on how a small African nation might have fared with the absence of the US in time of crisis. --SouthWriter 03:11, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Simple truth: as I have laid it out is the current fact. Not my opinion, or yours. You need to recognize that fact. You don't like it, fine. But as things stand, it is fact. You need to recognize that.

Past that....

To quote the ANZC history:

"Communications were restored with Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and most of the Pacific island nations by Christmas of 1983"

Contact obvious

"....met with Indonesian President Suharto in February 1984...... He believed that Indonesia needed to move forward on the assumption that the Australia, New Zealand and Singapore markets would eventually bounce back to near pre-Doomsday levels"

Contact with Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei

"In February, an unexpected radio message from North America came: the American President, Ronald Reagan, was alive, as was Vice President George Bush and several other staffers and cabinet members, and they were trying to find out who else was alive in this post-Doomsday world."

"No one had been able to establish contact with anyone outside the Mount Weather or Greenbrier regions, and certainly not from Canada, Japan nor Western Europe."

"The one contact other than Australia the U.S. had been able to establish was with Mexican military south of Mexico City; they learned that Mexico had survived Doomsday and was not only functioning but was apparently taking American survivors from the southwest border states."

"Bush arrived in Canberra on Air Force Two on May 6 from Auckland, greeted personally by Hawke only to be told that the RAAF lost contact with Air Force One."

Contact with American Remnants, and Mexico

And, from the Vatican, we have already established, somewhat, that contact between Mexico and the rest of Latin America is up by sometime in 1984. And that contact throughout the south, is, on some level, restored enough by April of 1987 to have most of the Southern Cardinals attend a conclave. Probably, sometime in late 1985 at the latest for contact.

Contact with rest of the Southernmost Hemisphere

Note, too, that this applies to areas from Senegal south in western Africa, and Mozambique south in the east - though, this could be made further north n the east, and probably will be. But it remains: contact and trade are restored with East Africa in the latter half of 1984 at best.

And guess what? The drought has already done its damage by then.

Your "aid" has no effect. The deaths have already happened.

As stated, Caer needs to actually deal with this. He barely mentions it. Yet, it happened. The problem here is pretty big, and obvious.

Lordganon 05:40, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG, nothing you say is fact until it is established as fact by the community of this TL. That goes for you and everyone else. Also, keep in mind that the issue of communication is under review with a majority of editors so far leaning towards changing it. If it is decided to change it, all the passages you've quoted will be invalidated. Caeruleus 05:55, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Me saying? What I have quoted is the current established fact. Until this article recognizes that or something else changes, there is no reason at all to graduate it.

And, as for the "review"? The info I quote invalidates the entire thing.

Lordganon 06:27, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * What LG has cited represents wide-spread utilization of communication in the southern hemisphere and even from the subtropical regions of the northern hemisphere. The communications from North America, though 'unexpected,' prove that they were operative via the communication satellites encircling the equator - one or two above Kenya, in fact. Furthermore, the fact that these particular incidents are mentioned only go to show the view point of the people involved (and the assumptions of the editors of the articles). Though the discussion is not in the "review" section, it does not mean that it is not an official process to which we need to pay serious attention.


 * The 'early warning systems' were well in place for the Kenyan government as the drought began with a failure of the "short rains" that began soon after DD (October - November, 1983). Since the government would be aware of the probable loss of the US and Europe via broadcast during the attacks if not after them, contingency plans would be made. Most of the yellow maize imported came from Thailand and the result of yellow maize being the main import caused those of means within the nation to ration other foodstuffs to compensate.


 * Without due consideration to the drought, though, the article does suffer from a loss of a good study in the alternatives the Kenyan government faced with a loss of both the US and European community. This is what this time line is all about. Though not directly affected by the nuclear war, the contacts that the Moi regime had were drastically reduced. And so, I agree that this article needs to include a paragraph of how the regime 'pulled this off' to remain stable. If that cannot be demonstrated, then the article needs to be revamped before graduation. SouthWriter 15:36, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

And now, we're off-topic. Sigh.....

Widespread? Contact in some form does not mean widespread, at all. The majority of this contact would be by ship, and minimal at best.

Actually South, they don't prove they were operative. Quite literally, there are only 4 places with any sort of contact in NA at that time - and that, with each other: Bush, Reagan, NORAD, and on a very low level the Wyoming remnant. Really, the word "unexpected" would much more so be due to their deaths having been expected. And those satellites would be unlikely - really, there are some EMP hardened sats up there, which both NORAD and the executives would have access on some degree to, though highly fractured by the EMP blasts and the ground/air bursts.

Bush and Reagan, having been airborne and in their EMP hardened planes, have functioning radios, at least to some degree. That's how they can be in contact. Between each other, it's pretty simple. Past that, the military satellites are still going to be functional at that point, at least to some degree. They would also have high-powered radios - though, their performance obviously hindered somewhat - along with, I'm sure, a few other toys we're not aware of.

NORAD is pretty obvious in itself, with the location, the story set up, and the radiation, etc. severely impacting things afterwards. But that is limited, too.

Got nothing for Wyoming, really. Where that is mentioned really needs something like "through NORAD" added to it, as it makes little sense otherwise. Proximity to NORAD, call it.

Really, those are quite reasonable. Contact between the four will be extremely sporadic, and static-filled, with little to no ability to reach beyond the continent. Sure, a few more sources may have heard them - but that means almost nothing, given codes, static, and that the further it gets, the more unintelligible it would be. That they talked to the ANZC at all through that atmosphere is a stretch, quite frankly.

Thailand. Something, as stated, only in contact with in mid to late 1984. And suffering somewhat in its own right.

No matter the plans put into place, you still have a massive food shortage. And no aid until it's more or less over, and even then in much smaller amounts than in otl. Millions will die.

As stated, my issue with this is that the drought gets a mention "in passing." Yet, it has so much more impact than that. Nor is it a "minor famine" like it says right now. It was more or less that otl - that it is going to be far worse here is a given. It's not so much the stability, in my mind, though that gets glanced over badly too, among other things that South has noted. As it stands, it's basically glanced over, being "swept under the rug," so to speak.

And that? We can definitely say is not right.

Lordganon 07:58, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Article by an anon. Only a single sentence, absolutely nothing else. Lordganon 14:34, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

No progress since I added this one. Yet, it's definitely an article to keep. Would there be any objections to putting it up for adoption? Lordganon 23:14, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Put up for adoption. Lordganon 01:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Adopted by Godfrey Raphael. Lordganon 01:28, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Has this been definitely been adopted? as it is still only one line?--Smoggy80 15:13, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has definitely been adopted. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I put it up for adoption again. I simply can't work on this anymore. Godfrey Raphael (talk) 01:50, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Hello, so I have decided to take on the task of becoming a care-taker for a Doomsday nation article. I see, from examples and those who have come before me, that this is a large task. Can somebody please give me a rough outline of what sould be included? So, History, Economy, Government, etc.?

Also, what are some current things in canon about Finland? My eventual goal is to work on Finland, then Iceland, then Sweden, and hopefully have some role in the Nordic Union. Obviously this is a bit far out, but what do we know about Finland right now, and what can I make up? Reximus55 (talk) 10:41, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Iceland is the project of another - but there is no Sweden article, so you could do that in the future.

Look at the Nordic Union, Karelia, and Soviet Karelia articles. You could glean quite a bit of history from those. Ignore the Åland article, most of it needs a great deal of work and is not remotely plausible.

Finland was not hit at DD. In the aftermath, Soviet troops fleeing chaos and detonations crossed the border, and were fought off.

Government, more or less like otl, with the parties somewhat up for debate. The Nordic Union has the president and PM of Finland listed on it - the next elections are the legislative elections in 2015, and the presidential elections in 2018. The president cannot run again, being in his second term. Parliament up to you, except the largest party is the Social Democratic Party of Finland.

Sauli Niinistö of Finland is the current President of the Nordic Union, elected in 2011 and up for re-election in 2014. Don't really have a backstory for him, but I've gone on the assumption that he was president of Finland before Martti Ahtisaari and was a member of Parliament and finance minister prior to that, so that'd be more or less his story.

Really, write something within those lines, and I'll advise you from there.

Lordganon (talk) 11:42, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

LG, I have tried to do some work with this page the past day. I fixed the coup issue. Any ideas/suggestions? So far, is it all on track to canon? Thanks! 10:26, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Not even remotely "on track." Pretty much all of the stuff that there was problems with is still there, and more. Heck, you tried to change the NU article, even - not cool, and don't do it again - to match the bad content.

You've not really "fixed" anything, Rex.

As for ideas and suggestions... basically everything I had said on this page, a couple of posts up, before.

Lordganon (talk) 11:10, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I am really at a loss. Would you mind re-stating what exactly needs to be fixed? Thanks, 09:34, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

Again: more or less literally the same as I have posted in the past. Just look up the bloody page, Rex. Add that you don;t have it meshing with the NU article at all right now, and it needs to be. Lordganon (talk) 11:20, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

An article by myself. Caeruleus 19:12, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

This article is now complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 06:34, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

It is still ridiculously impossible. Simply put, it is not plausible that a bunch of breakaway states would agree to this when the major power is the one they split from militarily and the eventual goal of the organization is integration.

That is not plausible, at all. Some, maybe. But all, and many for reasons that make no sense locally? Not plausible.

And, you have no authority at all to include Zanzibar in this at all.

Lordganon 08:27, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

And none of that changes with Kenya helping to "convince" them, either. Lordganon 08:30, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

The current goal of the organization is economic integration, which is desirable to all the states in the region. The coastal states want access to the resources of the inland states and the inland states need access to the ports of the coastal states for trade. The ultimate goal of political unification is far off and may never actually happen. Just because it's a stated goal does not mean that's the reason they joined or that they expect it to happen. Plus, the EAC is a regional embodiment of PanAfricanism, an ideology that is strong among the regional elite. Even if the organization is particularly popular, the political elite in several of these countries would push for membership, like with the OTL EAC and other regional supranational organizations in Africa. Caeruleus 16:18, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Really? Pan-Africanism? Do you have any idea at all how inflated that concept is? It would seem not. And, for the record, the political elite in the area otl do not support the concept - that will remain true here.

No. The stated goal of it, as it says on the article itself is economic and political integration. Which is precisely why many of the little states will avoid it like the plague. Little nation-states, joining a political organization whose eventual stated goal is political integration with a nation that they revolted from - that just doesn't work. At all.

Even without that being the stated goal, that is just not plausible. A few of the remnants, maybe. But all of them? That doesn't work, at all. Have a good look at that type of thing, overall, and you'll find that many of them cannot stand each other. Either they hate the remnant of the nation they revolted from, or one another. End result is the same. Which you have failed to understand or include, at all.

As already established, the inland states have no need for the coast, and vice-versa.

Lordganon 05:36, September 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I went through and made some changes. Any continued objections? Caeruleus 03:16, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Better, but you still fail to get the point about the states on the lakes - more so, Lake Victoria. They have little to no need for the coast, at all.

This also cannot graduate, sensibly, until the nations do.

Lordganon 06:32, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

I edited the portion about the importance of the ports. If there's nothing else, this will graduate when the other articles do. Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

No, you removed it. That does not change the fact that they do not need them in any form, and that the article entirely fails to get that concept. Lordganon 09:50, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The article isn't about the ports of East Africa. Since including them as a reason for Tanganyika's economic superiority was overstated, nothing else needs to be said about them once that portion was removed. Caeruleus 13:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

You frequently use words like "inevitable." While the port sections were removed, the article still reads like that is the reason for joining. At the very least, no motive is given. It also still sounds like economic reasons are why things are happening, which as shown is not. the case. Lordganon 19:25, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Economic reasons are why things are happening. Lowering trade barriers and increasing cooperation will result in accelerated economic growth in the region, regardless of whether or not the ports are particularly important. That's the principle reason most of these states are joining. There are other reasons, like security aid for Kagera and pro-reunification leanings for Ruvuma, but the economic advantages remain a major reason for membership. Caeruleus 18:46, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

You are not getting the point. It still reads like pressure is being applied, yet there is no pressure to apply. And, again, the use of words like "inevitable." Lordganon 01:21, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * The inevitable comment is made in specific reference to the future direction of the TFTA, not the EAC. Other than that, there are no references to pressure being applied. Caeruleus 03:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what that word is in reference to, at all. You use other words that mean the same blasted thing throughout, as well. The whole thing reeks of it. Lordganon 06:43, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't reak of that, at all. Caeruleus 14:42, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oblivious, as usual, then. You are continually referring to future things in a definite manner that would be speculation. That doesn't fly. Lordganon 01:11, October 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. The only future things the article refers to are in the "Future Developments" section, which makes perfect sense. Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about. Caeruleus 22:33, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're failing to get the point. You are referring to things as definite. Doesn't work, or make any sense, especially in the future developments section. Lordganon 07:20, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

This could work, Mark as obsolete until made more plausable?--Smoggy80 15:17, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No, there's only small changes needed to it - which, as per usual, he's refused/declined to make. No need for that. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

An article by myself after the post-Doomsday Zimbabwe. Caeruleus 06:34, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

This article is now complete and ready for graduation. Any objections? Caeruleus 06:47, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

How on earth can an inland nation, more or less cut off from the outside world, especially one this poor, have any real increase in manufacturing abilities, or industry? Simply put, it won't. It would decrease. As in no fuel, or materials to make such things with.

You ignore entirely why the white population was leaving. And what would happen to them, being forced to stay.

That population is 100% unrealistic. Not only is that almost higher than the population of the entire country otl, but also ignores one simple fact: AIDS exists, and would be far worse.

Lordganon 08:22, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Small scale growth in industry, through the replication of existing industry, is possible even in relative isolation, though Zimbabwe still had access to the outside world through Mozambique. While the basic technology wouldn't have advanced much, if at all, since Doomsday. They have access to native and neighboring supplies to expand existing industry. I will clarify that section.


 * Actually, the population is fairly accurate. The OTL population doesn't include refugees that reside outside the country, most of whom fled during the 2000s with the economic chaos in the country. I accounted for the death toll during the two civil wars, kept the White population, and factored in the lack of refugees. I will revisit the figures though.


 * White Zimbabweans left because they lamented their loss of political dominance and feared what could happen. While low-level racism and civil strife existed, the mass, state-driven discrimination they feared didn't occur until the late 1990s OTL with the land seizures, which didn't occur in North Zimbabwe. Being forced to stay, White Zimbabweans would contribute to the nation regardless because their own prosperity depends on the prosperity of the entire nation. I'll also clarify those passages though.


 * As for AIDS, the first case of AIDS in Zimbabwe was in 1985, after Doomsday. With the collapse of global trade and travel, the virus would spread much more slowly. I will investigate more about that first reported case and AIDS's expansion paterns. However, the AIDS epidemic wouldn't be much worse because even in OTL, the problem was largely ignored until the early 2000s and Zimbabwe's health care system collapsed in the mid-2000s. Caeruleus 13:24, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

First reported case. In a time that AIDS cases went unreported, and almost nothing was known about it. By the end of the 1980s, 10% of the population of Zimbabwe had it. I suggest you look into how long these things went unidentified. The first recorded case in Africa - in retrospect, mind, from persevered samples - was in 1959. It's believed that one may have happened in the late 50s, too. I'm sure you can guess how rare preserved samples are. Spread to NA in about 1970, and existed in West African ports at that time.

To think that it was not present in Zimbabwe in 1983 is very foolish on your part. And without campaigns in the area against it and methods - imported methods - to help prevent it, it's going to be as bad or worse.

Your population is horrifically out to lunch.

How on earth do you get the idea that they have contact outside their small area of Africa? Mozambique barely has any in 1987. And you think Zimbabwe has it in 1985? That's not possible. They would literally be lucky to maintain what they have. Expansion just isn't possible on any real level.

And you assume that the white population would be all right? And that there would be no refugees? You have a Civil War. Do the math.

The violence against the white population likely would not get so bad, true, but as I said, they were leaving for a reason. And you, for some reason, think that would just go away. Simply put, it won't. And it will get worse, too, in the aftermath of Doomsday - who do you think will be blamed for it, and will get it by extension?

The idea that they have outside contact in 1985 is not possible, at all. And you should know better than that.

Lordganon 23:19, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll look into AIDS and add something about it.


 * "...horrificially out to lunch." I've got to say that's definitely a new phrase for me. Care to explain what specific problem you have with the current population numbers rather than making blanket opposition statements with no detail that make no sense, even if they are rather humorous?


 * Zimbabwe had native industrial capacities before Doomsday and had become largely self-driven in terms of industrial growth due to the isolation of Rhodesia. While the technology used would not have progress significantly, physical expansion of existing industry is well within the realm of possibility.


 * I never said the White population was "all right." The article states that they remained within the nation and contributed to economic growth. There would be issues, but the White population would have no where to flee to and would be too small to mount any significant military or political resistance. Ultimately, they would acquiese like the remaining OTL White population in Zimbabwe. And just because Westerners caused Doomsday doesn't mean the White Zimbabwean population would face massive retribution for it, especially since Zimbabwe never got nuked.


 * Like you said, the current Mozambique article makes no sense. They lost contact with everyone, even their neighbors, when they weren't even nuked. While I wait for someone to fix the article, I will continue on the reasonable assumption that regional communication would be minimally affected and communication with other unaffected states, like Nigeria and the Gulf States, would be reignitiated shortly after Doomsday. Caeruleus 00:39, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

I never once said that Mozambique made no sense. How many times to I have to tell you to actually read things, and to not put words into my mouth? Jeez.

You really do fail to get the point. Contact between South America and the ANZC is barely functional in 1987. Nor is either in contact with the Gulf States at the time. And you're trying to say that this inland nation has contact with all of them, plus the Gulf States and Nigeria, in 1985, through a state fighting a massive Civil War? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? That is not remotely plausible, whatsoever. So long as you say things like that, there is no way this can ever graduate.

You have almost an extra three million people in Zimbabwe than in otl. I've already given ample reason why that makes absolutely no sense, but I'll repeat myself: Racial tensions, Civil War, refugees, no medicine, AIDS. As stated, out to lunch.

Expansion of industry? Not happening. An increase in goods made in the home? Maybe. But Industry? Just not possible. You have no fuel but coal, remember. Or any real natural resources besides a little coal, some diamonds, and some agricultural products.

You have a Civil War, to some extent caused by problems stemming from DD, and you think the white population would be not blamed? And that they wouldn't get attacked, even without any blame? Get real. Both would happen. This is a country where they had only just finished a different Civil War in 1980, against whites. And you're saying that they would be contributing? They can still flee south to the Pretoria area, under the remnants of the SA government, or more likely, die. There is a reason why Mugabe was able to do all of the garbage he did otl. And atl, it is still there.

Lordganon 07:08, September 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved back the date of contact/trade with the wider world. That was somewhat implausible. As for the population, you're still not understanding why it's so high. OTL Zimbabwe has a population 12.5 million plus 3.4 million refugees who aren't counted in the national population figures and largely fled after the economy began to collapse. That makes the total number of Zimbabweans about 15.9 million OTL. You also have the white Zimbabweans population, another 300,000 people, who never left the country. Neither the civil war, racial tensions, or HIV/AIDS would cause, even collectively, substantial declines in the population, which is why the population is what it is. I've accounted for everything and the population of North Zimbabwe will stand at 11.1 million.


 * White Zimbabweans are not going to just stop working or work. If Zimbabwe suffers, they suffer, so of course they're going to contribute. As part of the negiotiations with the former Rhodesian government, the early Mugabe government agreed to actively work to maintain racial stability, for the good of the country. Also, state-sponsored racial discrimination didn't begin until the late 1990s when the economy was already declining and most of the Whites had already left. The post-Doomsday Zimbabwean government would have an economic interest in maintaining racial stability because of the skills the White population possess. Additionally, Mugabe was assasinated in 1991, which weakened ZANU and the strong authority figure who was necessary to lead efforts similar to the OTL land grabs and subsequent rise in racial tensions.


 * As for industry, I've clarified what type of industrial expansion would occur, but some type of expansion is assured. Coal is the only fuel source you need for industry in the country and most of their industry is low-tech or labor-based, which doesn't require any technology that was not natively available. Pre-Doomsday Zimbabwe also had one of the best established industrial infrastructures on the continent, whihc would give them a strong base from which to expand. Keep in mind, the level of technology most of Zimbabwe's industry uses is still at the 1980s-level. The resources to physically build the factories and such would also be available, either natively or from their more stable neighbors. 128.135.100.102 21:03, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, I'm not a bloody idiot. I know about the refugees. You, however, are failing to get the point.

The population is too high. You have a few losses from fighting in a civil war. No refugees from fighting, no AIDS/HIV deaths, no racial tensions, and you're even adding medicines to blunt the impact that would not exist. None of that is possible or reasonable.

