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

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

Lincoln
There has been some renewed discussion as to whether the Republic of Lincoln would rejoin the "new" USA. Yank contends: "I have to say that there is absolutely no chance of Lincoln rejoining the new United States. While my Virginian republic is louder in its nationalism, it is still equally unlikely that Lincoln would rejoin the new US. They originally were a “placeholder” government for former Nebraska, but over time they became more and more disillusioned about the return of the US. They are likely to have a jaded outlook on the new United States, as they would figure it has zero chance of ever returning to even a semblance of the glory of pre-DD America."

I have to say I respectfully disagree with the plausibility of this argument and I I'm wondering what the community thinks. --Zack 23:08, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

The nationalism argument is quite frankly ridiculous. If Ireland held on to its national identity for hundreds of years, I would think Americans would hold on a little longer than 25. Virginia and its propaganda machine is different, as is states made up of both Canadian and American territory, where the division in the population would likely make rejoining either Canada or the US unlikely due to pressures from either side. Chumash would likely remain independent due largely to the fact that being predominantly native, and the treatment of natives in the US history would make their own nation appealing. States with governments that aren't in line with the US line of thinking likely would remain independent as well. Other than that, I realistically see most survivor states rejoining either Canada or the US in time.Oerwinde 00:14, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

What I don't get is why do all of Yank's articles minus a few exceptions protest rejoining the United States (or Canada)? Is it because you want these nations to remain their independence because you feel that they cannot be unique and well-detailed or respected as articles on US States? Or do you think that it'll be more fun playing independent nations on the "chess board" of 1983: Doomsday? All my American nations minus Niagara Falls or maybe Superior or Plymouth would join a renewed United States if "the border was right next to them". I have it in my mental constitution of Niagara Falls that "the city will never divide or lose their sovereignity". But they're the exception. What you guys don't get, this goes out to the Canadians with American nations, is that we do have nationalism, on par or maybe even greater than yours. My family has been firing a gun in the name of America since my ancestors fought for the Confederates in the Civil War. We then fought in the Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and distant relatives in Iraq during both wars. That's what, 6 or 7 wars? In the name of America? During 1983 my father was in Fort Knox, a young Private ready to continue the family legacy. If he was with the 101st Airborne on Doomsday, does that mean by now he would be shouting "f--k America! Long Live Virginia!"? No...but what I find strange is why the capital of Lincoln, Nebraska, a US state for quite a while would just outright refuse to join the closest thing to the original America out there. Its full of Americans, the same ones in Torrington, Wyoming or Grand Junction, Colorado. Does that mean that since a generation has passed they would refuse to join a new United States simply because they grew up "Linconites"? Why would their vision be "dissilousioned"? My father's generation would be in their 40s and 50s. So why would they protest rejoining the nation that in reality only disbanded for like a decade? If the new United States' government showed up with their finest troops and surrounded the city of Lincoln would the population of my fathers generation, or even SouthWriters generation, or even the youngest generation die in the name of Lincoln? What is in the name of Lincoln? Lakota? Chumash? Virginia? I could understand Lakota and Chumash rejecting to join a new United States but what about Sierra Nevada or Utah? If anything they could glorify their city even more as a member of a new United States. They would have resources, federal support, and every other thing.

But why would they so deeply reject joining a nation that would just make them stronger? Arstar [talk] 02:44, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll agree that there is a certain ... consistency ... when it comes to the political attitudes of Yankovic's articles. But there's also the whole "nuclear war" thing.  Living through the official Worst Thing Ever to Happen would certainly change one's political views on a lot of things.  Some of the surviving communities certainly would adopt a bunker mentality: a new USA might sound good in theory, but in practice it's unacceptable because it involves All of Them Out There.
 * And what do you mean the finest US troops? What US troops? Benkarnell 04:02, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that the new United States has troops...do I really have to go into detail, it was a metaphor :( But yeah, no offense Yank, but your articles, especially your "brainchild" Virginia is a direct copy of your political views. And about the bunker mentality, whos All of Them Out There? Outsiders? Arstar [talk] 04:13, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Certainly is a consistency in Yanks articles, I've noted that before & I'm sure I wasn't the first. Arstar points out correctly that they do have a blend of Yank's political views mixed in there. If any thing that's the No Cross No Crown stuff we should care about not the debate on blogs or talk pages, especially in a collaborative TL like this. It is Lincoln however that a truly don't understand. They are middle America, the patriotic heartland as some would call it. They would jump at the chance to return to the US. I could see hope dwindling in the 90's but once they discovered the USA was still alive & kicking they'd join or express interest in joining in a heartbeat. --Zack 04:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, we all do that with our views in our articles to a certain extent.

