Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

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

Useful Resources:

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

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

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

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;

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2

Discussion on Ah.com
Not exactly about us, but same idea: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=4175971 Mitro 22:07, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * What I like best is that it's just assumed that everyone's already familiar with our project :-D. Benkarnell 03:03, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

On a semi-related note - have any of you ever searched TV Tropes for "1983 Doomsday?" There are several pages documenting the "tropes" this timeline makes use of. Benkarnell 17:44, February 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep. I even attempted to make a page for it, but due to technical difficulties I lost everything I wrote and I haven't got around to a rematch.Tessitore 23:46, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding that rematch, I got around to it: 1983: Doomsday Tropes PageTessitore 00:32, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice Tess, I like it. Mitro 00:40, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice Tess, I like it. Mitro 00:40, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work, Tess! Type II accurately describes this TL, I believe. --BrianD 03:29, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

New Zeppelin Company
I've just had a look at the article in question and there's a lot about it that either doesn't make much sense or is technically incorrect (eg, zepplins weren't made from steel). Would anyone have any objection to me given the article an overhaul?Tessitore 23:40, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, I think it was originally an Owen article that I cleaned up so no wonder theres some errors.Oerwinde 04:13, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Burundi
This isn't completely done, with still some work to be done on the later sections, but mostly the article is complete. Does anyone have any issues with the parts that are already finished, or is the article ready to be canonized once finished? Michael Douglas 22:02, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any objections to passing this article? Arstar 05:39, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do. Only 4 locations in California were struck? Really? California will probably have the most strikes of any single American state. Mitro 13:10, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I hadn't really finished the strike list, so I'll get around to that soon. Arstar 04:57, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty much finished now, any objections to graduation? Arstar 03:20, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty much finished now, any objections to graduation? Arstar 03:20, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty much finished now, any objections to graduation? Arstar 03:20, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Only eight targets? Really? There must be more somewhere. Also for the Santa Cruz section it says "Allows slavery! Avoid this "nation" at all costs." The info is technically correct but its written as though it was coming from someone running away from the city hollering at someone on the outskirts. --Zack 04:00, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't even all the targets from the Strike list, Arstar. I added those for you.

Other cities would have been hit too, no doubt. Off the top of my head, Stockton, Bakersfield, and Fresno would have been hit too. There's also an air base somewhere near Fresno that would have gotten a separate strike as well.

A lot of work to do before it can graduate.

Lordganon 11:46, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are so many more targets in this state than those listed. I'm pretty sure it contains the most targets than any state in the US according to the FEMA maps.  Arstar, what are you basing your research on when writing up the strike list?  Mitro 13:46, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

major cities, and the military bases near them. But my computer hasn't been letting me access the ki4u strike list for some weird reason so I've had to use Wikipedia. Arstar 16:20, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 04:23, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 14:57, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Following advice from the talk page i have removed reference to a Nuke in Tripoli.--Smoggy80 19:40, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

Article by me. Arstar 05:30, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objections to graduating as a stub? Arstar 01:23, November 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Arstar, I didn't get a notification when you put the article up. It looks to me like this city-state would have been discovered and mentioned by the explorers from Superior on there way to Madison. It's not like they would be depending on hearsay from wondering clans. Their troops would have gone straight through the county. SouthWriter 19:11, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Meaning what? Arstar 23:27, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Need I remind you of the stink LG gave Sunkist over the interpretation of the reports out of Indiana. A mention of "others" was taken as gospel truth. The Superior article trumps all others written after it. No mention of Winneconne would be inexcusable since such a big deal was made of finding Madison. I don't have to draw a map -- explorers from Superior would definitely have contact with Winneconne. SouthWriter 01:48, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Need I remind you of the stink LG gave Sunkist over the interpretation of the reports out of Indiana. A mention of "others" was taken as gospel truth. The Superior article trumps all others written after it. No mention of Winneconne would be inexcusable since such a big deal was made of finding Madison. I don't have to draw a map -- explorers from Superior would definitely have contact with Winneconne. SouthWriter 01:48, November 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the history of Superior is that it specifically stated that Indiana had fallen another fate. Also remember how many other states were formed in the path of the Superior expedition that weren't mentioned in the report. Arstar 02:00, November 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * All the Superior article states is that nomads said they knew of other nomads in Indiana and other places in the Midwest. The article is very specific about the fate of many of the cities along the coast of Lake Michigan and about the liberation of Madison. To assume that they totally "missed" Winneconne is quite a stretch. Of course, you are currently overseeing Superior, so I suppose you could rectify this problem fairly easily. However, I think we need to leave the proposal up for further review before moving it to stub status. --SouthWriter 02:21, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Here's my solution and I want to run it by you. Since this way written at the same time as the Superior rewrite started, I am going to treat it as part of the rewrite, as it wouldn't be fair to just let Canadian states go by and not anyone else, right? Arstar 00:38, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, any objections to graduating to stub? Arstar 01:01, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar, just because you are the "caretaker" does not give you the right to rape and pillage canon for your own benefit. The rewrite concerning the survivors in Southern Ontario was a rare, rare exception that was only done due to a great implausibility. This does not happen often, nor should it take precedent. If the article says what South says it does (and I have no reason not to believe him) then this article will not work. --Zack 03:08, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

So basically, we're going to have to make it obsolete because it's not mentioned? I mean seriously there's been alot of nations that have arisen in the path of the expedition that weren't mentioned, or were even mentioned as being in lawless areas. Arstar 21:20, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Basically. --Zack 02:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Article by a guy named Cali Boy 1990 who hasn't come on the site since early October. Arstar 05:30, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * His inactivity shouldn't be held against him. We should judge the article on the merits. --Zack 22:23, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys we have like 5 nations in California right now, though, whats your opinions on the plausibility of this article? Arstar 22:56, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys we have like 5 nations in California right now, though, whats your opinions on the plausibility of this article? Arstar 22:56, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

It's in a non-nuked area of the state, away from other survivor nations, and the region is very agriculturally productive, as well as having a lot of wooden areas.