The drugs used to deal with that virus were developed in labs, or had the related effects discovered in labs. Largely, these were in nuked areas. At best, that tech will be at about a 1990 level. And, with a global cutoff in contact, its spread outside of Africa has been curtailed, drastically, which when combined with the destruction of cities, where most of those afflicted were, and the likely - rapid, too - fate of anyone surviving the blasts with it in the Northern Hemisphere. Simply put, outside of Africa below the Sahara it's not a major issue.

Those afflicted with it in this area are not going to last even as long as in otl. Deaths are going to be major. And given that the reasons for it spreading in this area in Africa are cultural in nature, there will be just as much problems with changing that as in otl. More hospitals and schools? Maybe a few, but thinking that a large number is possible, or would actually help to the extent you say is just not possible. The number is barely going down otl, with a ton of outside money and aid. Here, that's not happening. And, 1981 recognition of it? Ha.

The SA border guarded? That has no net effect on them leaving, really. They are still going to keep fleeing. And, after the start of the civil war, they are going to flee in droves. They are in a position of wealth. Guess what happens to those people in Civil Wars?

Yeah, Mugabe did say that. And you believe it? He only kept that around for aid. Once that started to slip, so did the policy. Think about it. Note, too I never said state-sponsored.

You also fail to think about a Civil War. Massive fighting, lots of military and civilian dead. But, a ton of refugees too. Those near the front are going to flee. Agricultural production - which goes down overall anyways, lack of fertilizer, etc. - will drop drastically. That is always the case in such a conflict.

Note, I said a little coal. Nor do you at all mention that the industry is virtually the same level as at DD. Expansion past that, not happening. Stability by modern times, somewhat possible.

The majority of this applies to the South as well.

Simply put, you are failing to take into account everything that impacts this area and the people. You have dropped the population by nearly a million, overall. Needs closer to two.

Lordganon 07:32, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I will take another look at the population figures, but there won't be any major decrease in the population. The deaths from AIDS won't be that major. The issue was largely ignored until the late 1990s, even with the presence of medicine. Up until that point, the lack of drugs would neither hurt nor help the infected. Also, the total number of infected is about the same as OTL. The only difference is that South Zimbabwe has a higher infection rate while North Zimbabwe has a lower one.


 * White Zimbabweans are not going to flee to a collapsing South Africa where Whites are being slaughtered by Blacks and vice versa. The fact that there's a civil war has little to do with the White population. They are a non-factor in the war and the war actually would make their presence even more beneficial due to their technical skills. The racial tension would be an issue, but racial violence would only occur if the government allowed, even if they didn't sponsor it as you said. The government would have a vested interest in maintaining racial harmony, which even existed OTL despite the White flight.


 * Refugees will exist but they will be internally displaced persons (IDL). ZANU supporters in the south will flee north and ZAPU supporters in the north would flee south. The percentage of the population near the border is fairly small, in the few hundreds of thousands. Most of these would simply flee deeper into their respective countries. They wouldn't have any options to flee anywhere else anyway. Botswana is sealed, Mozambique and South Africa were in a state of civil war, and Zambia is too far away. Very few of the refugees would end up leaving the region.


 * Zimbabwe, before Doomsday, was agriculturally self-sufficient, including with regards to fertilizer due to the isolation of Rhodesia. Also, Zimbabwe produces enough coal to meet all its needs plus it has a hydroelectric power plant. Electricity would not be a problem for the country's industry. I will go into more detail about the state of the country's industry though. Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Ignored. And with medicine, many died. Here, little to no medicine. Easy math to do. Figures are double, minimum. Same goes for the infected. Without the contraceptive campaigns of otl by aid groups - note, too, that the locals will not do this on their own, culturally - it will be higher than otl.

Collapsing stopping them? Not likely. At all. And, that ignores the Pretoria state. You also failed entirely to understand the point of a civil war. Everyone is fighting, and chaos ensues in any areas with it, especially, and a bit everywhere. They can, and will, be targets. The racial equality stuff was a ploy to get aid. Nothing more. Here, they have no reason to do so except a slight economic reason. And how long will that last? Not long. Especially in a civil war. Seriously, actually look at what happens in those. While the government will likely try to stop them, and denounce them, there will be mobs, etc. Whites will die, and the rest will fear for their lives. They will not sit around. Simple. Many will flee.

Really? You think that will be all that happens, only internal refugees? There is a Civil War. A heck of a lot more will flee elsewhere, being unable to get to the area controlled by their factions and facing death, etc. by staying where they are. Doesn't really matter what the situation elsewhere is, much. The place where they are is bad. No matter what, elsewhere may be better. It's an easy choice, repeated through history. They will leave. Simple. Even the Civil War in Moz~ may be a better situation. Even if not, it beats being killed by your opponents.

Civilian death tolls along fronts are sky-high. But, you never even thought of that.

Isolation? I suggest that you have a better look into that. They were largely isolated. That is one heck of a difference. They were agriculturally self-sufficient, true, but in fertilizer? I doubt it. Everyone can produce some, true enough, but the South African Government was, in fact, still involved with the Rhodesians, and they got supplies from there. You are exaggerating their industry.

That Dam is on the border with Zambia. It may remain operational, true, but not for long. It's called the situation in Zambia, plus parts - or the lack thereof. The coal is in the "south", and the power plant? Not even under construction in 1983. So yeah. One heck of a problem.

As I said, the overall population needs to go down another million. And you need to look at what actually happens in Civil Wars, especially in Africa.

Lordganon 11:07, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose this one, as per the reasons above - plus this Zim is too much like OTL Zim today. It needs to look more realistically like the Zimbabwe of 1983, plus all the stuff that blows up when the country goes to war. Read up on the unrest of the 1980s, leading up to Robert Mugabe's massacre of the Matabele. Things were seriously going to hell in a handbasket anyway. This would be far, far, far, worse. Also keep in mind that the whites aren't going to lie down and take it peacefully, either. In 1983 there were still up to 190,000 of them left - nearly all the males with the best military training in Africa (Rhodesia conscripted all her white men between 16 and 60, and as of 1979 Salisbury had the best disciplined army on the continent). And in 1982 half the police reserve, nearly the entire air force, and up to a third of the army reserves were still filled with the same disgruntled servicemen who were ready to kill Bob when he was elected. --Emperor of Trebizond (talk) 23:29, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

I've split up the Zimbabwe article into the two states, North and South Zimbabwe. Caeruleus 15:25, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Are there the same problems with South Zimbabwe as north Zimbabwe?--Smoggy80 15:19, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

With Zimbabwe being under three years old on DD is it not possible that racial problems kicked off (what with Mugabe being in charge in OTL and ATL) and the white settlers may have tried to head for South Africa (hearing of South African Union or even New Britain, not making it and setting up south Zimbabwe (or even renamed it New Rhodesia) in the 1990's.--Smoggy80 18:27, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

or more likely that it collapsed and split along the lines of Mashonaland, Matabeleland, Manicaland and Masvingo, as these have a great indivduality from each other--Smoggy80 18:37, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't have the numbers to do that.

I think, quite frankly, that you're exaggerating the different groups. Zimbabwe's never really had much trouble, in that regard - its problems, the black/white bit aside, has been political in nature. Not that there wouldn't be some problems, but fairly minimal, I'd expect.

Basically, overall, these two articles just kinda ignore the deaths the effects of DD would cause, what a civil war entails in that regard, refugees and the chaos they bring, and that HIV/AIDS would be far worse. It amounts to some of the text, and lowering the population to a plausible level.

Lordganon 07:27, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

A proposal for the sub-unit of Denmark and member of the Nordic Union, by Brad30977. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Graduate as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:27, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Again, no content at all. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I am planning on adopting this page to get it up to stub quality. Arstar 22:14, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Then follow the protocol. Because declaring that certainly isn't. Lordganon (talk) 23:30, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, I have recently adopted this page (through the proper protocol) :) 04:36, September 18, 2014 (UTC)

Yank's proposal - it'd be with Fx and Caer as well, I figure - for the remnant state of the former Iraqi government. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone planing on working on this one? Arstar talk 20:04, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Fx and Caer have both said they are working on this one on several occasions. It will get done, when their schedules allow. Lordganon (talk) 06:53, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I figured as big a nation/state as Jamaica is, it needed a page. Suggestions are welcome. --SouthWriter 22:48, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Wait,is Jamaica independent from the ECF, or is this a member-state article? Just wondering, thanks. Arstar 02:51, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

....It says in the first sentence that it's part of the ECF. Lordganon 14:53, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Is this ready to graduate as a stub? Arstar 21:23, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

I got it started, Arstar, but the history only goes through Doomsday. Someone needs to look around the ECF for clues as to what happened after that. As it stands now, though, I guess it could be a stub. I think the Info box is up to date. That should help. SouthWriter 21:29, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the infobox is up to date, and the pre-DD and DD history is there, but.... there's really nothing else. Really probably should not graduate, even as a stub, yet. Lordganon 01:06, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to graduating this as a stub? Lordganon (talk) 10:14, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

I think it needs history at least until 1987. I've contacted South about working on the article. ^^ Regentage (talk) 18:48, December 14, 2013 (UTC)

Permission received to take over the article. ^^ Regentage (talk) 20:44, December 19, 2013 (UTC)

Coulee
An small nation between Victoria and Paso. By Enclavehunter

As I'm noted on the talk page for the page, this is not plausible. There is a whole section of history that you have missed of the region. Have a look at the Utah article.

What it amounts to is that this area is so close to Spokane, that the regime there would have destroyed it - especially since the dam would have been a target for them.

Lordganon 02:31, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I know. I changed it around to say it was an destroyed nation, does that still go against plausiblity. Enclavehunter 02:37, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed, does it still look like its talking about an surviving nation. Enclavehunter 15:28, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

The history, not so much.

Th rest still should get toned down - really, knowledge of this state would only be known from the memories of those few who fled or managed to survive, and what explorers encounter at the site.

Also, somebody needs to find the site to document it. Pasco or the new USA would be the ones likely do it.

Lordganon 21:35, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Though the dam might be considered a good target for acquisition, it does not follow that the junta would be interested in it. The dam is over 100 miles down stream, 80 miles by air and by road it is about 88 miles, much of it on State Route 2. We know the junta has secured control of Spokane and Coeur d'Alene and would travel south to Lewiston and then into land controlled by Utah. They are said to "hold their own" against rivals, meaning they hunkered in until they needed resources. At that time, from what has been written, we know they headed south, not west. Lewiston is 106 miles south of Spokane, and en route to their big target: Salt Lake City (as per the "History of Utah" article).

This is not to say they would not expand west, but only to say that they need not have done so. The population near the Grand Coulee dam was not very big, and it had a good chance of surviving. I am not sure if the area would be a haven to refugees from the big cities, or if they would be able to support them, but it is no less plausible than many city-states that have survived. This is only my opinion, and not meant to challenge anyone's authority on these matters. This is a collaborative effort, and the community has not spoken on this situation. It could go either way as far as I'm concerned. I am just another voice in the wilderness. --SouthWriter 02:25, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

You've entirely missed that they did go as far west as to secure the Tri-City area fairly early on. They went even further west than this site, even.

And given that this is a good target, for multiple reasons, there's really no doubt that it would have been taken.

Lordganon 03:39, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there was a presence in the Tri-City area, for a line says that the area was under that "nation's" control. The Tri-City area is far to the south; downstream, in fact from both I-90 (from the north) and Lewiston (from the east). Like I say, it could go either way, but there are limits to where the small army of Spokane could go.

Would these men, organized as they were for survival, actually want to take over the whole state? It is more likely that they would wish to seize what was easiest to get to with the most supplies they could plunder. Grand Coulee does not have much, but the Tri-City area was worth the trip, as were the twin cities of Lewiston and Clarkston (aka the city-state of Lewiston).

What are some of the multiple reasons for the taking of Coulee Dam? The water is down stream from Spokane which is on the river! The do not need the water. The EMP has made the electricity useless, so they would have a lot of work ahead of them to salvage it for that. If they were forward thinking enough, that may be a plan, but we see from the record that their main efforts went to the south to control people rather than rebuild renewable resources. These are warriors, not engineers.

Just saying. My opinions are only my own -- for what they are worth. Consider the options rather than making up your mind first. It adds to the creativity without destroying plausibility. --SouthWriter 05:02, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Th Tri-City area was wholly under their thumbs - as was basically all of eastern Washington. It's a far shorter trip to the area around the Dam than to these areas.

Coulee is worth raiding - and small enough that it wouldn't survive the experience.

Spokane is on record as wanting domination over all. The Dam is the largest one on the river system, by far, is a good position in general, has some functionality for power down the road (and possibly some small methods without actual electricity at the present, maybe like water wheels), better spot for agriculture, and a source of "workers" too. And they'll know its there, too. For that matter, it could even, in theory, be useful as a weapon (not that it would have made any difference, but it could have been)

Plus, it's just so close to Spokane that in general it would have been raided, at a minimum.

You can't say that they were "warriors," either.

Lordganon 07:51, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Good points, Ganon. It would be an excellent base of operation. With the water it was a good spot to support agriculture. But given their bent on conquest, I doubt they'd be setting up slave labor farms at such an early point. However, it was closer than any place they conquered apart from northern Idaho. As I wrote in the Lincoln (USA) article, the white supremest groups apparently worked together by the time of the Spokane War, but they could have been 'rivals' for a time, as the Utah article states. This only illustrates that there are numerous scenarios that could effect the time line. I am not sure if there is any record of the warlords' intentions, though. All the record has is what they did and who they controlled.

Nothing has been written beyond what I wrote in the Lincoln article concerning the rise of the Order and the Aryan Nation (using historical figures actually operating in history). Their stated purpose was to change "the region" into a bastion of white America. They knew that they could not control "all" of the nation. When the state of Lincoln was enlarged (first on the map and then in the text!) it incorporated what had been "Spokane" along the eastern Washington state line.

I borrowed the idea of "warriors" from the first paragraph of the "History of Utah" article and I used it in a figurative sense to make the point that rebuilding an hydro-electric plant was not something they would do. I am sorry if I confused anyone with the choice of words there. As survivalists, they could indeed be inventive and as warlords they were able to convince knowledgeable scientists to provide expertise under threat of great bodily harm. The History of Utah article states that they had early on developed alternative fuels to power their commandeered military vehicles.

Again, the dam would have had strategic significance if the long-range plan was to take the whole state of Washington, but the record shows that they instead chose to go south in an attempt to take the smaller state of Idaho instead. Long range plans changed even further as they dreamed of taking northern Utah. This delusion of grandeur was their downfall (though the resistance in Coeur d'Alene would probably have succeeded in time). Sure, we can add more gore and conquest to the time line, or we can go with what has been written and work around it, as Enclave originally envisioned. Though I have written in the greatest act of terrorism (1-1-1) and the greatest natural disaster ("Hugo" in eastern South Carolina), I remain an optimist.

We could call it an oversight on the junta's part, or perhaps they feared the contamination downstream of the nuclear blast over (or on) Fairchild AFB, but given all the varables, it is a possibility that the dam to the west was not a priority and never taken. The fact that the nuclear strike was between Spokane and Coulee, and very close to Spokane, is also a factor that needs to be considered. Given a choice, the warlords would expand away from, not across, the contaminated area in their "back yard."

That is enough of what I think. Are there any other opinions besides those of Ganon and myself out there? We'd love to hear from you. SouthWriter 15:53, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

The Supremacists, however, were not the only faction. You can add to that the militias in general from the region (truly, there is an insane number there, and not all of the racist type) remnants of the base, and the residents of Spokane.

Even the racist types would be survivalists, in this area.

The record shows that they went in all directions. Not just south.

Fairchild isn't close to the river. And it's southwest of the city. Nor would it's radiation have gone in a direction to interfere. Hell, it would have had that effect on them expanding in any southern direction, lol. But not this way.

There is absolutely no way that this could exist, still. It's a big, fat, target.

Lordganon 20:56, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

If as you say there are factions at home, then it would stand to reason for them to be fighting at home for supremacy. The "militias in general" in the region would not be the ones raping and pillaging small towns. It is already accepted canon that there was resistance but that the Order and the Aryan Nation had the edge and control of the Spokane region.

The recorded regions affected are the Lincoln, Pasco, Leavenworth, Lewiston, and southern Idaho on the way to Utah. Except for Lincoln all these places are indeed south of Spokane. Spokane is called a nation "in southeastern Washington" on the Washington article, and that it raided "as far south as the Great Salt Lake." There were "rumors of threats" as far away as Victoria, but no record of such advancement in that direction.

Okay, Ganon, you have had your say, and I have had mine. I say leave options open, you say it has to be the way you say it is. Let some one else have a word here. This is, after all a small city-state of recent consideration. SouthWriter 02:29, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Christ, South. You failed to note most of that, once again. And so much for "enough" of what you think.

These are anti-government militias - and they are from the area you claim that the supremacists came from. Moreover, it is not one group but several involved here. And arguing that they would magically stop at the borders of Idaho is crazy.

The simple fact is, the raiders destroyed a massive area - and this is a massive target in it. These people are dead.

Everyone can have words here. Don't know how on earth you can at all imply such a thing isn't true.

Lordganon 05:10, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

First, I do not appreciate your using my Lord's name in vain, Ganon. "Enough of what I think" is a way of turning the floor over to the next "speaker." I was going to just post the last sentence of the previous post, but felt you had challenged me so I posted more "thoughts." Of course, you are perfectly in your rights to respond to what I said, but what I was "implying" was not that others can't have words here, it was that no one else is having a say.

As for the regime in Spokane, I would say we should let the readers decide the extent of the destruction of the area. I have listed every mention of the regime I could find with links. The nearest thing to declaring this "massive destruction" is mentions that the regime's armies were more powerful than those of Utah in the Navajo Nation article (my apologies for leaving that out above, it confirmed the southward movement).

The "anti-government" militias you postulate are not based on facts so much as hype. The only anti-government movements in the 1980's were those I mention in the Lincoln article -- racist, anti-semitic white supremacists. To discuss the pro or cons of militias here would be a violation of the "No Cross, No Crown" rule, but assuming that conservative gun-owners who wish to protect their rights would become bands of raiders is stepping beyond reason in my opinion.

I did not claim or argue that they would stop at the border. In fact I stated that their target, according to what has been written, was the Great Salt Lake area. The whole picture of what "Spokane" entails was an impression created way back in May of 2009 when Louisiannan created the History of Utah article. In February of 2010 I asked on that talk page for verification for the strength of the Spokane "hoodlums" as I called them. Louisiannan graciously explained that the war began in Idaho and went south along the border with Idaho, perhaps to provide support for the "stranglehold" they had on the folks in the region around Spokane. I invite readers again to look at the primary documents before making up there minds on this.

So, is this to be just a forum for the Ganon and I to bash our heads against one another, or will there be another voice? All I am doing is presenting options here, based upon what has been written so far in the time line. If Enclave is satisfied with the concept of the destroyed villages, I'm fine with that. It would be a small thing for the regime if it was in the early days, though I doubt if they would kill everyone (they would need someone to take care of the dam if nothing else).

Any other thoughts from the community at large? SouthWriter 19:21, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

You having an issue with my use of a word is not my problem in the least, South.

That statement in the Navajo says nothing about their methods. Far more telling are the outright statements in the Utah history, and your own Lincoln article that indicate the terror and devastation they wrought.

You are incorrect about the identities of those groups. Only a decade after Doomsday did such groups become the largest in number. Prior to that they were outnumbered by the others - and those largely consisted of anti-tax groups. Add to that other varieties in general, and the supremacists are a minority. Plus, the survivalists in general.

The border - as in the eastern border of Idaho. Sorry, I thought I made that clear enough.

Louis' statements on that page have nothing on the extent of that regime. But what they do say is more telling - as in they've gone so far that ignoring the site of the dam, so close to their base, would be impossible.

For the love of.... South, you seem to be forgetting that the dam is no longer functional. Why would they need someone to take care of it? Add to that that dams of that magnitude are designed to last at least half a century - and usually at least one outright. And even the article - unfinished, obviously, right now - says that there was survivors.

There is no way that this place would have survived the Spokane regime.

Lordganon 00:11, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of unfinished, what else do I need to do on the page. Enclavehunter 00:18, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm....

Well, as I've said before, someone's got to find the place (either the new USA or Pasco, at a guess, though I wouldn't rule out a Victorian flyby). Past that, a "former nation" infobox, and some more information in general both about the state, and what happened there - i.e. what Spokane did with survivors, and the site itself. Plus what it's like today.

If you have a look at a few of the other "former nation" articles you'll get some idea of what I mean.

Also, might want to change it so the deputy made his way to Pasco after the end of the Spokane War, along with prisoner-soldiers from the Spokane militias. That'd be in line with people from Pasco, at any rate, and probably make a bit more sense.