Lordganon 09:36, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

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

Decreasing Map Quality
Why has the quality of the North America section of the world has gone from normal to awful recently?

Yankovic270 03:02, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

I was going to point it out but I was afraid I would offend a certain Writer from the South who made the map I believe. But at least somebody else noticed it :)

But yea, no offense South but that map is pretty poor quality. The borders are not really accurate (Aroostook controlling half of New Brunswick?) and I'm not sure what happened between Utah and Dinetah's "shared area" but yea. I'm gonna make a new/better/updated map tonight. Arstar 03:10, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

National Stereotypes
Just something I thought might be fun to think about and lets face it, they're going to happen sooner or later. We've already got a bit of a meta version going on, i.e. the 'all Virginians wear uniforms all the time' thing. It's not true but it's what people think, in other words a classic stereotype.Tessitore 12:18, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

How about "Woodbridge is full of in-breds"?? Verence71 20:42, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

What about "All Texans are cowboys"? Yankovic270 21:05, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think all the English survivor states aren't particularly proud of how the New British couldn't take the heat and ran away. I'm pretty sure all the OBNers would call the New British soft - or something rather more offensive instead. I'm not sure if the idea of an Essex Girl would have survived after Doomsday, but it's possible. And Verence, why would the idea of Woodbridgers being inbred come from? Fegaxeyl 21:09, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'm wondering about that myself. I'd have thought it'd be more like 'full of Yanks'.

Tessitore 22:20, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * That could lead to the idea of renaming what we know as the mid-Atlantic accent as the Woodbridge accent. Fegaxeyl 11:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Like "All Sicilians are mobsters", or the Australians are "American Wannabes"? Arstarpool 21:13, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my personal theories on the stereotypes of the British sucessor states:

Cleveland - Somewhat incomprehensible, footie obcessed, working-class types who love the Queen and drink too much (Poi chin has a reputation after all)

Northumbria - Stuck in the Middle Ages

Rheged - Country bumpkins (or in Cleveish, farm yakkers). Plus, sheep jokes.

Matlock - Scummy, untrustworthy, drug-addled gits who'd do anything for money.

Celtic Alliance - Probably mostly the same as pre-Doomsday Irish stereotypes.

Scotish New State - Scotish Nazis

So far nothings sprung to mind for East Britain, Essex, Woodbridge, Southern England or Lancaster.Tessitore 22:20, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

East Britain - Similar to Rheged as foes the country bumpkin farmer, with an incomprehensible accent and a fierce pride in his nation.

Woodbridge - A mass of Norfolk in breds ruled over by an elite clique of Americans.

Lancaster - Lots of trams. OTL northern stereotypes

Essex - War is a recreational hobby. Lots of casual violence.

Bob 15:14, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Though I can't quite fathom where the warmongering comes from, I simply love this idea of casual violence! Perhaps if I throw in a reference in the military section, about semi-customised armour with Viking-style horns on the helmets... And Essaxons are major producers of mead... Fegaxeyl 20:57, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

You know that the idea that the Vikings wore helmets with horns is a fallacy, right? Oh, and how about "Siberians are cold-hearted sociopaths who follow orders with out the slightest bit of free will".

Yankovic270 21:57, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah that sounds about right. The Siberians are probably going to be on the recieving end of a lot of flak for the next couple of centuries at least.Tessitore 23:44, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I can see it now...


 * Siberian guy: Hey us Siberians just figured out a way to evolve into beings made of pure energy!


 * Other guy: Yeah but didn't you guys start a nuclear war that killed billions of people?


 * Mitro 00:04, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I have a good one what if everybody in the Duchy of Lancaster wears flat caps --Owen1983 22:38, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do know about the helmets, I just couldn't find a way to fit it into the sentence and make sense. But in Essex it's likely that if memory of the Vikings survived in any way at all, it would have been the image of Vikings with horned helmets. Fegaxeyl 06:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether to be happy or depressed that no ones come up with a stereotype for southern england. The only one i came up with could be to do with them all being sailors or with them being inbred islandersVegas adict 18:22, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I f we run with the sailors, then well you know what they say about sailors. All that time at sea....Bob 18:22, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Bush's kids are probably going gonna get beat up for a while in school:

Descendent of Bush: I would do anything for my country. My forefathers died to free America from the Redcoats.