A good spot for a survivor state, actually.

Though, given everything, I'd move we open it for adoption.

Lordganon 01:30, November 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, LG. Looks like it IS open to adoption.  You want to expand your California state down that way, Arstar? SouthWriter 20:14, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll mention it in the article. Arstar 04:35, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

The California Republic is really too far for it to be at all plausible to expand to this area. Besides, the nuclear remains of Fresno would be in the way. Lordganon 12:02, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Dude...he means the article on the state of California, not the CR, lol. Arstar 05:11, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar, you meant the state article. He did mean your nation - quote: "your California state" - not the state. Your misinterpretation. No matter, mind - you got what I meant. Lordganon 06:00, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

I am now adopting this. Lordganon 11:20, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is highly implausible, stating all of the restaurants were back to normal by 2005. It's kinda just sat here for the past 21 days or so. I'd move it for adoption, but seeing how few articles people adopt these days, are there any objections to making it obsolete? Arstar 16:08, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article itself is very plausible. Some of the lines are merely not.

This chain had its headquarters in Kentucky, and most of its locations were in that region. It's survival makes sense, as a matter of fact.

And you do forget that I have been doing these adoption articles a bit as of late. Push comes to shove I'll get to it eventually.

But, considering how old this one is, it should remain as it is right now. Heck, its not even a month old yet.

Lordganon 17:36, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No matter.

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

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

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

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

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

I forgot to make a note that this had been fixed from its original state by South and Mitro. Just needs to be finished now, if someone is willing.

Lordganon 11:35, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

An Article on a Trading Company i createdVegas adict 22:28, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

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

Article by Armachedes.

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

I didn't know why didn't I post this before. It's an article about Sri Lanka started by Xi'Reney in 2009, then picked up by Yank, marked obsolete and adopted by me. --Fedelede 02:06, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

Filling in a gap from earlier page on. Benkarnell 06:25, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Stub by Xi'Reney, recently adopted and expanded 8.6-fold by me. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:53, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Also this page. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:00, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

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

This is my attempt to harmonize -Sunkist-'s article with earleir canon from Bob. Benkarnell 20:28, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1, Archive 2

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

Live History?
Shouldn't this be added to the Live History topic as well?
 * Um...no. This TL does not follow the format of the Live History TLs, where everything is explained in a day by day basis in the form of news briefs.
 * Also Crim, please sign your name after leaving a message. Mitro 19:16, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Sorry 'bout that! CrimsonAssassin 19:24, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Sorry 'bout that! CrimsonAssassin 19:24, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Population of Britain
This has been something that's been bugging me for a while. In my mind, the population of the various British nations should be higher. (Except for my own, Essex.) Particularly for the Kingdom of Cleveland, which for all its supposed power (and size) has an only slightly above-average population, of 210,000. Now that we've passed the plausibility singularity for Britain we can start to look at the area with a finer-tooth comb, so I think we can start to look realistically.

Before the debate, a few facts and figures: We need, as a community (which is why this isn't posted on the OBN talk page) to decide what's a realistic population level for the former United Kingdom (and other European countries), and its successor states.
 * According to the page United Kingdom, the lowest the population of the former UK came was 6.5 million.
 * Assuming optimum population growth figures (3.66%, as held by Nigeria OTL) then the population of the former UK should nowadays be 14,333,751 people.
 * The page mentioned above states that the overall population of the former UK is 7.5 million, 'mostly in the Celtic Alliance (North Scotland and islands, and Ulster - 5.5 million)'.
 * 'Approximatley 1,800,000 people live in the area that used to be England, this is roughly the level that was found in the country shortly after the Norman invasion in 1066AD.'
 * The total population of all mentioned nations across all of Britain (except the Celtic Alliance) adds up to 1,816,000 - as this includes Scotland, it's already over the limit set in the above article.
 * Populations on a nation-by-nation basis can be found here

To state my opinion, I think that generally populations should be raised (especially for Cleveland) because, certainly nowadays, British nations appear to have the agricultural base to support larger populations, and the incoming aid to fight disease. But this is, of course, up for debate. Fegaxeyl 21:53, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Way I figure it, the population should be more so the proportion you have in Essex, though understandably not as high in some areas. In Cleveland, for example, there is current atl population of roughly 219,000. Yet, the population otl in just the Non-metropolitan county of Cleveland is 541,333 as of 1991, and the Kingdom of Cleveland is far larger in size than that. Even with the rains, etc. in that article that is too far a drop. I could see that many in the Cleveland county area, but the rest of the area does have people in it that would have survived, based on the Cleveland articles themselves.

As of 2008, otl Essex has a population of around 1.7 million. Atl, the population is around 790,000, around 46% of the otl total. I figure that number - again, slightly lower, like 35-40%, in some areas more damaged - is a good percentage to work with for the Britain articles. Northumbria is already around this mark as well.

Lordganon 06:31, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oh! And the figures cited on the United Kingdom article actually are really kind of worded funny. The 5.5. million figure you quote, if you look at the Celtic Alliance article, is actually for the entire Alliance - as in Ireland and the French areas as well. So it's a fair amount less of that population quoted for the UK given over to them, allowing plenty of room for increasing the population of the survivor states.

And, don't forget a lot of people still live outside of nation-states.

Lordganon 06:35, March 1, 2011 (UTC)