Lordganon 00:51, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

No work done on this one in forever... Enc, you going to work on it? Lordganon (talk) 10:11, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Tamanrasset
Nation in Southern Algeria/Northern Niger/Eastern Mali--Smoggy80 11:36, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Open for adoption--Smoggy80 18:25, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

has been taken by Brad30977--Smoggy80 15:33, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Is this ready for grad? Arstar talk 01:22, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

No. There's little content - only a poor history is here. And there's things in it that make no sense, such as the rep from Kab~ coming. Lordganon (talk) 07:21, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I will try to resurrect this article into something along the lines of the and. Godfrey Raphael 13:40, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

There are assumed to have been three bombs that took out Nellis AFB, N. Las Vegas, Las Vegas and Henderson. This is not quite the same as the utter destruction of NYC and DC. You can assume some survivers, for a while at least. The Sierra Nevada article says at least 10,000 came north. The obsolete "New Vegas" article may help as well. SouthWriter 21:42, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

In most situations there will be survivors on the outskirts of large cities. Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Nellis AFB sit in a valley surrounded by mountains. The area is essentially flat with the few tall buildings concentrated in downtown LV along the strip even today. Although I don't consider myself an expert, I would expect there would be little to stop the blast waves from each of the three one megaton detonations as they roll back and forth across the valley. I don't know what the area was like in 1983 but I have visted it many times since the early 90s (family lived there) and have seen the layout and roads close-up. That is what fuels my pessimistic outlook for survival.

The 10,000 survivors I referenced who went north came from communities outside the valley expected to covered by fallout from the LV strikes and those in Southern CA. This said, there is always a small chance someone could survive the attacks and escape, but I think it would be slim. That said, I am curious to see what the writer comes up with. He asked me back in March about the article and I gave my go ahead as long as it is plausable. --Fxgentleman 00:47, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Something which the environment of the area, in general, would make worse. Lordganon 01:09, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I've given Las Vegas over to Enclavehunter. I've almost run out of ideas for DD, so I'm glad he took this off of me. He's the new editor of LV. Godfrey Raphael (talk) 11:37, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Article by Gatemonger. Feg 17:09, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Article currently covers mostly post-Doomsday, someone else might have to add pre-DD if that's neccessary. But I'm proposing this article. 77topaz 05:10, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

...None of that is possible, realistically. 77, you really should look at the timeline and nearby articles, some more. Also, there is almost no warning. Lordganon 07:39, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Better now? I've made the shelters into having being built there by a corporation for "testing purposes", which was overrun by civilians. 77topaz 07:52, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

No, that still makes no sense. As I said, have a look at more of the timeline. Lordganon 08:35, May 13, 2012 (UT

There are/were no shelters, there are no records of any being built/already existing on DD, why would there be? they are small islands in the middle of nowhere--Smoggy80 12:34, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to putting this up for adoption? Lordganon (talk) 10:15, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

See also. 77topaz 22:34, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

There is no fallout in the area at all, and thus no damage from it, no strikes even remotely nearby, no dead from radiation, no shelters on St. Kitts and Nevis, and almost no dead. Lordganon 03:25, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

New London
Figured it was time to start this page, give me couple of days to get the bare bones in then comments and suggestions will be greatly recieved.--Smoggy80 17:19, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Took longer than expected, but the bare bones of an article are in, i've tried to link it to the already canon information on the UK and Celtic Alliance pages. Any suggestions greatly recieved--Smoggy80 20:08, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

I've spent all morning creating a gnarly image of a massive refugee camp - you better like it on the article, Smogs! Feg 09:57, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

All I can say about that picture is fantasic! any more you want to add, feel free!--Smoggy80 15:35, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Sopron Frontier
Here is a proposal for an autonomous Sopron territory in the fringes of the Alpine Confederation. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Sopron_Frontier_%281983:_Doomsday%29

Would this fit into the timeline?

Mdc 1957 05:56, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I understand the effort, and your willingness to contribute is great, but this is not at all accurate. Said it when your deviaART first came to our attention, and it remains true.

So, to answer the question.... no.

Lordganon 06:30, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thank you very much for clarifying it. Still, when did you learn of the DeviantArt page?

Mdc 1957 06:38, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, I forgot to mention that I used this page (http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Hungary_%281983:_Doomsday%29) as the basis from which the idea of an Alpine Sopron came from.

Mdc 1957 06:47, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

We first learned of it not long after you started writing them. Lordganon 07:06, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Right. That helps clarifying things. Though would that link be sufficient in working out the details for Sopron (and eventually western Hungary) if ever it's considered. Mdc 1957 07:13, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

You could likely fix the article. Lordganon 07:47, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Though if it's possible to leave Alpine influence in western Hungary open? Mdc 1957 08:01, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

There is no question of Alpine control in western Hungary. Lordganon 08:07, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I see. Currently working on the revisions now, though it would help to see your inputs just in case (if you don't mind). Still thinking of keeping the idea of Sopron as the main base of the Alpines' Hungarian zone. Mdc 1957 08:14, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's their main base inside of former Hungary - however, there's little more than that. No established territories, etc., there. The areas of Hungary amount to little more than military control.

The references to Austria are not true - even in the beginning it was the two states, together, moving in. Past that, the rest of the Confederation wouldn't hold those attitudes as described.

No real EMP damages, beyond 20~ miles of each strike.

Alpine troops would have taken control of the area of Sopron almost immediately following Soviet attempts to invade Austria at DD.

Have to say that almost all of the Esterházy family would have been killed in Munich, Vienna, or Budapest. Unless you can find out for sure where some of them were at the time, it may be a plan to remove that.

Lordganon 08:56, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I see. I'll make the necessary adjustments. Though I've also heard that the Esterházy family also had some holdings in Eisenstadt if I'm not mistaken, so chances are someone at least remotely linked to that line would have survived.

Also, I think it's mentioned in the history that garrisons did cross over into Sopron almost after DD and were in part responsible for its existence (it helped that Austrians were the closest to respond). In addition, I thought of giving the impression that although it's a joint Alpine affair supported by the respective governments (though not necessarily the public in Switzerland or Liechtenstein), the Austrians would have more to gain and be more sympathetic. Also I was trying to reflect the public sentiment of attempting to control what would likely be percieved as little more than wasteland. Sorry if that wasn't very clear.

Mdc 1957 09:11, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

With people, the rule of thumb is unless you can prove outright, or have a very good idea, that they survived, they died in the fires.

The Austrians, following the destruction of Vienna, received a lot of aid from the Swiss. Their troops would have been present. This is all after fighting off the initial Soviet invasion, of course. The troops there at the present wouldn't be mostly Austrian, either.

Really, moving into Hungary would have been supported by the people. Remember, the citizens of the Confederation suffer from extreme guilt over their actions in the 1980s, with regards to turning away refugees - a necessary move at the time, but by no means one people were happy with. This is something their actions afterwards support, with the actions in Bavaria and Italy, among other places.

They really didn't perceive it as wasteland at that time - moves since indicated that areas to the east largely were, true, but that wasn't until the 1990s. By that point much of western and central Hungary had been depopulated by raiders.

And when you add that the Confederation really isn't into expansion.... well, they aren't going to move out there.

Lordganon 09:28, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the "glorified refugee camp" view in Switzerland and Liechtenstein at least reached its peak in the early 1990s, having long faded away by the present (and that's not counting the cases of denial that might still persist among some Alpines). Also, I sort of put into consideration distance and proximity for the predominant Austrian military presence. After all, Sopron is surrounded on 3 sides by Austria.

That said, however, I'll make the necessary corrections.Mdc 1957 14:11, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that that view never existed.

Moreover, there's no such authority in the area. It is military jurisdiction, and no "region" actually exists. Never has.

Alpine forces did not go on an offensive - they merely crushed the attempted attack on them.

In the aftermath of the battles on the frontiers, they moved into the surrounding areas to process refugees, areas which later became most of what they took control over when they closed the borders. They'd have had control of the area within months of Doomsday, if for no other reason than to process refugees and keep a buffer zone between them and spreading chaos to the east.

All the asides need to go. And, as I said, the parts about the nobles should too. Moreover, there's no "alpine support" for such a movement.

Lordganon 07:26, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

I see. Will make more edits. However, some of the details were meant to fill in the blanks that weren't necessarily explained in the Alpine Confederation and Hungary articles. Also, it was meant to be a public reaction that would have likely existed even for a short time (after all, there's still bound to be some degree of resentment and suspicion of newcomers despite the aforementioned guilt complex).

Also, after several years, would it make sense that there'd be more to the buffer and frontier zones than merely military installations? As an added clarification there's no formal support from the Alpine authorities; doing that would logically bring it into dispute with Partium and to a degree Transylvania. Informal support on the other hand isn't officially sanctioned. Indeed, it could be read simply as local propaganda if you wish.

To be honest, I was hoping to give at least a portion of western Hungary the same sort of improvement that happened in Post-Doomsday Britain or France. Though that said, I will likely remove the nobles among others. Apologies for the winded explanation.

Mdc 1957 07:45, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

True me, that's not winded. You've not seen some of the debates around here if you think that was at all winded, lol.

The area has a tradition of aiding others. Plus, there wasn't ever any bad reaction to the refugees - just the overall situation.

No, not even "informal" support. Informal or not, it's still support, and that's not something that would happen. The AC is very connected to the Transylvanians and Partians, after all.

Even though the" buffer" zones in the east are not under any governmental structure, there are still going to be civilian governmental units, i.e. Sopron and other settlements having governments. But, there simply is nothing beyond that.

The article alone is improving things, quite frankly. Just needs to not make it out to be something it isn't, if that makes any sense.

Lordganon 08:22, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. If it helps, I mentioned that the Sopron Frontier Territory does have a civilian government, except that even in 2012 the Alpine Military still has considerable influence and a number of military installations along the border. It's not going to be independent or in any position to significantly expand (given limited resources) anytime soon. Also, the "support" should be stated as being largely sentimental than overtly political and more on being recognized as a legitimate successor alongside Partium rather than in opposition to it (though there's bound to be dispute should it really enter the political table). Just hope to give things a bit of a change (and perhaps more detail)rather than leaving western Hungary as is. I hope it clarifies things. Mdc 1957 14:21, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

...Not quite what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that it's neither an actual governmental region, an autonomous area, or any such thing. It's simply territory under the control of the Alpine government.

No, not even "sentimental" support by the authorities.

As I've said, there really isn't much left in most of Hungary - this small Alpine-controlled area is basically what's left in the west. Its fate, in the long-term, would be membership in the confederation. Basically, you can't make it out to be something it's not, however much you may desire to do it.

Lordganon 10:49, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

With all respect, there admittedly wasn't much expounded. In fact, the existing material comes across as a vague blank slate for the most part. That in itself, along with the 29-year difference from Doomsday can open up potential ground for something more substantial. I'm willing to make that risk in providing that semblance of substance. Mdc 1957 12:53, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "with all respect" is just a way of trying to make something bad into something good. Never works.

I'm not saying you can't write an article on it, or that more substance isn't a good thing - but you're simply making the area into something that it's not.

Think about it, and revise it, but by all means don't leave it, lol. One of the best starts in a while on here.

Lordganon 09:20, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Though to be honest, there really wasn't much there to begin with in terms of both info and focus. So... why not give it a shot. Besides, 29 years is a significant timeframe for something to emerge. If it helps, I left in strong hints suggesting its more military purpose. Mdc 1957 09:43, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it not what the articles hint at, for it to be under such a structure doesn't make any sense, truthfully. As for the "hints" - no, it really doesn't help. Bring them out in the open. Remember, this is sort of like an encyclopedia, not some sort of classified or slanted report. The only way things are hinted at, normally, is if they could be deemed too "horrific." Things like massacres, Hitleresque actions, slavery, etc. If you hunt around, you'll see them, but they're not obvious. Lordganon 12:09, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. Wrong wording. The hints were already changed, but to be honest, the articles themselves don't really give much. Still, it's a chance to at the risk of incrurring further debate stir things up a little in a corner of the world that hasn't quite been given much attention. Mdc 1957 14:28, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Still barely any change to the hints :p

With regards to all of the "bracketed" sections you've put in - they should either be taken out, or actually written into the article.

Lordganon 10:39, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'll definitely modify the bracketed sections. Also, tried rewording the hints. Heh... 114.108.192.19 10:48, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, "hints" really shouldn't exist anyways.

But, overall, you still have it as an outright government - which wouldn't be the case. And the part about Alpine support, in any form, for the Hungarian nationalists needs to be removed.

Lordganon 12:24, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

National People's Republic of China
A small isolationist state located in western Hubei. Is currently attempting contact with Jiangsu, the ROC, Guangxi, Macau, Yunna, and Tibet. All necessary info in link.

Canuck2012 22:40, June 10, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

I have a whole host of objections to this listed on its pages. Lordganon 10:22, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Any problems with it anymore? The Royal Guns (talk) 19:23, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it still gives them tech they wouldn't have. Lordganon (talk) 07:44, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Ware Shoals
This is a community mentioned on the Piedmont Republic page. I created the page for Wingman1 who lives there and wants to develop some ideas for the town. SouthWriter (talk) 16:56, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks South, although i do live in Aiken SC now i do think of WS as my home.Wingman1 06:46, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Have to say, I really have a hard time believing that a place like this could exist more or less just outside of Piedmont as any sort of independent group like it sounds to be. Lordganon 12:27, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

What the Piedmont article indicates is that it is a collection of neighborhoods that are more or less competing for resources. Sometimes they might even co-operate! What we are trying to do is explain the course of events that lead to this. We only have to account for a period of about seven years (1984-91). After that it can become civiilized. SouthWriter (talk) 15:41, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

...Not quite what I was saying, South. What I'm saying is that it being outside of Piedmont, despite being minuscule and right next to it, as the page says at this time, doesn't really make any sense. Lordganon 08:50, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

it is right outside Piedmont, what i am proposing it Piedmont want them to join (exact timeing to be determend), and WS not wanting to at first with events hapening that change minds. (my plan it to use the distruction of the Mill with a responss by Piedmont with someform of aid be the tiping point that changes minds of the people in WS.To get WS to this point have them rather thand up front fighting be a bit more sly and make WS look like less of a target for the outlaws and raiders. ( after all it has been said that Belton SC was mostly destroyed by people escapeing from Columbia and Augusta, Georgia) not saying no battles at all but the ones that are fought the "bad guys" are dealt with harshly and swiftly.Wingman1 10:55, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Again: This place is literally right outside of Piedmont. Them not already being part makes no sense. Lordganon 09:43, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

so you are saying they all joined at the same time, or they didn't get to join AT ALL? I mean LG us Ware Shoals people can be stuborn at times (hell most of the times. lol!) but we do see reason sooner or latter. i am not keeping them out of Piedmont just giving reasons for the delay in joining.Wingman1 09:51, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

To quote the page: "...that have resisted incorporation by authorities in the Republic."

You're aren't getting what I'm saying. The page currently states that they are not part of Piedmont at this time. I'm saying that doesn't make any sense at all. They'd have joined long before the present day.

Lordganon 10:34, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

that is a good point LG. I might have to reword it a bit.Wingman1 11:57, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

LG made a good point, so I reworded the intro a bit South. Is it ok?Wingman1 12:02, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

As creator and caretaker of the article, I long ago asked Wingman, a local resident, for suggestions. He introduced himself when I wrote in Ware Shoals. I came upon the town the hard way (by river) without considering the distance by road. The fiefdoms (my creation) were what was found in 1991 and nothing more has said about it on the Piedmont page. I am open for it being incorporated any time since its discovery. What I am looking for is a good story based on more accurate information drawn from local sources. It has been 20 years since the expedition and a lot can happen.

Long story short, the truth trumps fantasy. All the article states is that in 1991 there was no incorporation. I can write in whatever fits best based on the facts.

SouthWriter (talk) 04:15, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

....Which doesn't contradict what I said in the least. Lordganon 09:19, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the incorporation date to 1995 (1990 would have been before the expedition!). Besides, the fire which destroyed the mill comes in 1993 according to the outline as presented. I may back up the story about Williamston County a little bit. Even though Piedmont is established, it is not so set that little things can't be changed. We just need to make sure that what little that has been written about it elsewhere doesnot conflict with these changes.

SouthWriter (talk) 21:48, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

that's kool it was a long night that nite, i dont know how i missed it.

if that's good for you.

definitely im sure i made mestakes in the outline and i am fine with you or any one sugesting changes to me.

Wingman1 22:05, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Wing, please don't insert comments into the posts of others like that. I've fixed it for you.

Far as I know, South, it isn't referenced anywhere else.

Lordganon 09:43, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

sorry about that LGWingman1 14:48, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Ambattur Rebellion
Proposal for an article on a civil war in TN. The Royal Guns (talk) 14:21, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

...What on earth? Guns, this has nothing to do with the Tamil article, now. Lordganon (talk) 03:51, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All I said was that it took place in TN? If you are talking about my edit to the TN article, that was just adding some clarification. As you said on Lesotho, a Civil war is something major in the history of a country- especially one that nearly succeeds. The Royal Guns (talk) 04:44, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Not only is the date wrong, so is the scope. This was not a civil war. Something we've been over with more than once. Not only that, but it came nowhere close to overthrowing anything. Lordganon (talk) 06:10, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

I'll fix the dates.

The reason it came close was because it happened so close to the center of government, not because the government forces failed to chop them down.

The Royal Guns (talk) 11:36, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

That is not coming close. Not in the least.

Better dates, but you're still missing that the scope is not even remotely reasonable. Nor is this non-existent group you've cooked up.

Lordganon (talk) 06:42, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

The CFA? They are't any sort of real group. Just a bunch of people who hated the government. And then met up. Kinda like a much more hostile, non internet based, Anonymous- not Anonymous nowadays, more like the days when they started.

I mean like, there was a chance, since they were so close to the government, that they might, despite being defeated in every "battle" sneak a sleeper through and get the Great Leader.

The Royal Guns (talk) 07:01, July 13, 2012 (UTC) The Royal Guns (talk) 07:01, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

...You missed the point. And what you describe is a "real group." Which doesn't exist.

...And that is not coming close. Not even remotely.

Lordganon (talk) 06:20, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

... I'll write an article on it, too, if thats what you're suggesting. Though I doubt it. Why can't it be a real group?

No, but, in a sense, since it was right in the capital... The Royal Guns (talk) 13:17, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is there is no movements in the area.

Something happening "in the capital" does not even remotely mean it came close.

Lordganon (talk) 03:07, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

There's clearly a movement. I think that is obvious. Some 20,000 people grab anything between an AK-47 and a stick and try to beat the brains out of TP Mohideen Khan.

Assuming the government was in the Chennai fort, the rebels would have only been at most 10 miles away. At least maybe 5. How close does it need to be? Next door? In the living room?

The Royal Guns (talk) 11:46, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

That is not a movement. Not even remotely. It's a rebellion. Note the difference.

It needs to have an actual chance of success, and be a threat. This is neither. And there is no way on earth the leadership stays anywhere near the rebellion.

And, for that matter, the train stop under the fort is called "Chennai Fort." The fort is not. It's name is Fort St. George.

Lordganon (talk) 01:34, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

An idea I've been toying with for a while. Another state in the general area will come soon. Fed (talk) 03:47, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't this country join the Republic of Spain? Arstar talk 04:01, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Map needs to be adjusted to match the Spain map.

Arstar, that question doesn't make any sense. Look at the map and government.

Lordganon (talk) 07:17, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Eh, LG, which areas of the map have to be modified? I'm not really sure. Fed (talk) 19:12, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Northern areas inside of Castile and León are a flat reach over the border, not a "spike" like that.

Far, far, too far south inside of Extremadura.

And it reaches slightly over into Portugal.

You can see the map on this page.

Lordganon (talk) 02:36, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Is the new map better? Fed (talk) 02:34, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Better, though still quite a ways off in the south. Lordganon (talk) 09:00, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Kerr
Page dealing with a survivor state mentioned in the North Carolina article. Survivor state exists around Kerr Lake. Critique appreciated. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 16:18, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Objections to gradding this?

The Mighty Guns is too Glorious (or lazy) to go to source mode and type out his real sig (Dammit, Guns!)  01:24, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

I have a bunch on the talk page of this article, that I made when Crim resurrected the thing. He hasn't so much as glanced at the article since.

So yes, objections to graduation.

Lordganon (talk) 02:32, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

New country in southern Catalonia, based on the town of Tortosa. Fed (talk) 19:46, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

I feel that it's time to graduate AragonGoldwind1 (talk) 23:10, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

It's not ready yet. The article still holds inconsistencies, and needs a major cleanup. Lordganon (talk) 10:23, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

This site should have been out of reach of any detonations, althoguh I suspect that irradiated water would be an annual problem.--Salnax (talk) 14:42, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

A bare-bones proposal by me, about the National Guard training compound used by forces to train. Godfrey Raphael (talk) 14:06, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

So I've finally begun fleshing out this article. I hope to add more soon. Godfrey Raphael (talk) 10:19, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

(UTC)

Manchurian Territory
Article by Mscoree.

Mscoree, we already have an article on this. You can find it here.

In lieu of that... any objections to marking this obsolete?