Another Guy: Ok but are those the same people that pussied out on America and chilled with the Aussies and the Hawaiians while the rest of us starved?

Or how about this one:

American: Hey.

Siberian: Hello.

American: So whats up?

Siberian: Nothing. You?

American: Nothing.

Siberian: Thats cool.

American: Ok.

Siberian: Look, about that whole nuclear holocaust and taking over Alaska...no hard feelings, okay?

Arstarpool 01:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the "All Australians are Americans" stereotype. It's one we ourselves have struggled with! Hand in hand with that might be "All New Zealanders are Australians" :D. I'm sure that plenty of jokes are still lobbed across the Tasman. Besides being sheep-oriented fush-n-chups-eaters, Kiwis might be seen by Aussies as child-of-the-earth Polynesians on account of the success of Greenism. Besides being loudmouthed crocodile wrestlers, Aussies might be seen by Kiwis as... Americans :D.
 * Within Korea, I can only imagine the persistent North-South stereotypes that probably come up every day. Not to mention those Yankees of Jeju! Taiwanese people probably have their opinions about the Mainlanders in their midst. In the Republic of Venice, there are probably jokes about the Slovene, the Croat, and the Italian who walk into a bar in Trieste... Benkarnell 02:40, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed there would be. I can also state that there are numerous jokes regarding people from Montenegro, as they are perceived as being lazy, the Bosnians are perceived as being dense, the Slovenians are made fun of due to the small size of their country, and so on. And the Siberian thing would be the main cause of hard feelings, of course, I don't see a lot of Siberian tourists going out and having a blast in the old US in the next century or so. Oh, and how about we create a page on humour, and/or jokes post-Doomsday. That could be amusing.--Vladivostok 07:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea of a page on post-Doomsday humour sounds good. Since humour is a time honoured method of staying sane when everything goes to hell, I'd imagine that there would be quite a lot of it, although some of it would probably be quite dark and/or gallows humour.Tessitore 17:31, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't see a lot of Siberian tourists going out and having a blast in the old US" - please don't tell me that was a deliberate joke. Fegaxeyl 15:01, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, whatever do you mean Fegaxeyl?:)--Vladivostok 15:45, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I got the warmongering Essaxons idea from the prevelance of conflict in Essaxon history a oppossed to say East Britain where technological underdevelopment prevented much war, or Woodbridge where sheer firepower prevented conflict. Bob 18:26, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'v created a page called, hopefully this can be a page the whole comunity gets involved inVegas adict 18:33, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking that many British jokes about the French - specifically, the surrender jokes - could be passed to the New British by the English survivor states. Fegaxeyl 19:42, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

In Venezuelan the most famous jokes are about Galicians and they are stupids in the jokes, I think that joke still would exist. VENEZUELA 22:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned in-breeding in conjunction with Woodbridge is that that is a stereotype that is sometimes applied to people from Norfolk and Suffolk in OTL. If we add that to the assumption that during the time that Woodbridge was controlled by the American military a lot of American words and phrases would have seeped into the language perhaps the stereotype of Woodbridgers could be this:

"A bunch of carrot-crunching inbred who speak like hillbillies" Verence71 15:08, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

The lines about "inbred" and even "cannibals" would definitely apply to people from the Yukon and Northwest Alliance. Heck, you can add something tribal and about rednecks into that too, readily enough.

Waldeck-Hesse, given all things - don't know if you guys have noticed this or not, guys - would definitely have some sort of Nazi stereotype, or similar racist insults.

Lordganon 12:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

All South Americans think about is soccer/football. Here is a example of a stereotypical situation:

Cashier At Resteraunt: What would you like to order?

South American: I'd like a cheeseburger, a large order of fries and a COOOOOKE!

Yankovic270 00:19, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

The Costa Ricans are still going to be blasting the Nicaraguans with all sorts of jokes.

User:Arstarpool 10:57, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2

Time article on Cold War arms strategy
Last week's Time magazine ran an article caled "No More Nukes" that dealt in part with the motivations and thinking of the military leaders behind the USA's nuclear strategy during the Cold War. I don't think it's got anything truly new to anyone who's read a lot on the topic, but it's worth reading and could help inform future work on the former USSR, especially. It also helped to remind me how eerily real the threat of nuclear war was. We ought to be thankful that the days of 5-digit nuclear arsenals are in the past. Benkarnell 01:46, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

You Forgot A Spot
Alright, how did both major military bases in Kentucky live. They both have been in the TL for awhile, but still its kinda odd how both could of missed USSR. I was thinkng that a area in which Toledo though Campbell was spared, meaning the areas of Fort Knox, Indianapolis, Louisville woulden't of been nuked. Maybe this wave some how messsed up, simply an idea, thanks. :D --Sunkist- 09:06, October 10, 2010 (UTC)



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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not done yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lordganon 03:48, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Article created by Jnjaycpa. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2jec010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Adopted and will resume work on it soon. --XterrorX 10:44, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

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

Needs to be updated to reflect the changes to Turkey, then it can likely be graduated.Oerwinde 06:56, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I have a concern regarding the article dealing with National Historic Landmarks in Virginia. Several of those listed were located in Richmond, VA and likely destroyed along with the city on Doomsday. I mentioned it previously, but I noted they are still there. When this article is canonized, I believe this part should be accordingly adjusted. --Fxgentleman 04:46, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

So do I. I like Yank, but his insistence on Richmond having survived is almost as bad as Owen's perpetual attempts to retroactively save Manchester, England. BrianD 01:36, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted it so that Richmond was struck, but with a non-nuclear ICBM. I altered the page to make the landmarks in Richmond reconstructions of the originals.

Yankovic270 14:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Richmond is too important of a target to not be nuked. We have been over this almost as much as Manchester with Owen. Mitro 04:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * At least Owen's proposals are amusing. Can we by any chance add that Richmond VA & Manchester UK were hit by nukes to the QSS and QAA and the . --GOPZACK 04:08, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Florida and New Rome ones are hole-fillers and have no purpose in life other than to take away the ugly red link. I took them off the graduation list kay? Arstarpool 05:37, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless the article article of Virginian landmarks is edited to remove references to Richmond, I think it should be marked as obsolete. Mitro 18:22, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove references to Richmond and graduate the article. There's nothing inherently wrong with the article, just with the Richmond references. BrianD 19:39, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

I removed references to Richmond, any objections to graduating the article? Mitro 14:20, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Lordganon 23:10, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I plan it to be a sort of rump state comprised of the remnants of the US Military and initially the US's Atlantic territories until eventually it begins to deteriorate until it is comprised of two or three small islands in the present day. It will be kind of a mix between the APA and the CRUSA. Arstarpool 02:08, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I left my comments on the talk page. Mitro 04:18, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be high if I'm asking this but are there any objections? Arstarpool 01:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...yeah. There is still no way there would be an American presence in Guantanamo. It would either fall to the Cubans, or be abandoned and then fall to the Cubans. The idea that they would be bailed out by the ECF makes little sense. Even I doubt the ECF nations have that large of a navy to provide proper support. Furthermore Guantanamo would mean nothing for the Confederation. Mitro 01:51, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought my email picked up all these notes. It's been 5 days and I did not get a notice of this. Anyway, our discussions on the USAR talk page make it clear that the consensus is against this idea as is. The main beef is the holding of the base at Guantanamo. Originally, Gitmo was to be a territory of South Florida, but that got shot down. So then it became the fortified capital of America in a hostile land at war with them (America having bombed them with two Nukes!) I am sure the command would have come to get out of there soon after the accidental firing of the missiles. The idea of the Remnant, though, need not die. Such military support in the Caribbean would be a blessing to the American diaspora. SouthWriter 23:41, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. An interesting new template (ofa83) -- a desperate plea instead of a simple announcement. It appeared after my note was put up at the page's talk page (in answer to the old 'ofa'). I have already made room for the organization in the "American diaspora" article, so I will gladly adopt the article. I should have put that notice here as well, but I was so flabbergasted that it would be handed over after the fight for its graduation. Any way, I adopt it. I will remove the 'ofa83' template now, and begin transforming the article soon. SouthWriter 19:53, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * My only request: Please keep it as a territorial government, and not some American expat organization! Arstarpool 01:13, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I created and added the new template, since the original all wiki template is for whole timelines and not articles. I used the final line from the nuclear war film The Day After for inspiration. I guess not many people got the joke. Mitro 18:08, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * My only request: Please keep it as a territorial government, and not some American expat organization! Arstarpool 01:13, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I created and added the new template, since the original all wiki template is for whole timelines and not articles. I used the final line from the nuclear war film The Day After for inspiration. I guess not many people got the joke. Mitro 18:08, September 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Update. Sorry it's been so long in coming, but I'm beginning to work on this article. I removed the adoption plate and put all that was written in suspension (hidden) while reformulating the article around what I wrote at the American Diaspora article. I am not sure I can actually make this a "territorial government" of the former US (since it was established in direct disobedience to the APA). Perhaps this can be an autonomous government within the ECF -- its citizens are those Americans that wish to remain loyal to the USA. These will, of course, become citizens of the USA upon recognition of the re-establishment of such (retro-actively in the time line - Sept 17, 2010). The governor and ruling body in the former US Virgin Islands will now be part of a "virtual" state in the Caribbean. Can someone help me establish this autonomous American government? It will probably be established before the 1992 as a series of American consulates in member states of the ECF, as well as agreements with the new independent government in Puerto Rico. SouthWriter 00:20, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, you went against my only request for the adopter. My only request was for it to not to be a "country without land" that holds meetings of all the Americans throughout the islands and well you went against that. We have the CRUSA for that. It's status is the governing body of the United States Virgin Islands and Navassa Island. It still could serve the citizens in the other islands but like I said the USVI and Navassa are part of the ECF autonomously and will be negotiating with the governemnt in Torrington on what's going to happen after that. Maybe they could be part of the new United States only in title, stating themselves to be a state within the United States while in reality being completely self-governing in both state and federal matters until they see it fit that Torrington can take over. Arstar 02:09, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, you went against my only request for the adopter. My only request was for it to not to be a "country without land" that holds meetings of all the Americans throughout the islands and well you went against that. We have the CRUSA for that. It's status is the governing body of the United States Virgin Islands and Navassa Island. It still could serve the citizens in the other islands but like I said the USVI and Navassa are part of the ECF autonomously and will be negotiating with the governemnt in Torrington on what's going to happen after that. Maybe they could be part of the new United States only in title, stating themselves to be a state within the United States while in reality being completely self-governing in both state and federal matters until they see it fit that Torrington can take over. Arstar 02:09, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Food
I've started a page on this, since if there's a page on what people are drinking then there should really be one on what they're eating.Tessitore 20:35, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections?
 * So much of it is not even finished. Give Tess some time to work. Mitro 01:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Neonotia (New South)
SouthWriter's proposal for a nation-state in OTL southern Alabama and Georgia, with former President Carter involved. BrianD 17:41, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