Lordganon (talk) 09:30, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

That article is for the republic. This article is for the region/territory. I saw the blank on the USSR template, and added it. Mscoree (talk) 14:24, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

If you look on the Union of Sovereign Socialist Republics template, you can clearly see that this article is listed under former territories, referring to the region of Manchuria itself, not the Маньчжурский Социалистической Республики, commonly referred to as "Manchuria". Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 14:28, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

The territory and the republic are the same entity, with different names. There is virtually no difference.

Just because there is a red link, does not mean that something actually goes there. Or that you can add something to the work of another. I've fixed the link to go to the proper spot.

Even more so, the content is not at all accurate. Not even remotely, truth be told.

So, once again: Any objections to marking this obviously inaccurate and superfluous article obsolete?

Lordganon (talk) 08:58, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

May I ask how this is obviously inaccurate? Also it is only superfluous if you let it. With this page people have the opportunity to expand and invent, telling tales that wouldn't necessarily fit in the republic page. But instead if you want to leave the area in the same basic shell it began, so be it. That is my objection. This page could have served much more, and detailed the historical significance of the territory, which placed into the limelight in the first place. Mscoree (talk) 14:37, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Also, even if they are the same 'entity', even though they're not since they're separate objects, then you might as well not have a page on any former nation. The republic is the successor to this territory. Mscoree (talk) 14:42, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Every paragraph has major issues, past the pre-doomsday history. I mean, you have it saying the the US nuked China, and that Aliyev was the first leader of the USSR - there's a ton of things like that, none at all true.

There is not a single thing that could not be said on the page about the republic - heck, almost all of the content you have is from there.

They are, in fact, the same entity - the name changed. That is not the case with any "former nation" - something that this is not.

Not an accident either, that the only article on a "territory" of Siberia was the Ural Territory - and that was merged into the Russia and Kazakhstan republics. Which is why it has its own article - it was in all manners a separate entity.

You are asking for an article to be made for a small portion of the history of an article we already have. There is no way that is not superfluous.

Once again: Any objections to marking this obsolete?

Lordganon (talk) 06:39, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

I removed two letters. All inaccuracy fixed. Also it appears your incorrect about the Soviet leader. Mscoree (talk) 09:46, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

...You're kidding, right? That is not remotely what I said. Look at what I wrote again - just about every paragraph has something wrong with it.

Actually, I am right about the leader - the USSR has remained intact, at least to some extent, since it was founded in 1917. Aliyev is not even remotely the first leader of the USSR - he is merely the first leader since Doomsday. Note the difference.

Vlad has now even told you that this has no point, and that his intention with the article was to use it with a war that he and Arstar have not at all finished - so it hasn't "happened" yet.

Again: Any objections to making this obviously superfluous article obsolete?

Lordganon (talk) 13:39, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, just one little nitpicky thing about the Aliyev issue: Aliyev is the first leader of the Union of Sovereign Socialist Republics. Obviously, he isn't the first leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Now, there is a continuity of government from one incarnation of the USSR to the next, but he is clearly the first leader of the "new" USSR.

With that out of the way, sure, mark it as obsolete for now. When I finally finish the war, I have no problems with anyone helping or editing the territory article, however. Vladivostok (talk) 08:50, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to waiting for Vlad and company to finish their particular story. I will help in any way I can on this article, and in the area until then. P.S. The USSR was actually founded in 1922. Mscoree (talk) 18:19, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Again, Mscoree: name change. Not hard to understand.

Vlad, the name is the only net difference, realistically. To call him the first leader of it is misleading.

Lordganon (talk) 09:58, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

It's a different nation. That's like saying Mao Zedong wasn't the first ruler of the People's Republic of China, because China existed before that. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are different nation, as are the two Soviet states in question. There leaders should therefore be listed accordingly. Mscoree (talk) 22:48, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Not even remotely a comparison.

That example in China is like arguing that the Russian Empire and the USSR were the same state. Not even close to being accurate.

And, on top of that, the ROC still existed.

Of course it's a different government in China. Literally no comparison.

Not the case whatsoever in the USSR between its founding and the modern atl state.

Lordganon (talk) 09:12, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I know that Mscoree and I sound like broken records, but think of it this way, whether the "new" USSR is almost the same as the last USSR, it doesn't matter in the slightest. The name changed, hence the title of the leader changed, making Aliyev and Tuleyev the first and second leaders of the "new" USSR. Of course there's a continuation of government, the Revolution of 1917 is still celebrated, alongside all other former Soviet holidays, but that doesn't matter when it comes to the names. Vladivostok (talk) 11:22, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

...The titles you have listed on the page are more or less the same ones the Soviet leadership always had, with small variations depending on which one was in power.

Vlad, the only net difference is really the name. A new state that does not make.

Lordganon (talk) 12:32, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, you misunderstood me. It is basically the same state, what I'm being nitpicky about is the numbering of the leadership. For example, Aman Tuleyev is the second General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Socialist Union, or the Union of Sovereign Socialist Republics. See the difference? It is all in the name, but a difference nonetheless. Aliyev is the first leader of the Socialist Union, there's no doubt about that. The Uyghurs, Mongolians and Chinese citizens of the Union all regard him as the first leader. Vladivostok (talk) 13:15, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

More like you're misunderstanding me, lol.

Vlad, the name of something can change all you want - that in no way, shape, or form makes it a new state. Same goes for the new minorities. 6th and 7th leaders of the USSR.

At best, saying in the article that he's the first leader is misleading.

Lordganon (talk) 07:23, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

I believe this article is ready to be canon. Mscoree (talk) 20:15, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Not even. You still entirely are failing to include objections raised. Lordganon (talk) 12:16, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is ready to become canon. Mscoree (talk) 17:32, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

...You have not done anything about the raised objections. Not a single thing has changed since you asked last time, Ms. Lordganon (talk) 14:24, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

You said that the other article couldn't be canon since it still had references to a strong Chinese army. This article has no mention of that, so what's the problem. Also I'm not going to change the thing about the leader since proposals are supposed to conform to the canon, not the other way around. Therefore I think this article is ready to become canon. Mscoree (talk) 12:43, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

Not even remotely the case.

Your base for this "article" is in events that are not canon. And, for that matter. you do mention the objections from the other articles in this one.

Still needs to be fixed.

Lordganon (talk) 14:32, September 10, 2013 (UTC)

I believe this article is ready to be canon. Mscoree (talk) 10:35, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

You have done quite literally nothing to fix the problems. Not anywhere close to canon. Lordganon (talk) 11:20, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Can someone else please review this and graduate it? Several experienced people have told me its fine, but when ever I ask for it to be graduated Lordganon copy and pastes the same message saying that there is a bunch of stuff wrong with it, which he apparently refuses to share (at least not clearly and in one coherent message). Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 14:14, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Bull. You've been told 'many times by myself and Vlad what the problem is. Extremely "clearly and coherently," for that matter. You just refuse to do anything about it. Heck, I have even restated the problem with it in this very section of the talk page. As recently as two weeks/four posts ago, even. You may not like the objections, but quit fibbing about not being told them. Lordganon (talk) 17:47, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that the article in question doesn't actually depend on the Operation article. Thius article is a result of the war that took place in 2012. The operation actually details the steps leading up to the creation of this, which is already canon. Mscoree (talk) 01:04, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does depend on it. Nor is that other article anywhere remotely close to being "canon." Don't know why on earth you think it is. Lordganon (talk) 09:08, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

I believe this article is ready to be graduated. From what I understand the only remaining problem was that it contained uncanon information from the Operation Manchurian Freedom article, which has since been removed. Mscoree (talk) 19:57, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Still has some of that information in it - and has a more milder version of what the problem is with the other article in it as well. Lordganon (talk) 11:36, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

I have put Operation Manchurian Freedom back up to be considered for graduation. Therefore I propose this article be graduated as well. Mscoree (talk) 03:06, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

And you've done basically nothing to fix the other article, and the problems with this one. Lordganon (talk) 11:36, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with this article. Would you mind stating it for me here so I have all the information together? I thought early you said I had to remove the uncanon stuff, which I did. Mscoree (talk) 13:29, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

...Seriously?

You removed some of it, true. There are still references, including ones to the parts of the other article that still need removing.

Moreover, much of it, as myself and Vlad noted, does not go in this article. The article is on the Manchurian Territory, not Manchuria. There is a big difference there, which you have still failed to deal with.

Lordganon (talk) 09:17, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Operation Manchurian Freedom
Article by Mscoree. Open to suggestions on Chinese history. Not sure if Imperial China plays a part at this time, for example.

I believe this article is ready to be canon. Mscoree (talk) 20:14, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Not even close. You still entirely are failing to include objections raised. Lordganon (talk) 12:16, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is ready to become canon. Mscoree (talk) 17:32, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

...You have not done anything about the raised objections. Not a single thing has changed since you asked last time, Ms. Lordganon (talk) 14:25, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

I believe this article is ready to be canon. Mscoree (talk) 10:35, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

You have done quite literally nothing to fix the problems. Not anywhere close to canon. Lordganon (talk) 11:20, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have done as Lordganon said, and have reduced the insurgency quite heavily. I also had Guns, Fed, and Imp, all experienced 1983 editors, take a look, and I think it is ready to be canon. Can this article be graduated? Mscoree (talk) 03:04, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

...And, once again, you've done more or less nothing to reduce it. Lordganon (talk) 11:35, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

As one of the users named, I have to say, if this is about the "rebel armies", then ALL of that is gone. Unless this is something else- I was only asked to remove references to those.

BTW, since this is an article involving one of Vlad's nations, shouldn't he be writing this?

22:06, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I had permission from Vlad and he helped me write it. Mscoree (talk) 22:09, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Mmkay. Anyway, there are still apparently objections.

22:11, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Lordganon, is it possible you could rephrase some of the problems for me here? Just so we're clear about what needs to be fixed. Sorry to keep bugging you about this article, I just really want to get it finished. Mscoree (talk) 13:18, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

Just an observer's opinion. Since your last comment on the talk page for this article (08:05, November 7, 2013) there have been eleven edits on the page, accounting for a change of 388 bytes, assisted by three veteran editors. For that reason the comment, "you've done more or less nothing to reduce it," may not be accurate. Maybe it warrants a read through? Otherwise, as a wise man once said, "You need to not lie." Tr0llis (talk) 01:25, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, Trollis. Imp removed a bunch of extra spaces Ms inserted. That's the only "help" he has had.

I look at the vast majority of edits on this wiki, especially DD ones. Including each and every one of his "improvements" to this one. These "improvements" have been nothing of the sort.

Guns, not "gone" at all. Not even close. And that is only part of the problem, anyway.

Ms, not going to repeat again what I have stated both here and on the talk page several times. Not my fault if that is too complicated for you.

Lordganon (talk) 09:29, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Although I am still adding to this article, I believe it is ready to be graduated. Mscoree (talk) 13:15, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in terms, I'm afraid.

Also, bit fewer people. Loads would have died since DD. And there's only been one, maybe two generations since then. Closer to the 1982 population. Or lower. Food wouldn;t have been a problem, if you don't mind fish, but medicine, luxuries, all only found off island.

I'll decrease the population. What else do you think needs to be changed? Mscoree (talk) 00:58, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

An Assembly-style government was already in place by 1983.

Would be pretty much no food shortages.

Would be virtually no refugees. Island is much too far from Africa, or anywhere else for that matter. Definitely no "Mayotte Model."

Nor would there be looting or other crimes like that.

Concept of a navy is vastly overstated. No need whatsoever for one, or something like your "Relief Act." The idea of "building a military" would not occur to them, because it would not be needed whatsoever.

Contact with the French Pacific territories would be by 1984, at the latest.

Original population was actually right, imo.

And, for that matter, that infobox needs to be changed to the one used in all of the other articles.

Lordganon (talk) 09:05, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

By assembly government I meant a national government that doesn't answer to France, so basically the same. The RTFA didn't even exist until 1999. Maybe they contacted them before that, but they didn't join until the 2000's probably. So basically waht you're saying is they're very well off; no food shortages, starvation, or any other problems, despite being dependent on France for food. What's wrong with the infobox? Mscoree (talk) 14:22, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

That applies for Mayotte too. Mscoree (talk) 14:26, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

"Assembly Government" is the exact type of government put in place prior to 1983. It does not mean "national government."

Quite literally the only thing they need to do - not that they would do it for years anyway - is change the titles used by those in government. That's it.

True, the RTFA did not exist until 1999. But that is not even remotely the point.

What you have written says that they were not in contact with the rest of the RTFA prior to 2000. That is quite literally impossible.

Réunion would have been one of the founding members of that government in 1999. Not "contacted by them in 2000."

They are, in fact, not dependent on France, let alone anyone else, for food.

As for the infobox, compare it to any other article in the timeline. They are not the same, and need to be. Change the template to the correct one.

Lordganon (talk) 14:31, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly does the infobox need to be changed? I think it looks fine. According to the actual, canon RTFA page this island was not a founding member, but New Caledonia and French Polynesia were. I apologize, when I was referencing the dependence on France for food I was thinking of the economy of Mayotte (sorry there';s a lot of conversations going on here), who doesn't grow enough food to sustain itself. I agree that Réunion would be a bit better off than that. Mscoree (talk) 17:49, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Because it does not match any other one in the timeline. Rather obviously a different one, at that.

What the RTA page actually says is that it was formed after those two areas joined together. And there's a difference between the "Sixth Republic" and the RTA. Moroever, no founding members of the RTA list exists there.

Not true with regards to Mayotte and food either.

Lordganon (talk) 09:35, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think that this article is ready to be graduated. I am still in the process of updating and adding some information, but much of the content is there. Mscoree (talk) 14:20, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Umm what? That template doesn't exist.

What do you mean by template? The link to the article works fine. Mscoree (talk) 00:59, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Mayotte already had an assembly by 1983.

Would be no rioting or looting.

Would be far less refugees than you have coming. Madagascar didn't suffer much, nor did the Comoros, and Africa is too far off for many to get there. You vastly exaggerate the situation in Africa, as well.

The island would have already known about the blasts, through communications from the French government before the strikes. Comoros would have been the ones learning of it from them, not the other way around.

No need for the police to do any of that, because there would have been very few refugees.

Supplies would have been fine. Not "running out in 1984."

Again, no "policy" would be wanted or needed for refugees.

Contact with the French territories in the Pacific would have been made by mid-1984, at the latest.

Something would need to be added about the new regime in the Comoros, too.

And, for that matter, that infobox needs to be changed to the one used in all of the other articles.

Would do you a world of good, Ms, to do research, both with regards to the DD articles, and "real" sources. The lack of it is, quite honestly, readily apparent.

Lordganon (talk) 10:14, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

I do believe I did research this topic quite well. If you have knowledge of any RTFA-related pages please link me to them. Mscoree (talk) 18:13, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

...Seriously? Disturbing that you think that.

Sorry, but it is very obvious that you didn't look at much of anything. It's readily apparent that you know little about the government and economy of the island, and the post-DD situation in both the Indian Ocean and Africa. The logic you're trying to follow is a "fail," too.

Lordganon (talk) 09:39, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

The official website of the Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques disagrees with you. As for Doomsday pages with RTFA information that you apparently have knowledge, again please link them so that others can benefit from them. Mscoree (talk) 19:33, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

Supplies? Fish. But medicine and all, would have run out.

And the infobox, too... use Nationinfo, not InfoboxNation.

Apart from that, can't see anything wrong here.

I didn't use InfoboxNation, I used NationBox, a custom one I made that combines elements from both. Mscoree (talk) 23:41, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

It's still weird, and not as good.

NationInfo: Infobox country: NationBox: (The one I used) Mscoree (talk) 14:22, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Advantages: Has space for timeline and OTL equivalent. Simple looking.
 * Disadvantages: Can't fit some objects, such as national anthems. Has always permanent links, which sometimes cause naming erros.
 * Advantages: Has space for anthem. Professional looking (used on Wikipedia).
 * Disadvantages: No space for timeline and OTL equivalent. Even more links.
 * Advantages: Has space for timeline and OTL equivalent. Has space for anthem and other objects. All links can be turned off if you don't want them or haven't made the page yet. Has previous and successor nations spaces built in.
 * Disadvantages: Still under development. Not approved.

Not true... NationInfo has spaces for anthems, maps, etc. Is WAY, WAY more comprehensive than Infobox Country... or as far as I can see, Nationbox.

Here's an excellent example of a Nationinfo.

That's not what I meant by space. I mean the large object. Mscoree (talk) 14:09, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Still, as far as I can see... Nationbox does nothing NationInfo does not. Everything on the Mayotte Infobox could have been done with a NationInfo, and it would also align with the rest of 83DD. It's more than tradition, Ms, though Tradition does play a big part in it.

No such reference on the site of the National Institute, despite what both you and wikipedia's "source" - not that that link there actually goes anywhere - claim.

The island does import some food, true - but by far most of the imports are fuel. It does, however, also export a lot of food - somewhat comparable to the imports, actually. Add increased fishing, and it's more than good. Potential imports from the ANZC or Africa only make that better.

Told you where to look for such articles that have information that either is directly on it, or impacts it in some way.

Almost none of your "advantages" over the nation template actually exist, barring you screwing up the article name. Change it.

Lordganon (talk) 09:49, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources backing up your claims? I believe it's important to cite sources for articles when writing, which is why I ask. Preferably one better than the Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques. Mscoree (talk) 16:57, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Ooh! Ooh! Pick Me! Pick me!

How about Canon? According to the ERS page, Mayotte survived the war fine (this page is actually already canon, just not yet what you wrote).

Now, your link (or rather Wikipedia's) for the Institute actually goes to the page for the island of Reunion, not that of Mayotte. So I think we can safely say that you really don't have any sources either.

The Comoros? Those came off amazingly from DD, BTW. I put the finishing touches on that myself, though I believe some anon wrote most of it.

Now according to the Wikipedia page, the island exports food- imports it, too, but not of the vital kind, I'd imagine; when you have that many fish around... but who exports fish? Better question; what non-landlocked, non-desert state IMPORTS fish?

I never even posted a link, I just referenced a national institute responsible for collecting data on these topics. Mscoree (talk) 23:12, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't find anything there, so...

Google "Mayotte" and "imports" or "exports." Simple, and not something I should actually have to tell you, imo.

The Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques doesn't have any data on their site.

Lordganon (talk) 07:56, October 17, 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, upon finding this thread after a while, I went on the site of the Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques and found a ton of information on Mayotte (pages and pages actually). Also did you guys really just assume Ms opened the page on Reunion and assumed it was for Mayotte? Just type in Mayotte on the site and there you go, why would you even assume he used Reunion? Where did that even come from? "Now, your link" where is the link, because I don't see any. Now then, I haven't actually read any of this data, so I have no idea who is right or wrong, but simply put that organization definitely does have date, you just have to look through it. Having verified that this source actually exists, I'd like to see what you guys are looking at too. Other than canon (which is all well and good) and remarks to just google it myself, if you guys (ms, Guns, LG) could just link them here for everyone to see, that would end a ton of confusion and would be way more efficient. I'm not trying to insult anyone, I just think it would be a lot more productive for everyone to present their information, rather than go back and forth for a year. Tr0llis (talk) 00:45, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

You should probably let this lie Tr0llis. I plan to rewrite the whole article as Lordganon said soon enough. His points about researching were definitely valid, and has led be to consider other sources as well.

To answer your question, I believe Guns opened a wikipedia article and found a link to Reunion related data. I am not sure how he found it, as I did something similar to what you did; went to the site directly and opened the articles on Mayotte. With that said I need to investigate a lot further for sure. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 00:50, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

The Griffin's Doom
OH HEY LOOK ANOTHER ROCK BAND!

Nothing for months and then two in a day.

Ready for grad- I swear to God, Troll, if I see you make a joke objection, I will find you, and I will make you suffer.

01:05, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

I object again because I need to read it. Also I'm not joking at all. Do you consider Lordganon a jokester when he does this? Tr0llis (talk) 00:32, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

Again, ignoring it. Also, I recommend shutting up, because frankly speaking, this is nothing but trolling, and I wouldn't be surprised if certain trigger happy admins give you a short vacation for it.

And when I say trigger happy, I mean entirely justified, and when I say admin, I mean LG, and when I say LG, I mean "solely because I can't ban you yet".

01:05, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

Tr0llis, you're treading in extremely thin ice. "I need to read it" is NOT grounds for objection. Be very careful. Fed (talk) 01:15, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is I can ignore Lordganon's "I need to read it" objections? If it's not real then he didn't really object. Is this right? Just want to check before ms goes to the TSPTF or something like last time lol. Tr0llis (talk) 01:21, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

No, cause that's not what he said.

Also, I highly recommend looking up the term thin ice. BEFORE said ice breaks.

01:29, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

...Going to assume that that was you, Guns? >.>; Same thing as before.

That being said, objections?