The name is kind of wierd, kind of something you would see in the original Map Games, but the details are okay I guess. Arstarpool 23:19, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Second Empire of Trabzon
I have just completed an article on the Second Empire of Trabzon, a now-extinct monarchy in post-Doomsday Turkey that was extinguished by the Sultanate of Turkey in 2009. It claims to be the (nominal) successor to the original Greek Empire of Trebizond based in modern Trabzon, Turkey. --Emperor of Trebizond 19:44, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, but graduation will have to wait until the Sultanate is graduated.

Lordganon 00:55, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the Turkey article has been changed to allow this nation to exist, it needs to be changed to reflect that new info before graduation. Mitro 13:41, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Greek Revival

 * Agion Oros (1983: Doomsday)
 * Morea (1983: Doomsday)
 * Cyrenaica (1983: Doomsday)

I've remodeled the article for Sunkist. Map coming soon. But tell me what could be the maximum extent of this state? Arstar [talk] 05:35, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I kept the name change, anything still wrong with Indiana?, I'm really hoping to get this passed some time soon.---Sunkist- 02:23, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder, the discussion about the map can be found on the discussion page. Personally, I think that Sunkist's additional blue counties, but not the red, in the map on the right are as many as could be expected to be annexed in the state as habitable land. The Northern part of the state is "fair game" if it can be reclaimed in time. SouthWriter 04:51, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Map showing Indiana, the Kentucky states of Southern Indiana, Evansville and Bloomington and Toledo's claims. The old map showed Terre Haute not being part of Indiana, current map shows it, rest is basicly---Sunkist- 05:20, October 3, 2010 (UTC) I'm willing to help out with the article but the size is just too big as several people pointed out. (It's not just me who disagreed, South!) Arstar [talk] 05:28, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not say it was only you, Arstar, so don't be defensive. If you look on the discussion page, the maps above the aforementioned section show the FEMA strike zones overlaying the county map. In the Map discussion, my first suggested map (on the left) is the minimum based on all strikes listed.  Sunkist expanded to a map showing areas that were deemed probably not hit.  My note above just says that such a map is the largest I think things could get.  It's not unreasonable to assume the best in Indiana (especially if you're a Hoosier).  You assumed the best for Florida, didn't you?  :-)  SouthWriter 21:18, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Actually I worked with what was already established as canon from mentions from other articles on South Florida. Gainesville was out of my hand so I had no say in what happened there. First Coast was Sunkist's and the Republic of Florida is just mashing the three together as seperate exclaves of territory. Article talks about its size, if you really go up into Northern Indiana what your really going to see is just a lot of farms, if you look at the history, you will see that the cites of Terre Haute, Richmond, Former Fort Wayne, Lafayette and Wabash & Warsaw, formed city-states that gained control over these farms and that in due time the city-states knew they wouldn't be able to stay independent, so they formed Provisional Indiana. Its not like one large city took over the land, like Toledo did or Fort Knox.---Sunkist- 05:39, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