Lordganon (talk) 11:31, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

It was Fed who did it. He forgot to log in. Mscoree (talk) 14:07, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

That was Fedelede, and he forgot to log in. Not me.

Check the IP. I live in NY, not Colombia.

16:59, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Meh. Irrelevant. Principle still applies. Lordganon (talk) 12:09, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

I object on the grounds that the aspects of this band are extremely corny, and that you claim they are the best band of the 2000's. Also some of your titles aren't grammatically correct or make no sense at all. Tr0llis (talk) 17:28, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

They all make sense, especially so since ALL of them are direct quotes from Latin works.

Corny. Seriously. LG. Please. Say something. I'm begging you. That's not an objection. It doesn't make sense. This is just trolling.

I said 4 of the largest magazines on the planet said they were the best band on the planet. Since I'm also WRITING the articles for those magazines, I am allowed to say that.

In any case, your knowledge (or lack of such) of Latin notwithstanding, the titles could be grammatically incorrect either deliberately or accidentally. Either way, it's a reflection on them, not the writing.

18:10, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

I meant not grammatically correct/nonsensical in the sense that they are out of context (and therefore not direct quotes). Saying ungrammatically correct was probably a stretch to be honest, but they still are kind of awkward. For example, your first one is Augustine, De Trinitate XIV, 8.11; "Mens eo ipso imago Dei est quo eius capax est". The second is from The Legend of Zorro, which I doubt was made ATL, so the band must have coincidentally come up with that one. Your last one isn't a quote at all, however, it just is a statment; "thus/so always". That said you can make the argument that the band did that on purpose, I was just bringing it to your attention. Tr0llis (talk) 18:47, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

Very good, you got the reference.

In any case- as you yourself stated- that's not an objection...

18:56, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

The Zorro character and stories long predate those movies. The phrases, insomuch as I know, do as well. Context is irrelevant.

Guns, the "corny" bit was obviously nothing. Could count some of the rest as a slight objection.

So, again: Objections?

Fair warning, Troll: don't do jokeish objections again.

Lordganon (talk) 18:59, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

Proposal by Daeseunglim for a old power plant. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

And related article on its military. By Daesuenglim. A proposed tiny nation state in northeastern Pennsylvania. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

The page is more refined now. I have added information on post doomsday history, recreation, the economy, a seperate page for the military. Any helpful ideas/likes or dislikes please post on the talk page or on my talk page. Thanks. (Note: I have changed the Air Patrol, mentioning the lack of fuel has grounded the fleet most of the time) Daeseunglim (talk) 20:23, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable for graduation along with the accompanying Defense Force page? Bfoxious mentioned putting it up for graduation. Daeseunglim (talk)

Dae, it still has the same problems. You've got to remember, this is a tiny somewhat backward state. Not a modern country - you're making them out to be the latter. Tone it down. Lordganon (talk) 15:44, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

What problems do you see? Compared to Reading and other PA survivor states, it is quite backwater, with limited power production, limited steel and iron production, poor infrastructure, and other issues. It is more of a 3rd world or at the most a low down 2nd world nation. I picture the situation like otl Bangladesh, or Myanmar, with most of the money coming from Canada and other nations. These nations in otl still have electricity and other things. Electricity is unavailable for 99% of Susquehanna, the military is weak and small, medical care is basic, education is improving, but still shabby, and most of the money comes from food. I am not sure why you think that I am making it a modern nation. Daeseunglim (talk)

By Matt121 ??? Matt125. A rehash, more or less, of content found on another article - call it the content being moved and somewhat added to. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

By Guns. A small state in the northeastern Congo. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Former small state. It's going to be collapsed by refugees around 1998.

20:32, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

By Lukesams. An article on the fate of the chain. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

By an anon. An article on a atl Althist book, which somewhat describes otl. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Originating with Lewody1. Article on the otl - and in atl, former - Queen of the UK and her fate after DD. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Article by Eric4e. Article name is pretty much self-explanatory. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Article by Oct/OM. Name is self-explanatory. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Article by Matt121 ??? Matt125. Not worked on in a year, needs a lot of work. Would there be any objections to adding an adoption banner? Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Banner added. Lordganon (talk) 11:33, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Article on the two Congo nation-states, started by Guns. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States
A list of both pre doomsday presidents and PUSA presidents based on information available. Hopefully this can also provide a forum to sort out some issues, like how Bush ran for three terms. AceFrehley101 (talk) 04:36, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Errr... That stuff has been hashed out elsewhere long ago. There isn't any issues except the ones you just made by not knowing that. No worries.

You've got Bush's presidency, as well as the number/names/parties/way they are elected/terms/electoral college in the new USA wrong.

Lordganon (talk) 11:39, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Can I make this a stub? I can't see anything else to add, and it is reasonably plausible.

Nvm. I am going to be changing it a bit.

Australian Electro
Another proposal by me. It deals with a genre of music that developed in Oceania. -Kogasa  2013 November 13, 20:58 (CET)

British Broadcasting Network
Proposal by me. British Broadcasting Network is what takes the role of BBC in post-Doomsday Britain. CrimsonAssassin- "I have special eyes" 02:51, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

When's the DW page coming?

12:20, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Lesothan Civil War (1983: Doomsday)
Article on the Lesothan Civil War, which is already canon. Seeing as it lasted 9 years, figure it would be pretty major, haha, and deserved a page.

22:29, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Dammit, what happened to me? 11 months to finish one article? I used to churn articles like this out every week!

(Well, kinda.)

Anyhoo, it's done. 20:43, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

I object because I have yet to read it. Tr0llis (talk) 20:49, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and ignore that completely, and until you present an ACTUAL issue, I'm going to go ahead and ignore you, too.

It doesn't violate canon, I know, mostly cause I WROTE the canon that would be involved here. All the numbers are checked and verified with OTL- Lesotho maintains those armies today seperate from any foriegn aid, and conscripting makes up for the rest. South Africa wasn't exactly short of weaponry when they collapsed and they DID have many arsenals near the border, including, conincidentally, in Ficksburg, which Lesotho basically took over after DD. So the weaponry is possible, the army size is possible, the continuity is possible, the people have humorously different roles, but hey, what a pity, no one cares.

23:07, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

Considering Lordganon did the exact same thing to me, I don't recommend ignoring these objections. Mscoree (talk) 23:15, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

No, LG brought up actual issues with yours. You just chose to ignore them. Troll's is entirely subjective, not based in any fact, ridiculously stupid, obviously a joke, and does nothing but shorten my temper. I can't do anything more than reprimand him for disrupting the work of an actual TL, but frankly speaking, I don't have to pay attention to him.

Or you.

Bring up a real issue, or this grads on the 4th.

00:32, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

"Any objections to graduation?"

"For now, yes. Call it because of the disturbing amount of things to checkup on in it, lol." - Lordganon

Should I just ignore Lordganon too? It doesn't seem like a joke or troll to me, but if you really say these should be ignored I guess we'll see what happens. Mscoree (talk) 00:48, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

...

Firstly, where is that from?

Secondly, he says in there not "I haven't read this" but rather "I'm renting three secretaries to type out the list of issues with your article".

Ms. Seriously, I'm not kidding. If you have an issue with LG, take it out on him, or better yet, shut up about it. If you have an issue with me, then approach me. If you're too afraid of conflict to actually DO anything about your complaints- or you're just interested in dicking around- this is NOT the place for it.

01:03, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with either of you. I'm just saying it might not be wise to brush off these things. Mscoree (talk) 01:19, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

Advice noted, and ignored.

01:28, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

It's been a week without an actual objection. Article graduates.

23:20, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Doesn't work that way. You don't get to decide if something is an "actual objection" or not. You need to ask again. Lordganon (talk) 17:09, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

Okay I have read the article. I object because:


 * The different factions are pretty generic. Little to no regional flair or creativity here. Plays like a chapter of Joseph Campbell; might as well called them "The Empire/Government" and "The Rebels". Knowing rebel factions in OTL Africa, I doubt they would have such an undescriptive name, and I wonder if it would even be (entirely) in English. "Democratic Faction"? Try "Rally for Lesothan Democracy", or something like that, for example. Note, this isn't a major objection. Names are of minimal concern, but going the little bit extra amount of effort would greatly help.
 * "Following the coup, the Democratic Alliance declared war on both the government and the military". This is a bit awkward sounding. The "Democratic Alliance", from the looks of it, isn't even a government/nation ie they didn't secede or something, yet they declared war on their nation? (ie themselves.) Might make more sense to say an active rebellion turned into war, as the disgruntled population engaged against forces of the military and the government.
 * How is the government even a faction if (presumably majority of) the military has rebelled against it?
 * If the people, and the military, are fighting against the government because they want a (more transparent) democracy, why does the Democratic Alliance then ally with said government. I thought the people wanted to overthrow the government, as did the military through their coup. Such an odd set of alliances that don't really make sense based on these seemingly arbitrary divisions.
 * Why is the infobox a three way war, when in reality it sounds like this is more of a two co belligerents versus one situation?
 * Is the military attempting to overthrow both the government, and the people, and form a military dictatorship here? Not really clear their motives, or anyone's motives at first glance, and if so that somewhat explains the three way war. What it doesn't explain is why the government is left to survive when both parties hate it; that's like if Octavian, Pompey, Lepidus, and Marc Antony all agreed to just let Cassus and Brutus go free of charge. They wouldn't do that, if both sides want that government not to exist, for whatever reason, they'd knock out that faction and then battle against each other.
 * Why are members of the military loyal to the democrats in the early moments of the war, even though Tom Thabane and the government are the ones paying them. What, did the plebs pay them off in idealistic philosophy? Sure maybe a few are optimistic toward democracy, but most would probably rather not starve.
 * Talk about a poor quality cult of personality. Thabane makes this strict one party system and lets anyone be the commander of the military? If not, that guy surely changed loyalty fast. Also if that was the case Lekhanya probably would have just executed Thabane and begun a French Revolution style struggle to fill the power gap (military versus people mostly, with ex government people, "royalists" in this example, somewhere in the middle).
 * You mean to tell me the defense minister somehow is able to send in military police, of all people, and he thinks that's a good idea? What was he going to do, arrest a hostile army? Damn right that didn't work, but then the military executes them? You'd think these military police wouldn't even be working for the minister at this point, making their executions look tyrannical.
 * If Rameama wanted a coup he should have just marched into the capital building, dealt with some of these random military police, and just killed Thabane. How does attacking a military armory equate to a coup, that essentially equates to a rebellion. You'd think he'd walk on the wings of the people right into the city, if what you say is true about these protests.
 * You wrote that the war begins in 1955, meaning the soldiers went back in time like forty years.
 * So a military commander fought his way into an armory, for some reason, against recruits of little to no allegiance, to declare that the president was illegitimate? You'd think the military would just swoop in and remove this tyrannical president, like in the case of many other countries, not have each regiment or division declare some sort of new faction. Also if Rameama is now against Lekhanya, by your logic why isn't this a four way infobox?
 * At this point it might be a good time to note that in OTL the real life Thabane suspended the democratically elected government, and the military seized the police stations and headquarters. Honestly something like that; government and police versus army (and in this heightened version) the people would make a lot more sense. Have the rebellious generals or whatever on the government side; they keep overthrowing the government and installing themselves as the new government. Overall I think that makes more sense.
 * Lesotho doesn't even have military police, they have a branch of the military known as the Lesotho Mounted Police Service, which is regular (although well armed) police. Then you have the Lesotho Defense Force (ie "military faction"). The police answer directly to the prime minister and ministry of defense, so they would encompass the government faction.
 * The Lesotho military is only a few thousand large; and probably wouldn't be hugely expanded proportionally to the police, especially when they are apparently a rival group to the government.
 * You have a total of 333,500 combatants involved (approximately) even though that's more than the number of people deemed fit for military service, between the ages of fifteen and forty-nine. Must be a pretty crazy war then if people younger than fifteen, or older than forty-nine, or females, or what have you are involved. If you go by CIA estimates that number is almost three times larger than the number deemed fit for service between the ages of eighteen and forty-nine.
 * "The MPs were caught by surprise by the entire attack, and by the time of Thabane's announcement, had mostly been neutralized." What announcement? The only time you mention Thabane is when you say he made an announcement ordering the police to intervene in the first place. By the time he ordered the police to go into combat they were already dead?
 * If we were actually going by OTL the military would have just struck in the middle of the night and killed the police, and then the government, with Thabane going into exile at best. In OTL this "civil war" lasted one day. I get that this is a lot higher stakes, but you basically jacked up everyone ten times, and then make the military attack not-the-capital "to get arms", even though they already have all the arms they could possibly need (and then they arm the militia, who you then say are their enemies?!), when they should have just entered the capital and executed the government.
 * After the above had happened, the military would have either enforced the democracy, or made a military dictatorship, at which point the people would protest and riot, beginning the second phase of the civil war, like in Egypt. Not much of this three way stuff, in my opinion.
 * Democratic Alliance forces somehow arrived in Mazenod, picked up guns they found, and fought the military? You mean to tell me random civilians somehow had the bravery and the knowledge to arrive in the specific spot where the military was heavily concentrated (at this point controlling basically all the weapons), and then beat them?
 * Why are the random democrats even fighting the military, when the military hasn't even declared itself any which way? In fact Thabane (somehow) is still alive even? You mean to tell me that the military, who hates the government, and the people, who hate the government, fighting against each other for some reason, while the government watches? What compelled the people to attack the military when they showed no intention of being on the government's side, in fact they specifically stated they weren't.
 * what's with you and executing people on roofs? Not to mention if they were actually trying to take over the government they'd be as fast and quiet as possible, to make it seem "normal", ie not cause the people to rebel. If the military had acted logically they would have quickly overthrown the government, and in the event that they went the dictatorship route, would have pretended to make a democracy while simultaneously cracking down on dissidents.
 * King Letsie III wasn't even the reigning king of Lesotho at the time. The king doesn't even have any real power, especially with all these totalitarian practices you describe.
 * "Year of Peace?" This isn't an RTS, where people turtle in their respective bases. If the military (who had this point should have been synonymous with the government) had all the power, why didn't they just crack down on these rebel forces?
 * The Battle of Three Armiess...this isn't a fantasy Tolkien novel. That's pretty much all I have to say about that.
 * The rebels have sleeper units?! What's the point of being a ragtag rebel group if they apparently have entire "fake" military units for the purpose of infiltrating the government. And I guess said government didn't even notice when their army suddenly grew.
 * This article is very optimistic about the strength of the democrats. The democrats are essentially a political party, yet they soon grow into an army despite the entirety of the military's and police force's weapons out of their possession.
 * Honestly the people can't really fight the military effectively; would probably just protest until the military agreed to allow elections or some other compromise. Whether or not they actually follow through is up for debate.
 * As such, I don't believe the majority of the article makes sense. Skipping to bottom.
 * That reminds me, if the king if Letsie III like you claim, that means the overthrowing of Leabua Jonathan already occurred. Did that happen or not? How come that didn't cause a giant war? Because that is what this article should be essentially.
 * "The King later commented that 'The stand of the Guard at Tosing will one day be remembered alongside the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava or the 300 at Thermopylae.'" Wow I wonder what that is a reference to.
 * I'm pretty sure that Lesotho doesn't even have a royal guard.
 * Martyr for their cause? The people want a democracy and somehow "letting the king die" would make them more patriotic toward the military dictatorship.
 * If the government is letting the king die, why didn't they call off their made up royal guard?
 * Your entire description of the Royal Guard in battle is basically a wank.
 * "one of the Guardsmen knocked him out with his rifle butt". Is this a comedy? Why is this the king commenting on how his recruits became Spartans, and not on the fact that a soldier decided to assault him.
 * How did the king even manage to escape? You said thousands of soldiers had surrounded his fortress.
 * How does a few dozen men even defend a fortress?
 * What side is the king even on in the conflict? The democrats?
 * And on top of all that the page isn't even done...(which according to you is an objection).

Edit: I'm starting to wonder if this article makes any sense at all.

Will think of more as I read, but I think that's enough to get you started. Tr0llis (talk) 21:32, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

"It's not done" because LG accidentally removed half the page when he reinstated the Proposal sign.

I have put back those segments.

"Creativity" is not a reason for declining an article. I apologize for not spicing it up; when I want to write a novel, I'll write one. When I want to write the equivalent of a Wikipedia page, I'll write that.

I'll respond to the rest before the night is done.

23:10, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between being creative and being developed/original. Since the factions are a central part of this, you'd think they'd be at least a little bit developed, and not just generic terms. Tr0llis (talk) 23:36, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

To be honest Guns, that doesn't really resemble a Wikipedia article in that sense. look at other modern conflicts in Africa and you'll see that for the most part the rebel groups have names, backgrounds, etc, not simply a generic title like "rebels" or "democratic faction". Mscoree (talk) 23:38, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about that page. How did a ragtag, untrained rebel force kill MP's who, presumably had better training? I guess by seizing military armories, they could have captured heavy weapons, but still... Also, defections would have obviously occurred, but not in that large of scale, like 1 or 2 soldiers here and there. Also, although I know armored forces are not everything, they still are significant in eventual victory or defeat, it seems like the military controls a good chunk of the armor and artillery. That would end up spelling almost certain doom for the rebels, especially without foreign intervention.

Daeseunglim (talk) 01:49, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Actually the military controls all of the artillery and equipment. The government faction would control a police force, which in OTL was able to be completely defeated and forced to surrender by the military faction in twenty four hours. That gives the military faction now 100% of the nation's military and defense weapons. The democratic faction is presumably armed with sticks or something, considering they control no weapons and are able to take zero military bases. In fact the article expresses how certain military groups seize those. Edit: Also in OTL the only reason the prime minister was able to return was largely because of foreign (South African) involvement. Tr0llis (talk) 02:10, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

This war is collectively as long as the Congo Wars, despite the comparatively small size of the nation in question. You'd think that if this small landlocked nation was that war ridden, neighboring nations (judging from the map) would invade/intervene in the war. Hell, then it would be a real Congo War-style conflict. Fritzmet (talk) 02:14, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

None of the surrounding nations were strong enough in this period- one spent half of it getting invaded, IIRC, and the other has such a tenous grip on power that any expansion would most likely result in collapse.

I'll explain exactly what my reasoning for all of this was, in around a week, when I get back from hospital. I know, I promised to do it on Friday, but at the moment I have something called Strepoccoccus Pneumoniae, or something spelled like that, rampaging around my lungs and making it sorta hard to breathe. Cheers!

(That cheers, for the record, was wholly sarcastic)

00:18, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

Martinique
No problems with the content of the article have been brought up, so I believe this article is ready to become canon. Mscoree (talk) 18:11, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Possibly because there IS no content. This has literally nothing. Not even a stubgrad here- it simply must have more material.

00:25, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought it would atleast be ready for stubgrad. I will add more content soon. Mscoree (talk) 23:15, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Nahh. Stubgrad is when the author writes somthing that is plausible that makes sense and can be canon, but leaves the wiki or stops working on it for a long time... I think..

You're still here and want to add more. So do so.

23:16, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that is more or less what it is actually for, though things do get stubgradded eventually anyway if they pass a certain point. Also has to be plausible, mind.

As it stands, you don't even have it accurate, and are ignoring everything that you were told about the island before.

And, once again: that blasted template needs to go.

Lordganon (talk) 16:49, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

On this particular article I wasn't told anything about the island. On the talk page all you noted was the template. I don't think deleting the template would be good, and I don't see the benefit of replacing it. As far as I know there is no rule that you have to use a particular template for anything. Is it possible I could just keep this one? This one's a lot easier to use, and replacing it would be a hassle. Mscoree (talk) 20:43, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

I can replace it if you want. Far as I can tell, the only difference here is layout...

You could add other stuff too just saying...

22:14, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

I can fix it myself, I just prefer the other template for this sort of thing. Mscoree (talk) 22:18, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

You've been told several things about it.

Been over the template before with you. so long as it is that one, it won't graduate. As for it being "easier to use," that is your opinion, and it's inaccurate, at best, too.

Lordganon (talk) 14:05, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

It's just my opinion. You don't have to say my opinion is wrong. Mscoree (talk) 23:57, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I believe that's your opinion.

22:36, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Page I made for the war in Yunnan. Imp said he was going to look over it a while ago, but otherwise said it was about ready to be graduated. Will probably make more battles and information at a later date, but at the moment I have all the canon information down from the Yunnan page. Can this page be graduated? Mscoree (talk) 15:00, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ms,

If you intend to add new features to your page, do it before you grad, or else when you do add those new features, you'll get reviewed and lose your grad.

Sincerely, Guns.

00:15, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was, I already have all the content down, but I may choose to just flesh out some of the battles and details. Basically just elaborate on things. Mscoree (talk) 01:09, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

So if there are no objections may I graduate it? Mscoree (talk) 22:33, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

I is object.

22:38, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

I kinda have to as well, actually.

The rebels aren't going to declare independence. That would defeat the whole purpose. They would form a rebel group with the intent to overthrow the government. There is a big difference.

They would not win nearly that easily. And, imo, the government would be far better armed than the rebels.

Would take far longer than that to train. There is a reason why civil wars are generally not short.

Not only would the capital not fall so easily, but its fall would also not kill the government like that. You'd have warfare for years.

Lordganon (talk) 13:23, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

I will make those adjustments. Just want to point out though that the Battle of Kunming and the dates are already part of canon (from Yunnan article). Mscoree (talk) 14:10, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

In addition to what LG stated, I gave you at least 5 other things on chat.

Also-

Battle was canon- scale was not.

And while the dates might refer to the official end of war, actual warfare would continue till almost the modern day.

20:56, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that conflict may continue after the official end of the war. As for the canon, I was refering to the time of events. The Yunnan article states the years between the start and end of the war, as well as the approximate amount of time in which the Battle of Kunming is fought. Mscoree (talk) 22:25, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Which is not what LG was complaining about. I recommend actually reading his statement.

22:40, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

I read his statement...

Was just trying to shed some light on the situation. Mscoree (talk) 22:43, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Umm, so basically you were trying to change the subject? Actually?

Why don't we go back to fixing the relentless implausogasms here?

22:59, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Not a word about it should have been added to Yunnan until this was graduated. So, it is not canon.

The time period isn't plausible. No ifs, ands, or buts about that.

And the war would "officially end" when the fighting does. Winning a battle is irrelevant to that.

As Guns said, way to try and change the subject, lol.

Lordganon (talk) 14:28, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

So it's not canon here because it's not canon in Yunnan because it's not canon here.

Just to make that clear :D

21:10, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Might want to talk to Imp then. To quote the canon, "The loyalist troops were pushed back by the numbers and the will of the rebels. The loyalists made their last stand in central Kunming. It would take days of heavy fighting, but the rebels would break through and force the surrender of many remaining soldiers. The ruling generals would be arrested, tried for their crimes and executed swiftly." The dates are also on there. After all, Imp was the one who told me the dates in the first place. Sorry for changing the subject again, but I think that is important. Mscoree (talk) 12:18, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Yunnan needs to be reviewed then. Doesn't make this canon, Ms.

Why don't you work on one thing rather than constantly abandoning previous ones? Finish Manchuria or whatever before you start on this. FFS...

16:39, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

I talked to Imp and he has agreed to let me change the time frame. Even though Yunnan is canon, I will diverge from it if that's what it takes, and fix Yunnan accordingly. I just hope that once I fix it I don't hear it rejected for not following canon, since that's what I did and then I hear the canon is wrong. Anyway, now that I'm not confined to a certain time frame hopefully i can spread out the war a bit more and make it more plausible. Mscoree (talk) 21:00, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Awards
A list of awards, post-DD. Noticed no one had done this, so...

Could someone give me a list of canon awards? I'll add a bunch of made up ones. Any ideas would be accepted, too :D

23:56, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

For sports you can add stuff about all the awards won on here, including Olympic Games and FIFA world cup results. Other than sports I'm not sure if anyone has written about any post-doomsday awards. Mscoree (talk) 15:25, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

I've written about one post doomsday award, and I'll add some others. What's the shots on the Nobels being resurrected? I mean, we've still got the Alpine Confed, right?

17:12, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Nobels would still be ongoing - Nordic Union, not the Alpines - but for a number of years would go to Scandinavians, given contact. Expect the first winners after that to elsewhere would be somewhere in the range of 1985-87. Lordganon (talk) 12:51, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm a bit busy until Sunday, but I think I'll start work on this (and several other pages) then.

22:37, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Verdigris
Small state in Southern Kansas by Scarlet. I am helping him with it by giving suggestions on the talk page. Bow To Your Sensei. BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!

Page currently being redone by Daes and I. —Bfoxius (talk)

Generations
A page that I am in the midst of creating on generations post-DD. Will flesh it out more after I am done with Black Sabbath. Bow To Your Sensei. BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!

Greater Hazleton
Small state in Northeastern PA.

Page by: Daeseunglim (talk)

Thearchy of Tumba
A small nation near the Kongo river. Note:This nations ideology (white power) is by no means my personal opinion.

Sky Green 24 - Join the party  14:57, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

...That makes no sense at all, Sky. Lordganon (talk) 05:15, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Equatorial African Republic (1983: Doomsday)
A dictatorship on the banks of the River Congo.Whipsnade (talk) 20:37, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

Most of that early history makes no sense, Whip. Lordganon (talk) 05:15, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

OK.Whipsnade (talk) 11:46, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Delete, Author's request.Whipsnade (talk) 11:45, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Operation Retribution (1983: Doomsday)
Page describing counter gang/raider operation by the CoS to permanently remove the threat. It needs work still, and can people tell me if it is too long (the operation, it's 3 years long). I feel like it should only be a few months at most, but I want to tie it into the info from reading as well. Daeseunglim (talk)

Just out of pedantry, isn't it the "Crips" rather than the "Crypts"?

12:14, August 20, 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Lordganon (talk) 15:58, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

A proposal by me and Oer, pretty much aim to make it into an article better suited to the DDverse compared to Caer's versions of Zimbabwe. Me and Oer have gone over a lot of the facts over a few months now and I think now would be the time to set up the article, with me having authority on most of the post-DD states of Southern Africa. Imp (Say Hi?!) 15:02, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Beat me to the punch. I was planning to do it after the now completely restructured ICW.

20:15, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

Nation in the former Republic of the Congo that I have been developing. I plan to write some history for the region as a whole which may impact some of the later history of this nation, but so far the nation's individual history is pretty much thought out. I thought I would put this nation up here to be reviewed until then, so I can get some feedback first before making more nations. Is this nation ready to become canon? Mscoree (talk) 03:40, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

Brazzaville is now under the control of Zaire. You should most likely mention that.

Your infobox is missing a LOT; that's just a note, not an objection. But you should fix that. Population, currency, etc.

Include a map. Unless you're saying you held on to the entire Likoula Department (in which case, objection), you need to provide some reference as to exactly how big this nation is.

The term is "Animism", not "Traditional African Religion", which not only seems to group all of them together but also sounds vaguely offensive.

Refugees would be going to OTHER way; the biggest hits in the Congolese collapse were taken in the North. They'd be going to the south; Angola, Katanga; basically, out of the Congo, not deeper into it. That whole refugee part needs to be stricken.

The CAR survived doomsday intact. Ish. They'd be making contact with that, not with "Bangul".

I can't find any record of armed forces in that region. I'm not sure which ones you refer to.

Your situation moves WAY too fast. These governments wouldn't pull themselves together before late 1984, imo; and you have rebellions taking place just months after the government is set up? Discontent takes more time than that.

Your war is way way too much. Unlike, say, Isiro, there are no major military bases in the region even now. What are these people fighting with? There are no weapons being shipped in, no trade networks with the rest of Africa, even.

Democracy, without outside urging, would take a lot longer than this to manifest, IMO, but that's not a solid objection.

Given that 90% or more of your nation is totally illiterate, who exactly is voting?

I'm just saying, the largest this state could be is around the size of the PRA. It won't be too close to Gabon, and it can't be in the south, or the wars there would have collapsed it. There's bad blood in that region.

Population, I'm going to guess around 50,000, tops. The city OTL has 40,000 and what with the wars and the inevitable famines, At least half that is gone. I think it might be hard for all those wars to take place.

Finish that history before you ask for canon. It goes up to 1994; not even halfway.

Cheers,  20:31, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

I'll be sure to mention Zaire at some point. Most of the time when I said Brazzaville it was because I was referencing the city itself.

You kind of have it backwards for the religion part. Saying "" is correct and how they say it on Wikipedia, and appears to be very different from what you said.That term applies to a number of religions in the region.

I will be adding more information to the infobox as time goes on, as well as a flag and map, probably when I have access to my main computer.

By refugees going north, I meant people fleeing from Brazzaville. The main form of transportation is by river, so they would travel up the river from the city to places like Impfondo. You can't go the other way, lest you think these dingy river boats are going to flee into the open Atlantic.

Places like Brazzaville would probably be the center of conflict anyway, with conflicts like in Impfondo, times ten.

By military forces and government, I was referring to the OTL regional presences in Impfondo, since it's a regional capital of the former nation. The first real government isn't formed until 1987, and before that this "government" I refer to is the pre existing socialist regime that had set up in the city from before Doomsday. Before 1987 though no government controls the whole city, let alone the whole nation.

Guns, in Africa that honestly isn't that fast. I actually took snippets from OTL history and slowed them down. In OTL and ATL the government survives for two whole years before a civil war to install a new dictator. In OTL and ATL people protest this harsh dictator almost immediately.

Weapons are coming from Brazzaville, Bangul, and the OTL government/military forces. Keep in mind that even before doomsday thousands of guns were in circulation, supplied from the USSR and USA aligned nations during the cold war, or purchased regularly, and that by doomsday thousands of guns would be in use in the already existing insurgencies.

The CAR is intact yes, but when I said Bangul I was saying they are in direct trade/contact with that city in particular, plus depending on the time period Bangul can be different from CAR.

Democracy wouldn't be hard to manifest. In OTL the people were once a democracy, and had fought for that right from Europe. A socialist dictatorship took over, and was able to be propped up from extensive support from the surrounding foreign nations. In OTL nations like Angola and France were able to intervene. Here there is no support for Socialism, and democracy can catch on pretty fast, especially when there is no real government in existence in the time. The nation starts by default as socialist, but this "government" has no real authority whatsoever, and is just another faction fighting to become the official government. They are only called the government because they start in the city. In OTL they vote too. Mind you turn out must be very low, but voting none the less.

This nation is going to be pretty small, with direct control in only a few pixels. Probably about 90% of its territory will be claimed territory or territory operated by different factions.

With such a low population I was assuming the city of Mbandaka was going to conquer/wreck them later, but that has yet to be decided.

Keep in mind that the only reason I don't keep writing is that the rest of the history requires me to write stuff for other nations. I wanted to get what I have so far approved before I throw more work into a half dozen other pages that need to be addressed before this reaches the modern day. Thanks for the feedback, and I hope this long paragraph answers some of your concerns.

Mscoree (talk) 21:33, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, Batman!

Bangui is never different from the CAR. I repeat, the CAR stayed intact and weak. BTW, it's Bangui, not Bangul. In any case, I can't see a small state being able to pull that kind of voyage. And you're hundreds of miles away from the Ubangi, too, so that's a no.

Mbandaka would have completely fallen. They can't produce enough food to feed that population even nowadays; after DD, it's not possible.

A government that decentralized would have collapsed. You have to understand how many bandits and armed groups there are in the region.

Yes, there are guns; but none of them would be in your area. This area is quite isolated. And has a TINY population. How are you feeding this, anyway?

The Ubangi river is not close enough to Impfondo for refugees to use it, and also, refugees would not be leaving Brazzaville. They would be going towards it. Even if they did leave Brazzaville, and they wouldn't, they'd go to Bangui, which is actually on the Ubangi.

Ms, I repeat; you ask for canon when you are DONE with articles. There's nothing wrong with having 10 proposals; when you actually finish one, it will be made canon. Till then, no.

22:57, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

You make it sound like Impfondo is very far from the river, when in reality it is touching it. If they are going to Bangui (pardon my spelling errors above), then they'd have to literally pass through the city of Impfondo, there is no way around. A good population goes toward them, hence they arrive in Impfondo at some point.

Judging from the page for the CAR, Bangui doesn't equate to the entire region always. And besides, as I said, I was trying to say they have direct contact with that city specifically, not necessarily the whole country. They could surely have that sort of voyage.

In real life the entire existence of Impfondo is pretty much dependent on the route from Bangui to Brazzaville. People make the voyage ever day.

"A government that decentralized would have collapsed", no kidding why do you think I have them collapse many many times. Notice also how they start out not even as a real nation. By the mid 1990s they are more like a city state. There are tons of bandits and different factions, I wrote that dozens of times on the page, and as such the nation resembles more of a feudal/extractive society than a centralized state. The actual government again only controls a few pixels on the map, the important cities and trade routes, while 90% of the land is various warlord territory of sorts, which depend on the capital as an outlet for their products.

The population in OTL is pretty much self sufficient in terms of food, fishing in the rivers heavily and farming in much of the north. Certain plantations are in the hands of gangs which use the crops to fuel their political agenda. The OTL militias that operated in this region still exist, and still have guns, although I'd imagine in short supply in some areas. Hence why the military is in shambles and why there is conflict over those that remain.

As for refugees, there would be heavy conflict in Brazzaville (the Zaire article is kind of lacking at the moment), similar to the conflict here that is portrayed on a smaller scale. There is still the socialist versus democratic struggle, still the many potential dictators, still the conflict from neighboring powers, still the giant population that has to go somewhere, or at least there still should, and so I don't think it's unlikely for refugees at one point or another to go this way.

I mean the second Brazzaville does have a war, causing thousands of deaths, many are going to want to leave. There is also the thousands of starving inhabitants who realize that the city they fled to no longer has much to offer. You can't grow stuff in Brazzaville, after all, and many would flee in pursuit of a food source or political freedom.

In OTL there is a small crisis over thousands of people fleeing into the jungle in search of food, causing massive ecological consequences. This still happens in OTL, and Impfondo is an easily accessible place to do so, only a short trip by river.

Sorry I've having a hard time posting at the moment, and this is probably a disorganized rant, but hopefully it gets the point across. As for making many proposals, I still plan to work on my other pages, but I was a bit inspired here and decided to take a chance.

Mscoree (talk) 23:38, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

Google maps says that it is over 100 km away from the Ubangi. Please, though, give me YOUR source.

Again; people would not go to Impfondo. There are stable elements to the north, and stable elements to the south. Impfondo is in the dead center of "Guns, Germs, and Famine"-land. And that's OTL. ATL, it's 10,000x worse. No one, repeat, no one, is going to Impfondo.

There, uhh, are no OTL militias that were active in 1983 in this area. Certainly nothing with guns. Furthermore, consider that apart from the AK-47 and the AK-74, any guns in the region didn't make it past the 90s.

Actually, Brazzaville can feed itself mighty fine. Unlike, say, Impfondo, it is NOT in the middle of a jungle.

I do need to flesh out Zaire. But what is there is canon, and common sense on top of that states that Brazzaville would have made it through pretty well. Military center, capable of feeding itself, not particularly reliant on food aid. Impfondo is exactly the opposite.

(More to come)

21:15, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know Google Maps labels aren't exactly accurate, especially not in this area. Look at a labelled map of the region, or maybe Impfondo or the river on Wikipedia, it's pretty obvious (the country as a whole there is only slightly over 200 km across anyway, if what you said is true Impfondo would be in the middle of the country. Not to mention it clearly says on Brazzaville's Wikipedia page how important the river connection to Impfondo is; "The city is also an important river port, with ferries sailing to Kinshasa and to Bangui via Impfondo.").

As for Brazzaville, they can't feed themselves exactly, especially not with one third the total population and forty percent of the nation's non agricultural jobs. Brazzaville would most certainly require agriculture in Pool or other regions, like real life. Saying the Brazzaville department itself is self sufficient is ridiculous.

In the same way, Impfondo isn't self sufficient either. Both are urban areas. It requires hundreds of square miles of farmland and forest across the north. Brazzaville also relies on foreign and domestic imports along the Ubangi river, among others.

Again guns native to Impfondo would be scarce. Considering that across the country as a whole there are a ton of Soviet equipment and guns, it would not be hard for some weapons to be acquired.

What's going to happen when a rival faction in Brazzaville is overthrown? They're not going to sit around in the 100 square km territory that is Brazzaville Department, they'd flee, and probably along the only form of transportation available; the Ubangi river. Plenty of guns to be bought, or brought in by hostile people.

I don't believe "Brazzaville would have made it through pretty well" is common sense at all. In fact that's somewhat counter to common sense. Just going off OTL that region is home to massive conflict. The city is a common and frequent staging ground for wars, including struggles between the government and rebel forces. In real life during this time the city was home to thousands of civilian deaths from violence and several hundred thousand refugees fleeing north or out of the country. Saying that the region has massive conflict for years and years before doomsday and then magically stops before becoming "pretty well" isn't really a fair assessment of what the region would plausibly be like in real life. If the city is home to constant struggles for power before doomsday, imagine what it would be like with resources even scarcer in a post apocalyptic world.

Mscoree (talk) 21:35, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

False. Impfondo is not near enough to the Ubangi for any mass scale move towards it.

Not that it matters, since as I've said 4 times, The refugees would NOT BE GOING TO IMPFONDO.

The difference between Brazzaville and Impfondo is that Brazzaville is surrounded by fertile land and Impfondo is surrounded by non-arable jungle. Slash-and-burn farming is a failure.

Brazzaville would experience a population drop of around 20%. Impfondo would experience one nearly of 90%, because it CANNOT FEED EVEN A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF IT'S POPULATION.

None of those guns would be near enough to Impfondo to get there. The nearest place to procur weapons is in the CAR- but anyone who goes there has NO REASON TO COME BACK. Refugees are fleeing away from Impfondo, not towards it.

You do know Brazzaville remained a democracy? It lost control over 5/6 of it's land, but what remained survived pretty well. In 2007 it merged to become Zaire.

Oh, and the 2/3 of Congo's population living in the non-coastal areas beyond Brazzaville's reach? They fled or they died, because there is no food for $#!% out there.

Apart from 1997, the RoC had a fairly stable, if communist, government for a poor African nation. THere was a bit of upset in 1977, but that was resolved fast.

Nothing "magical" happened. If you read a few articles of 83DD, maybe you'd realize this.

Of course there was some unrest. Zaire formed because Kongo got too expansionist, and they had a little war. But there was nothing in the area that would cause people to flee from a region that had food into one that didn't. Think, Ms. To the south is Angola, which is in 3-4 nations and is the definition of "fustercluck". To the East is the DRC, which was probably the worst hit state on Earth that did not take a direct nuclear missile strike. To the west is the sea. No doubt the coastal towns survived quite well.

And to the north there's nothing but jungle and starvation. In the other three, you'd have a shot at survival. Not there. All this has been reasoned before. All this is already Canon.

Impfondo needs to be a lot smaller, a lot more complete, and a lot more plausible before it has a shot at gradding.

I personally recommend focusing on a single article, if you want to get something graduated, rather than this flip-flopping between them.

02:30, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Every time I try to work on a single article people try to tell me that my state isn't even on a river, and that I am being vaguely offensive for not putting Animism haha. But seriously, If Impfondo was any closer to the Ubangi River it would be underwater. Looking at a map of sustainable development in Africa it appears that areas around the Ubangi and Congo are poor locations for farming, but the north and west (which are in this nation) are on par with the south or better, meaning that overall Impfondo has nearly as much potential farmland as your nation of Zaire would, and with much less people to feed anyway. Looking at your map it appears most of the OTL farmland is in the nation of Cabinda, while Zaire hardly has much. The region that includes Impfondo also is expected to experience a twenty five percent  increase (one of the largest in Africa) in cereal production moving into the future. The region is also regarded as a highly suitable location for small-scale farming and fish yield. Most of the farming in Impfondo would be rudimentary, but considering that in OTL this region produces a great deal of agricultural products, being a large exporter of palm oil for example, it isn't impossible to have farms. Also it's really not that hard for them to acquire guns, but fine, let them fight with spears if they have to. In fact I very rarely discuss guns in the article as it is. "You do know Brazzaville remained a democracy?", as in became one? It doesn't start one in 1983. I'm not saying the Republic of the Congo was as bad as say its neighbor to the east, but at the same time they weren't modern Switzerland. Here's a brief rundown.
 * 1960 - Fulbert Youlou presidency.
 * 1963 - Uprising and coup.
 * 1963 - Massamba-Débat makes new constitution, adopts "scientific socialism".
 * 1965 - Relations with USSR and other Communist nations.
 * 1968 - Coup.
 * 1969 - Marien Ngouabi proclaims People's Republic of the Congo.
 * 1977 - Marien Ngouabi is assassinated.
 * 1977 - Interim government under Joachim Yhombi-Opango.
 * 1979 - President forced from power and replaced by Denis Sassou Nguesso.
 * 1991 - People's Republic removed. Prime minister appointed.
 * 1992 - First actual election. Pascal Lissouba presidency.
 * 1997 - Civil War. Sassou Nguesso declares himself president again.
 * 1999 - Civil war and foreign invasion finally ends, with great damage to nation.
 * 2002 - Unfair election keeps Sassou Nguesso in power.

As you can see they are a "democracy", if that means taking over the nation through violence, becoming president despite elections, and otherwise being a minor dictator. Good to see Zaire is a democracy somehow.

If I read a few 1983 articles that wouldn't really get me anywhere, since most in the region are stubs that basically consist of "1983: Total economic and political collapse. Late 2000s: Is democracy and everything is pretty good".

"Zaire formed because Kongo got too expansionist, and they had a little war". That's pretty much an exact equivalent to the OTL civil war's foreign invaders, who in OTL killed and displaced thousands, and created many refugees heading for the north of the country or out of the nation (overseas). Mscoree (talk) 11:06, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not having this debate with you. If you want, put those articles up for review, otherwise, treat them as canon and change this.

Regardless you still WOULD NOT HAVE REFUGEES GOING TO THE NORTH. That's the ONE REGION WHERE THEY CANNOT FEED THEMSELVES. Your state needs to be smaller in effect. And your loose groupings of warlords? No. This city should control maybe a few farms outside Impfondo; given that the population OTL is around 40,000, my guess is that after the famines and suchlike, you shouldn't even be in the tens of thousands.

Ms, the RoC was a democracy; that is to say, it had elections. Sure, said elections may have been rigged, but many were not. And if you will note, I did mention that "apart from the tussle in 1977", the RoC had been farily peaceful before then.

Having relations with the USSR and other communist states, or adopting socialism, is not a sign that a nation is not a democracy. The largest democracy on the planet spent most of the Cold War siding with the USSR against America.

Impfondo's farming? Please. If you did any in depth research, you would realize how much of that came as a result of foriegn aid and development over recent times. You have, at best, some rudimentary farming. The only reason the state itself could exist is because you have a tiny population. Everyone here would have fled to the CAR, to Brazzaville, and the few who remained would mostly have died. A 90% population drop rate is accurate.

Zaire, in contrast, as you said, is not in the perfect place for farming, but it was in a better one than Impfondo at the time, with more modern equipment, and, as an army base, a MUCH MORE STABLE STATE. Furthermore, it's in a great place for exploting the low-land in the area. It may not be extremely arable, but at least it isn't a JUNGLE!

You don't mention them fighting with guns. If you really think they could have fought all of that with spears, you've got a sharp learning curve ahead of you. Those wars are way too big. Eliminate them.

May I suggest, again, that you try and finish one article before moving on to the next?

14:13, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

"the RoC was a democracy; that is to say, it had elections". But that's wrong, it didn't have elections. It didn't have a single election as a socialist nation. In fact there have only been four elections in the nation's entire history, with only one occurring before doomsday.

As for farming, I recommend you do some research yourself. The region grows 1500 tons of cocoa annually, which is actually lower than usual due to the sporadic market and the collapse of one of the region's largest companies. They have the potential to grow that much of cocoa alone, and given that there's no longer foreign markets like France, I doubt they would need to grow cash crops as heavily. Let's say hypothetically these fields began to grow wheat, as an example. Some quick math tells us that they grow 3306933.93 pounds of cocoa, which is 52910942.9 ounces. Let's average the weight of a cup of flour at five ounces. This means that they grow about 10582188.6 cups of floor. If each person received a subsistence diet of 1,200 calories a day, roughly three cups of flour at 400 calories each, they could feed 3,527,396.2 people from that yield alone. Not to mention I didn't even factor in the crops that the region already grows. Much of this region is actually self sufficient, with the only imports really coming from the Ubangi River. Make up your mind Guns, you said above they aren't near the river, which is it? Do they grow their own food or do they use the river? Because you seem to be saying they don't grow their own food but also aren't on the river. As said in the article, the region also grows manioc, banana, taros, and many more, mostly in the traditional sense. In ATL however you have large scale plantations no longer growing cash crops, from which most of these gangs derive their power. They pay for and support the large scale production of crops, taking the place of the former giant corporations that in OTL exploited this region for huge exports of cash crops. The problem with growing food in Zaire is that there is little to no potential for crop growth. Again most of good farmland that the city relies on in OTL is controlled by Cabinda.

About weapons, there are approximately 100,000 privately owned guns in the Republic of the Congo. There are an estimated 34,0003 to 73,500 unlawfully held guns that are in existence here. Meanwhile there is another reported 96,900 guns in the hands of defense forces, and 5,808 firearms in use by police. In real life there are also gun manufacturers in the Republic of the Congo. At the modern day they are only required to have a valid license. Manufacturing is small yes, but there is still an annual US$141,489 worth of guns exported from the Republic of the Congo, as estimated by Customs. There is another US$403,796 worth of imports. There is also smuggling and illegal transportation of firearms into the country, which is estimated by authorities to be moderate and substantial. Meanwhile you have the Democratic Republic of the Congo just to the east, which has an estimated 300,000 to 800,000 privately owned guns, 123,120 reported in defense forces, and 81,004 held by police. They have a similar manufacturing policy, and many also make homemade guns. I'd imagine the homemade firearm industry in both countries would heavily increase, the demand at least would. In OTL it is rated to be moderate. The Democratic Republic of the Congo also has a small amount of imports and exports, and a heavy amount of smuggling. Illegal transportation here is estimated to be very high. With some major cities on the Congo bordering the boundaries of Impfondo, and with the Ubangi River being a transportation system for firearms, it's really not that hard to imagine some guns in Impfondo's possession.

Try to finish one article, you say? What do you think I'm doing? Mscoree (talk) 15:05, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Very informative read guys. I don't really want to get involved, but out of curiosity, what is that largest democratic state that you speak of, Guns? Fritzmet (talk) 15:20, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

That awkward moment when Guns proceeds to change and expand Zaire based on my input. Need to read it, but looks like a good addition. At Fritzmet, I am unsure what he meant. Mscoree (talk) 16:06, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

You really didn't read it, did you?

Most of that was based of discussions on the talkpage. Ben, Mitro, LG, and myself all contributed. In 2012. I may take a long time to get around to things, but, uhh, yeah. I get them done.

Ms, I mean those 20 other proposals you've dropped.

One moment while I work up the energy to read that wall of text.

16:12, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Let me know when you get around to reading that. Also about the refugees, that word only appears on the page once, no need to make a big deal about it. I mean even if Zaire is truly amazing and very few people flee (although again I'd imagine some would during/after any large wars. Some.), there would still be some people who arrive in Impfondo, even if as a stopping point to get somewhere else. More importantly though, and this is mostly what I meant when I used that word, is that people who lived in the middle of nowhere, who were reliant on the city or its industry, would be sworming the place. The thousands of unemployed, would be fleeing there, searching for work, for answers, for food. If it really makes you mad maybe I can remove it, but it's literally just one word. You make it sound like I am implying that 100% of Brazzaville's population fled to Impfondo, when in reality I mean perhaps a few thousand, almost entirely from the northern areas, some on their way to places south. Mscoree (talk) 19:57, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

"Over the next few months cities such as Impfondo became overrun with refugees and traveling settlers from the southern Congo traveling north down the Ubangi River. An influx of settlers led to a housing crisis, leading to the birth of slums and poor quality of life housing around the banks of the river. Settlers also brought crime and conflict, carrying over gang violence from the south, escalating the struggle for power in the city and the efforts to control the few means of transportation or manufacturing in the city."

A) My complaint is with the mention of refugees at all.

B) That's a lot more than "one word". That whole thing is ridiculous. People flee from cities into the countryside, not the other way around. The countryside would have some meagre farms, at least, whiale the city starved; then when the city denizens fled to the countryside, that food gets used up too, widening the refugee crisis. Farms produce food; cities do not. People from the area would leave and either go south to Brazzaville and Kinshasa or north to Bangui.

C) Oh, and also, your page isn't finished. I think I mentioned that.

D) Last thing; your timeline moves too fast in the early stages; "After only a few months without national support, the city of Impfondo was already divided among rival gangs and local warlords who sought to establish a dictatorship under their own rule. Violence within the city increased heavily, with the government struggling to control large portions of the region. Eventually many in the city began to view the government as another major gang, rather than an organized government, lowering its legitimacy as a proper government."

Even in the worst of cases, that should take 2-3 years. Look at Libya; that's how long it should take before the situation reaches this level, slightly over 2 years.

Seriously, though, your history would make the CinemaSins guy insanely busy. You have a government set up, a fall into anarchy, and a popular revolt in LESS THAN A YEAR.

Actually, you can solve both C) and D) with a single move; lengthen out the time periods, and you'll add some 10 years.

Then fill in the last two little sections, add something about it's military, it's economy, it's politics, fill out that damn infobox, and you'll have a decent article.

23:28, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you should add cassava under the agriculture section.

Also, you should tone down the agriculture section.

You should make it clearer that this is a small state. You could do that by using your infobox.

That is nationinfo, right? Not your little flight of fancy? Because elsewise that should be changed too.

23:38, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people here need to arrive in Impfondo in order to flee into the countryside. Plus at first some might view the city as a place where food could be distributed. Remember that Impfondo is the loading dock for the hundreds of tons of crops that are shipped the Brazzaville on route to foreign markets. The city itself, at least at first is also a stronghold fo the pre-doomsday government, meaning some citizens might trust for the government to provide or at least handle the situation.

About point "D", remember that this "government", I refer to is basically the remnants of the People's Republic of the Congo. It is in no way a government, hell it is practially a small militant gang that uses that term as its gang name. The first government/governing body isn't officially established until 1987. You said above it should take at least two to three years, so there you go, it took four.

That time frame for the revolts and what not closely follow the OTL time frame. There is government, anarchy, revolt, all in one year, because that's how the region has been prone to act, and because each is a direct consequence of the other. I say many times that there are militant groups and stuff like that, but keep in mind this is really small at times. They establish a government and then a rival faction springs up, sure, but for all you know that rival faction might be eight farmers in the outskirts of the city. Also keep in mind that things move a bit faster because the nation is so small. This nation is essentially the size of a single operation in Libya, so eventhing is scaled down accordingly.

About finishing the page, I think I clearly mentioned as well that I purposely didn't post or write the parts to the modern day because the nation's later history is somewhat dependent on other pages that need to be written. I wanted to get one page canon/semi finished before I make ten other proposals just to finish it, in case I do something horribly wrong. I mean if you really want me to I can just make a paragraph at the end that skips all the way to the present, like Zaire before you updated it, but I don't know if that really helps at all.

I'm definately going to add more sections soon. As for the infobox it has the most important information. I even made a flag and coat of arms. Mscoree (talk) 23:56, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap, Ms, I have to say, and I'm not trying to be insulting here, but you've got to be joking. The people fleeing into the countryside near Impfondo are ONLY THE PEOPLE LIVING IN IMPFONDO. People living in other cities will flee into the countryside near their own cities. If you don't know how migrations work during a famine, I suggest you look it up before you respond. Also, again, the RoC, at the time, produced most of its food in the south, not the north. Same thing for Zaire. But, of course, that wouldn't matter, since almost nothing grown in the region is harvested in September; most of it is done either in summer or later in the winter. Finally, as I think I've repeated, unlike Brazzaville, Impfondo was not a major military base. The local FLO would have been overwhelmed immediately as the food began to run out and the rioting started.

This gang is part of what used to be the government, right? That is, former government officials? (Because otherwise I call dingo.)

In that case, they would still maintain the most trust. As the food began to run out, in a few months, they would lose power. So far, so good.

But that fails to explain this paragraph: "The nation had a single party system, which although claiming to be designed after a Soviet-style socialist party-state government, was essentially a military dictatorship, in which the party retained order through the use of armed force. As the months after doomsday progressed, the nation of Impfondo became even more so under a military regime, with the party using force to control parts of the city."

First off, it should be more clear that those are paramilitary forces. Second, that's clearly a government body, not a "gang". Sure, it's a brutal military dictatorship, but if it has that much control over it's populace, thats transcended the term "gang".

Then you say "After only a few months without national support, the city of Impfondo was already divided among rival gangs and local warlords who sought to establish a dictatorship under their own rule. Violence within the city increased heavily, with the government struggling to control large portions of the region. Eventually many in the city began to view the government as another major gang, rather than an organized government, lowering its legitimacy as a proper government."

Let's pick that apart, shall we? There is literally no government on Earth that has ever managed to piss off THAT much of their populace in JUST A FEW MONTHS. They could have randomly beat people in the streets! This is ESPECIALLY more true because of the safety point of view. Regardless of Benjamin Franklin's views, people generally choose safety over liberty. In times of safety, they will demand liberty; when the whole world has gone to hell, raiders roam the countryside and the nation has collapsed, they will drop said liberty like an anvil.
 * 1) After stating that the government has used military force to gain firm control of the city, you then completely backtrack and claim that the government doesn't control the city.
 * 2) You do note a food shortage later on but completely ignore the absolutely devastating effect this would have on the city. In fact, you make the food shortage worse than it would need to be, to the point where either that section needs to be removed or this needs to be a "former" nation, ie it has since collapsed.
 * 3) The city should be ok for quite some time without national support. Sure, there would be riots, but since there is a clear, strong government (and your food shortage comes later) you should be good for more than just a "few months".
 * 4) Where, exactly, are these rival gangs springing from, and I repeat, how are they getting enough weapons to fight a bloody gang war? Assuming those paramilitary forces are armed (which, by the way, is not always so), since the government maintains such a tight grip on them, why isn't the government curbstomping these little upstarts so early on? Sure, after a few years, the leakage would be significant, and traders from places like the CAR and Brazzaville might have arrived, but you claim this all happened in a few months, which means the paramilitary forces must have switched sides- but in the preceding paragraph you claim the government has control of those forces! So in a period of a couple of months they completely lost control of their military? Uhh- no.

So if you call it more than a few months- say, early 1985- when the war starts, and remove those contradictory paragraphs, you should be good there.

"About finishing the page, I think I clearly mentioned as well that I purposely didn't post or write the parts to the modern day because the nation's later history is somewhat dependent on other pages that need to be written. I wanted to get one page canon/semi finished before I make ten other proposals just to finish it, in case I do something horribly wrong. I mean if you really want me to I can just make a paragraph at the end that skips all the way to the present, like Zaire before you updated it, but I don't know if that really helps at all. "

That literally makes no sense. There is no reason you can't write that history here and then elaborate on it elsewhere- in fact, that's what you should do.

This page won't become canon until at least it's history is done. Zaire became a stub because it didn't violate canon and the author left the wiki. Then I took it over, wrote most of what is currently there (almost all of it, actually). This page violates canon AND plausibility. If you were to fix those and then leave the wiki, it would probably get adopted by someone else and then get stubgradded till they finish it. Actually, it would probably get adopted by me, lol.

Lastly, your infobox is not even kinda complete. No map, for instance. It can be gradded without one (though not till you conform with the NationInfo standard), but don't claim it is even remotely complete. Did I mention the NationInfo standard? We've mentioned this before, Ms. NationBox can be used on your own TL, but on DD we have higher standards, ie NATIONINFO.

Oh, and 90,000? WAY too high. I'd say 30-35,000 is that absolute upper mark. Most likely less.

21:48, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't know where you got that rubbish about this area being some "agricultural heartland".

''"Likouala is almost covered with dense and often flooded forests of lakes and very full of fish ponds. Its ground is argillaceous and sandy by places. The north of the department belongs to the mountainous Massif Oubanguien... The principal food crops are the manioc, the banana, the taros; as well as products of gathering. One also produces the coffee, the cocoa and the palm oil. The crop year of last year yielded 1500 tons of cocoa. This production is falling because of the irregularity of the marketing of the products and the closing of the principal company which ensured the marketing of the cocoa in the department, Congo Otto-Export...  Geographic insulation is a handicap. Transport is very limited; the river port and the airport are the only access routes." ''

That's from wikipedia, but a quick websearch quickly confirms all of that information.

Damn, maybe 30,000 was high.

Remember, this controls only around maybe half the Impfondo district and a fourth of the Epena district, tops. The CAR has taken over the Dongou district. So off the bat there's only maybe 300,000 people living here OTL. Combine that with this new information, and I'm actually going to go ahead and say that this state is completely implausible.

That's especially true when you consider that a significant amount of the crops grown are NOT edible. In fact, the World Bank has noted that the oil industry in the north has actually caused food crops there to be neglected, meaning that even though the south grows enough food crops for a surplus THERE (that's in addition to the oil, cocoa, and coffee), they STILL have to import food for the north!

The INCEF also has said that in the Likouala district, logging and growing palm oil and other cash crops are the only viable way to get food because short of massive poaching and hunting, the region doesn't have enough food to support itself.

Well, you say, what if they do poach and hunt?

Simple answer; after the crops run out, everyone goes hunting at once. The result is a massive extinction in that area, a veritable ecological catastrophe, resulting in deforestation- oh, and everyone's starvation.

Well, Ms, this changes EVERYTHING. I'm sorry, but I see no way for anything to survive in this area. In this area, the population cannot grow enough food to support itself. In the modern day, yes, because A) they have modern tools and B) they have cash crops they can sell to buy food and make a profit. But ATL, they A) don't have any modern tools and B) they HAVE to grow agricultural crops because they can't sell cash crops to anyone, but C) they can't support themselves in the region with agricultural crops.

Any objections to obso?

Any other opinions from my fellow DD writers? Feddy, Impo, LG, others, if I'm wrong, point it out, if I'm not, back me up.

22:16, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

As you said there is no major military base. It is safe to say then that the military is weak. There is a faction that is weak, spread out, divided, called the "government" (mostly be themselves), that is essentially ex-government/military Republic of the Congo personnel. This gang has its "turf", just like any other. Let's estimate that this gang runs thirty percent of the city or so very closely, basically the area around important stuff. The rest is either run by rival gangs, aligned gangs, or generally lawless/contested. This gang, the government, in its thirty percent, uses some harsh tactics to control its turf, hence the "military dictatorship, in which the party retained order through the use of armed force". Gangs have hierarchy and ranks, and this particular gang claims to use a Soviet-style socialist party-state government, although is again mostly a dictatorship, and can't really do much considering they aren't a "nation" yet. They claim, key word is claim, to control a nation, one that is the successor to the Republic of the Congo, but has little to no control (like how in the beginning of the War of the Five Kings in Game of Thrones there are many rival houses, with the head one; Baratheon, controlling little of the nation. Or how North Korea and China both claim to be the only Korea and China, respectively.) "with the party using force to control parts of the city", the key word is parts. They don't even control the entire city, hence the status as a gang. "that's clearly a government body", as I said they are a gang with hierarchy and leadership, like any other. The next paragraph you pasted about the city being divided is reiterating this point. Certain groups, like the "government" control certain parts of the city, and of the future nation.

I'm not backtracking, maybe I didn't make it clear when I said parts and should to add more about that, but at the start no real government or gang controls the entire city, let alone the nation. I'm not sure what you mean about food shortages, I mean you said I ignored it, but then you said I overstated it. Which is it? Also all that was way before the nation, and was mainly because of inefficient distribution and general corruption from poor or lack of leadership, not an actual lack of food, or potential food, production. Where are these gangs springing from? Well when the actual government, ie the Republic of the Congo, collapsed the city was left to its own devices. The remnants of the military/government eventually formed into this ruling gang, whereas other parts of the military, or the general citizenry, organized into others. Rich people who controlled the fields, the towns, ie already existing gangs (don't tell me there isn't crime in the Congo), and the weapons became their own factions, equally as equip to become the legitimate "government", at least in theory. The primary faction cannot curb stomp the start ups because they can barely control themselves. There is no uniform leadership, so when the military collapsed it went every which way, with the majority of it eventually making up this government, but they were still weak, especially since they only control a small portion of the overall resources, like food. "There is literally no government-" let me stop you right there. There is literally no government. Basically the area is somewhat lawless until 1987. The only "law" is organized crime's law. The people with the guns, or the food, or the water, calling the shots, with no one gang really getting an advantage until 1987; the Democratic faction, which is explained in the article. Has more to do with the main gang in control of the important urban stuff already collapsing, and the Democrats controlling or allying with the sparsely populated but agricultural areas, than successfully beating them in combat. Basically the Democrats fight a Vietnam War-style conflict, only replace the United States with a group of a few hundred or thousand Congolese soldiers.

About finishing the page, I think you misunderstood what I said. You want me to develop the history of the page until 2014, but I'm trying to tell you the late 1990s and 2000s will basically be focused on foreign influence. It's like asking me to write the history of the United States in the 1940s, but World War 2isn't canon, or any of the nations. Sure I can write it on the page, but in order to actually figure out the ideas and what is going to happen, I need to flesh out some others. I'd rather finish the history of Impfondo as an independent state and get that approved, than write the history of Impfondo as an independent state plus unorganized snippets of several other potential nations. At the very least what I'm saying is I'd like Impfondo to be checked for errors (like what we're doing right now) and make a sort of foundation, than come on here and create an even more convoluted page. One thing at a time essentially. And when I say checked I mostly mean a "yeah that is all good so far". Back to my earlier analogy, I can't write World War 2 (on the page or otherwise) if the history of the United States in general is contested, that would just be a waste of time and could be completely misdirected.

Can you link me to this rule about NationInfo? I seem to be able to find a bunch of 1983 pages that use other templates instead. By higher standards you mean some use NationInfo, some use others identical to mine? Looks like mine would be fine then. Doesn't really seem like it is required at all, judging from all these non-NationInfo canons, nor does the word standard even mean required.

You just edit conflicted me, so I will now post what I was going to see and then read your additions. Mscoree (talk) 22:38, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

You literally just copy and pasted the thing I was quoting from WIkipedia to you. I never once said or claimed they were an agricultural heartland, I was just presenting the facts. So now apparently the CAR has invaded (thanks Guns for that addition), but there is still a lot of farmland. As for why they would invade the couple thousand people by traversing through a jungle, at heavy cost to them, but okay then. As you just said edible crops are neglected because of the demand for cash crops. As I've now said several times, they no longer grow cash crops (as much). Nations like France no longer exist, ie no one to buy cash crops or oil on the large scale. Food is now the new cash crop, the thing tha tpeople the need, the thing the gangs literally need to survive and therefore prop up. As you just said (and what I said several paragraphs ago) they grow 1500 tons of cocoa a year, which considered low, and of cocoa alone, let alone other crops. Again for the second time if that was wheat instead of cocoa they could support about 3,500,000 people on a subsistence diet. There are also dozens of crops, hunting, fishing etc.

Also that 90,000 people thing is kind of a placeholder, since certain people are pushing me to finish the infobox. Just so you know in OTL the area I am including has a population of almost 1.5 million people...You said I needed to kill of a good percentage of the population. Is 99.4% not high enough for you? Mscoree (talk) 22:46, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

You quoted NOTHING from the INCEF and the World Bank, both of which have stated that the region doesn't have the land to GROW sufficient agricultural crops to feed the populace, AS I SAID. Wheat != Cocoa.

I'll thank you to do some god damn research. The CAR never "invaded"- when it put itself back together, it included land from the surrounding nations, something, BTW, that was mentioned by the person who first wrote that article, years before you joined! Not me! If you must be insulting, don't be stupid about it.

They have no CHOICE but to grow cash crops, as I stated, backed up by the world bank and the INCEF.

You claimed that "Looking at a map of sustainable development in Africa it appears that areas around the Ubangi and Congo are poor locations for farming, but the north and west (which are in this nation) are on par with the south or better, meaning that overall Impfondo has nearly as much potential farmland as your nation of Zaire would" but that is PATENTLY false, as I have proved.

No, they can't, because it is hard to grow crops like wheat in this reason, hence the reason why they DO NOT.

The few crops they grow that actually are edible, like manioc, cannot be grown in sufficient quantities to feed the whole region.

I'm taking it that you just skimmed my post, because I refuted everything you said there itself.

Ms, this is NOT plausible. Face facts; first off, your system of warlords and etc wouldn't work, because those warlords would just declare independence and rule tiny farm towns which they can control and which might, just barely, be able to support themselves. Why also support a city?

Your wars are ridiculous given that apart from a few poorly armed paramilitary forces there would be no weapons in the region.

Your nation cannot support 90,000 people.

You use OTL modern day statistics, but you make three crucial mistakes; Not. Plausible.
 * 1) First off, different crops grow in different ways. You can grow more palm oil than you can manioc, taro, or cassava in the region.
 * 2) Second, you forget that those modern day statistics- where, BTW, the area is actually a fairly MINOR agricultural land, even OTL- include A) development aid and B) modern day tools, neither of which you have. If they region can't support itself entirely with MODERN tools, what do you think they'll do with medieval ones?
 * 3) Lastly, you forget that all the people would have starved to death in the first year or so. DD happened a couple of months after the harvest season for the three big agricultural crops. As a result, what food the city now has needs to be imported- but on DD those imports stop, so the denizens of Impfondo are forced to flee into the countryside, where there is food- but not enough to sustain all of them. The city-dwellers eat all the harvest, all the saved food, the seeds, and all the pre-mature crops, meaning that NOT ONLY WILL THE CURRENT STORES BE DEPLETED BUT THEY CANNOT BE REPLENISHED!

Ms, FFS, when you have so many other bloody articles that are almost canon, why the **** can't you focus on them instead of going after an article that is patently implausible and also, in it's current form, defies canon?

The only way I can see this work is if you abandon the nation thing and instead decide it's some sort of small collective of villages, ruled by said gangs. You'd be able to keep most of your immediately-after-DD history, and it'd make sense. Max population might be 2000-3000. Very, very small, probably only in the Impfondo district.

Otherwise, this deserves Obso.

23:04, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

Oh and as for your "placeholder"... even if we ignore the fact that your state is implausible in and of itself, based on canon and the plausible size your state could have expanded too, AS I SAID, the territory OTL has approximately 300-400,000 people. This is not the entire Likoula Department, this is parts of the Epena and Impfondo districts. Let's not be misleading.

Furthermore, that 90% figure was based on the information you gave me about the agriculture of the reason. Since that was patently false (I'm assuming you don't claim to be more of an expert on farming in the Republic of the Congo than the World Bank and the INCEF?), I'd say 99.4% is actually a bit too high. 95% is better.

Only it should be 95% of 300,000, not of 1.5 million; around 15000.

MATH!- presented by  23:18, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think we've both gotten a little bit too angry over this. Since it's at this point your sources against mine, I see two ways we can go from here- either we can continue this argument, at which point we'll both get more and more offensive, disrupting the whole TL, and probably getting us both banned, or we can invite in others to mediate.

I have left messages on many of the prominent DD members who have been active over the past few months. Not all, but many.

I estimate that at least 4-5 of them will show up and leave messages here. Based on what they say, we'll see.

00:12, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

Don't even talk about mathematics considering those series of equations I did above. Anyway, here is a quick summary of my argument:

An Explanation of Food Production in the Republic of Imfondo

I believe that the Republic of Impfondo has the potential and ability to grow a significant amount of agricultural products, capable of feeding a moderate population. This is based on both OTL statistics from the Republic of the Congo's history and the modern day, as well as information on the region's geographic, ecological, and economic situation in the African continent.

Firstly let's talk briefly about the necessary steps that the modern day Republic of the Congo takes to feed its population. The nation has a 2014 population of about 4,662,466 people 1, making it the 125th most populous nation, at a density of about 12.8 people per kilometers squared. The Republic of the Congo imports a number of products from foreign nations, the largest being the nation of France at 19.2% of imports. Primarily the nation imports capital equipment, construction materials, and foodstuffs. One of the main reasons for importation of food in the modern day is the diversification of food, the consumer's ability to purchase readily available foreign foods unavailable locally. This also is beneficial to the locals, in that it overall tends to improve nutrition as well as add market value. The United States also heavily imports food, according for about 5.4% of the nation's modern imports, for consumer consumption and use as feed.

During the Cold War until the modern day the Republic of the Congo was one of many nations whose economy is largely dependent on foreign exports, with nations setting up extractive businesses for the purpose of exporting goods locally grown or collected in the Congo to foreign nations, such as France and the United States. Foreign industry since 1960, when the Republic of the Congo officially achieved independence, have accounted for a large portion of the nation's economy and industrial sector. At the time of doomsday, the nation was a self declared socialist nation, meaning large portions of the nation's industry was owned or operated by the government. It is also important to note that during this time the nation had little aid from the international organizations, albeit aid from Cold War powers, For on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund provided economic support following economic programs put in place by Sassou Nguesso, who took power following the fall of the People's Republic in 1991. So the first real instances of large scale aid did not heavily begin until far after doomsday, and was again halted in 1997, with the outbreak of civil war. Upon Nguesso's return to power further cooperation with international financial institutions was established, again after the point of divergence. Please note that I do not claim to be a better source than the INCEF or the World Bank, but at the same time you cannot claim that I rely too much on modern day statistics and then quote an international organization's modern day assessment, one who had no influence in the region at the time of the point of divergence.

In OTL the nation has a very large petroleum industry, which since the 1980s has been heavily developed and supported by the government. Also heavily developed by the national government, alongside and in partnership with foreign businesses, is the growth of cash crops, such as cocoa and coffee. Every year thousands of tons of agricultural products are exported from the nation for the purpose of generating profit for foreign or major corporations. The Likouala Region, which this hypothetical nation includes, grows about 1500 tons of cocoa annually. This is only in this one region, about 66,044 km2 in size, and not including any other agricultural products.

As I said above, let's say hypothetically these fields began to grow wheat, as an example. Some quick math tells us that they grow 3306933.93 pounds of cocoa, which is 52910942.9 ounces. Let's average the weight of a cup of flour at five ounces. This means that they grow about 10582188.6 cups of floor. If each person received a subsistence diet of 1,200 calories a day, roughly three cups of flour at 400 calories each, they could feed 3,527,396.2 people from that yield alone. It is also important to note that this region is very capable of growing wheat, as an example, but also grows rice, maize, peanuts, and vegetables heavily, to the point where all these noted crops are heavy exports. Rice for one has a caloric value as high as wheat.

Let's talk briefly on wheat. It is reported by many articles 2 that production of wheat in sub-Saharan Africa has only reached about twenty five percent of its potential, meaning that wheat, or any major grain capable of being grown in the region really, is heavily profitable and productive. As the non-profit International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center stated, "Sub-Saharan Africa has extensive areas of land that are suitable for profitably producing wheat under rain-fed conditions". During the period of time from 2006 to 2008 about six million metric tons of wheat a year were produced in sub-Saharan Africa, originating from twelve nations. In October of 2012 agricultural experts met in Addis Abada to discuss a potential future of sub-Saharan Africa as a major wheat producer. 3 It should also be noted that one of the reasons why wheat is not as prolific in the region is because of the the lowering of international prices and the rise of food aid, which all did not begin until the 1980s, meaning that wheat production would also not be as low as it would become without doomsday. Again one of the main reason's why the region is produces low amounts of wheat is not because it is unable to, but because it has no need to, not with cheap imports from North America and Europe making the market unstable. As one expert, Hans Joachim Braun, stated about Nigeria, a nearby nation, “The minister of agriculture has declared that Nigeria would like to be self-sufficient for wheat production within the next six to eight years. And Nigeria is the biggest wheat importer in sub-Saharan Africa. And historically, Nigeria was producing wheat in the 60s and 70s, but then this industry was basically killed when the very cheap and subsidized wheat was made available and exported to Africa."

Wheat is a cereal grain, and one of many crops. According to most projections 4, the Republic of the Congo is not only a prime region for the production of cereal grain like wheat, but is also expected to increased heavily over the next few decades. Take a look next at this projection from 1996, showing potential land in the African continent aroudn this time. As you can see most of the eastern sections of this nation have very low potential to grow crops. This is mainly because this region is more urbanized, and this region would probably be the most depopulated. The population that would remain would be dependent on hunting and fishing instead. Fishing in OTL is already a large industry, supporting thousands along the Ubangi River and other bodies of water. The Western sections of the nation however have medium land potential, about as much so as the nation of Zaire. This means that overall, although spread out and primarily in the west, the nation has the potential to grow crops on the same scale as Zaire. Looking at more modern projections 6 we see that aside for the wetlands the north is dominated by large portions of forests and/or potential farmland. Although not ideal for future expansion of farmland without greater amounts of effort, this area can be converted to potential farmland if needed.

Let's talk next about the OTL farmland already in existence. Putting aside the already existing farmland producing products like cocoa, which again could feed over 3.5 million people if it was wheat or rice, or any other number of crop native to the area, and putting aside hundreds of tons of other cash crops produced in the region, the region still products a large amount of food. Aside from an airport, which is a modern addition, the city of Impfondo itself is only connected to Brazzaville by the Ubangi River. Overall the north has a modern population of about 1,500,000 people, or about thirty three percent of the nation. A large portion of this population, which is isolated from large cities, is largely self sufficient, utilizing traditional techniques of farming. Thousands of tons of cash crops, like I said are also produced and exported by large corporations. After doomsday however nations like France and the United States, and their respective corporations, no longer exist. With dozens of giant companies and their plantations collapsing with no where to sell their cash crops, given that the starving locals would probably not be buying large amounts of sugar, cocoa, or coffee, this set the region on a far different economic path.

With no foreign markets or corporations, the selling of cash crops ends. Remember these industries were specifically created by foreign nations and corporations for the purpose of acquiring these crops to make a profit. They cannot sell cocoa on a large scale with no market to sell it to, meaning there are now many large scale plantations which would be converted to the production of other crops. As stated in the article, the commodity of food becomes like the new cash crop. Gangs rise using the small amount of weapons they have to hold these plantations, similar to the early feudalism model, with large manors and their warlords protecting the farmers and peasants, in exchange for working the fields. Also it is important to note, as I did in the article, the rise of slavery and human trafficking, which impacts the production of agricultural products.

Large scale plantations and fields, once growing cocoa for France and the United States, began putting their fertilizer, mechanisms, and good land toward the productions of potentially thousands of tons of wheat, rice, vegetables, and other products. Again, one of the main reasons why the region does not create large amounts of food in OTL is that they have no need to. There is no reason to spend money investing in the production of wheat toward the create of a self sufficient national market when nations like the United States, with cheaper prices and greater reach, can export thousands of tons of wheat into your nation. Here there is no United States, meaning the easily capable land must be worked in different ways, toward the creation of domestic agricultural products. Another reason why farming is more isolated and traditional, with the exception of large plantations, is the lack of infrastructure. Thousands of people in the cities of the Republic of the Congo are unconnected from farmland, making transportation difficult. This is why the north is mostly sufficient and separate from the south, and why cities in the Congo are hard to feed. The "breadbasket" of the Republic of the Congo, the Bouenza Department, north of Brazzaville, only recently began building heavy infrastructure in the modern day. The Agricultural Development and Rural Roads Rehabilitation Project (ADRRP) created by the national government with World Bank assistance has increased the nation's ability to feed itself, albeit faster and more efficiently with foreign support. As the World Bank stated, until 2013 no road existed in the region, with the new road allowing new found access to farmlands 7. Keep in mind that this is the exact region that would be crucial to the growth of your nation of Zaire, and they are just getting to the point where they can support Brazzaville in terms of infrastructure.

In Impfondo the creation of infrastructural projects is one of the largest differences. These are spotty and poor quality, but the roads are crucial to supporting this nation. These roads are mainly built out of necessity, essential steps toward self sufficiency, connecting farms to cities like never before. This process is also heavily influenced by the bushmeat crisis. In OTL the pursuit of bushmeat, hunting of exotic animals, has grown exponentially, and has caused a number of consequences in the region. Basically the culmination of poor living conditions and lack of proper education on health and safety in the Congo,has caused many native Congolese hunt and consume wild and exotic animals. In OTL urban settings like Kinshasa are the center of commercial bushmeat trade, and the continued urbanization of Africa has only expedited this process. The search for bushmeat has caused natives to push deeper into the jungles, leading to the rise of extensive logging businesses, causing massive deforestation. In this ATL you can make the argument that with food scarce more people would begin hunting. In the article I describe how the logging industry is hugely growing, as more and more enter the jungle, supplying the towns with lumber for construction. With each forest cut down that makes another road, another field, only increasing process toward the creation of farming.

I hope that helped to show that the region is both capable of producing agricultural products and feeding a moderate population after doomsday. Remember that the region already grows thousands of tons of food and crops, and that the region is capable of expanding agriculture in the coming years. Remember that one of the main reasons the region does not already grow large amounts of food is that it is cheaper and more efficient to acquire food elsewhere, but that the region is capable of being self sufficient in the future without the introduction of foreign markets. Sorry for the long and rambling rant, but hopefully that gets my thoughts across. Will probably add more soon. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 01:10, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

Ms, you're missing the same thing again and again!

Yes, the region can grow x amount of cocoa, coffee, and palm oil. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT CAN GROW FOOD CROPS.

Firstly, wheat is off the boards entirely, it cannot grow here properly even with modern technologies. So let's look at the alternatives. Those are the three crops that grow in this area. Assuming 0 imports, I find that based off estimates from the World Bank approximately 40-50,000 people in the region here can be fed at maximum capacity given that modern tools are COMPLETELY unavailable. BUT! That doesn't take into account the refugee crisis you would have, not to mention to issue which I myself mentioned- because this is post-harvest, the refugees from the city would be forced to flee out into the countryside after a few weeks, where they will have to eat premature crops and what remaining stores there are, meaning that all the food will be gone at once and THERE WILL BE NO REPLENISHMENT.
 * Manioc/Cassava: Less than half the calories per cup than wheat, and it cannot be grown in most of this area in Impfondo, as it is precluded by not just mountains but also forests. Slash and burn deforestation, which you suggest, doesn't work, and has been proven not to work.
 * Taro: Not even 1/6 as many as wheat, even though it can be grown more. Taro would actually provide fewer calories that Manioc.
 * Bananas: the worst of both categories, as they provide the fewest calories and cannot be grown as widely.
 * There are a few others grown here, like sugar and rice, but in 1983 they were grown in such small quantities that we can discount them. In any case, none are suited here.

Yes, that breadbasket only started building infrastructure over the last 20 years; but even before that, it was the heartland of the RoC's agricultural production. The North barely produces ANY of the country's exports.

Look at the facts. The production of Palm Oil takes place mostly in the north, and is one of the most common crops in the Likouala department. It's almost unused in the RoC because there isn't much need for it.

Palm oil is around .03% of the RoC's exports. The RoC exports around 12 bn$ worth of goods every year. The going rate for palm oil is around 621$ a metric ton,

This means that, with MODERN equipment and MODERN infrastructure, most of which was only built in the past 20 years, This gets us around 55,000 tons of palm oil; which, BTW, is easier to grow and harvest that most other crops in the region.

Let's convert this to Manioc. Even assuming a 1:1 ratio- and that is WAY, WAY off- we'd get 55,000 tons of manioc. Actually, we'd get something closer to 20,000 or less. Keep in mind, this is the whole nation, not just Impfondo.

The US grows around 58 million tons of wheat a year. Of that, around 24 million goes to surplus. The remainder feed a population around 100x that of the RoC. In fact, that's not true, because the Americans also eat other food.

You can do the math from here. Even if all the palm oil in the RoC was converted to manioc- and that's insanely hard- it would not be enough to feed the population of the Likouala Department.

Ms, the fact is that the reason this area grows cash crops is because IT CANNOT GROW AGRICULTURAL CROPS AND FEED ITSELF.

If Math, the INCEF, and the World Bank all together can't dissuade you, I don't know what to say.

02:00, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

Guns I also provided sources from math and the World Bank, among many others. I see you completely missed me explaining how the region can and does produce wheat, but choses not to heavily. I guess you missed how this region is expected to heavily increase in production, and how nations in sub-Saharan Africa could become self sufficient in wheat production. 20,000 tons of Manioc is 2,2046,000 meals, or about 60,400 people fed from that one crop exclusively for an entire year. Add on the thousands of tons of wheat, the thousands of tons of vegetables and other foodstuffs...just read what I wrote. Also by addition, I meant thanks for adding to the conversation. Mscoree (talk) 02:24, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

Guns you told Ms not to rely exclusively on OTL, and then you use the OTL World Bank. Your quote from them is hardly even relevant. All you proved is that oil industry halts agricultural industry, but ATL it's the opposite. You took this irrelevant quote and are now acting like Ms is disputing the World Bank, when in reality he probably dismissed it for being unimportant. Don't just throw names around for credibility. Tr0llis (talk) 02:29, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

I will reply to those, but not for a few days- I'm transferring my laptop from Windows (Death to Bill Gates) to Ubuntu (Yay Linus Torvalds!). I'd prefer OSX (RIP Steve Jobs) but the hackintosh builds for my laptop suck. Anyway, as a result I'll be gone for a couple of days. This does NOT mean I am dropping my objection- moot point since I'll be back before the 1 week deadline.

Ms, for the last effing time, wheat does not grow in the region- the only three crops that can support life properly here are manioc, bananas, and taro.

22:41, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

Except wheat does grow here, and it is well documented by several sources, including an entire conference of experts that it is fully possible and expected in the coming future. Again, they deliberately choose not to grow wheat because of the climate of the global economy, not because they are physically incapable. Also as I said, wheat was an example, substitute basically any locally grown food there. It certainty isn't just one food across the entire nation. Mscoree (talk) 14:16, September 8, 2014 (UTC).

I talked to Guns following his previous statements and he said the only problem was the refugee bit. I changed that up so it shouldn't be a problem anymore, and also finished the history. Any objections to graduation? Mscoree (talk) 18:49, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

For now, yes. Call it because of the disturbing amount of things to checkup on in it, lol. Lordganon (talk) 12:33, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Lordganon, have you gotten a chance to read through the page yet? I don't mean to rush you, but I'm curious to know what you think, and I'm not really clear if the page graduates or not (according to some users this isn't a real objection, but I don't mean to cause trouble or risk consequences by ignoring this). Please get back to me soon, Mscoree (talk) 00:12, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

MY objections are real. You DIDN'T fix mine.

00:48, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

2011 Africa Cup of Nations
I have completed the page for this edition of the Africa Cup of Nations Matt121 ??? Matt125 (Talk) 22:37, November 17, 2014 (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 review 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 marked as obsolete. If consensus is that you are wrong, however, the review template will be removed without having to change the article.

=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.''