But those farms are in counties, and there are towns in counties :) Where there are towns there are people, and where there are people there are bad people. Where there are bad people there are bad people taking advantage of bad situations. Thats how raiders come into the picture. Raiders can come in the form of drug dealers or biker gangs, and they can make even the smallest town or biggest city collapse if they are in the right numbers. That's why its not plausible for every non-nuked area to be home to a nation state.

With having calling up the national guard and local forces, all in which are present in all the major cities, one is in my city. These towns are little farm towns..Indianapolis and Gary were the areas of most violence, with which Indiana dose not control.----Sunkist- 06:28, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Anything else?---Sunkist- 07:13, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether its a farm town or not. Altamont was a town of a couple hundred people and raiders had a headquarters there. Indianapolis and Gary couldn't have been areas of violence because Indiana does not control it? They were nuked! Arstar [talk] 07:45, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

The nature of the towns matters little. There is still a fair chance of gangs, etc. appearing.

It is just too blasted large, Sun. And Arstar is right about Altamont - you may want to read the history of Superior article.

Lordganon 10:21, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've read the History of Superior, trust me...its really not helpful. When you read about them going to Indiana they don't state where in Indiana. I've added some things to the history that can work with the gangs. Also, 'Its just to big' has been repeated and repeated over and over again, I'm sure I can counter it this time.----Sunkist- 16:31, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well you've never changed the size (or maybe by a micro-bit) and you keep asking any objections when there are objections! No, you don't get it though, the Superior article states this:

''In former Indiana, the expedition came across several nomadic clans that traveled over most of the Midwest, and were told that there were many such groups both South and West of their current location. Meetings with the “Rico” clan did not go well, as a soldier by the name of Pvt. Neville Gregory had apparently fallen in love with, and removed the virginity of, the Chief’s daughter. A firefight ensued as warriors of the clan tried to take both Pvt. Gregory and the daughter, now disowned, back to the camp. As a result of this incident, strict rules were put upon expedition member’s interactions with the natives, and Pvt. Gregory was removed from active duty.''

Also almost all the radios would have been knocked out after Doomsday. Also what you added about the military doesn't really help much. There aren't gangs there are nomads, so tell me how they wen't from being nomads to a nation/provisional state in 15 years? Arstar [talk] 01:51, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand where this is, did the Michigan troops know perfectly that they were in Indiana, could they trust these nomads. So they been all over the general Mid-west, does this mean they wouldn't of even known about Toledo. If it really is just this paragraph that is holding Indiana back, is kinda harsh. Did you even care to read about how they got the radios to get fixed? These nomads are most likely from South Bend, which became a ghost town. How far south did they go, how much Midwest did they cover. Did they explore the ruins of Gary and Chicago when going west?---Sunkist- 03:33, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they knew they were in Indiana. Why would they lie to them? As a post-Doomsday prank maybe? Remember that old maps still existed, and the Superior troops were definitely not stupid to think they are somewhere when they really aren't. When it says across the Midwest and south I think it means they were all over the middle and western part of the state. And if they are all over the Mid-west then why would it be from South Bend if the city is in the north? Would they travel right through Provisional Indiana and go to the other end just to be nomads again in the south? I'm not saying this article is implausible but in its current size and form its not very likely to get passed. Older canon just says differently, and I've learned a lot about changing older canon. It causes a lot of problems and it starts hell in the end. Look at the Indiana State article and try to rebuild your original idea from there based on what you find. It appears that a lot of the towns are independent as says the Indiana article, but maybe you can have the road paved for some united government or confederation for some of these towns based in Lafayette. Arstar [talk] 03:50, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Auburn, Alabama
So what happened in the Alabama college town, and site of a provisional state government post-DD? An article to expand on what has been written as canon in the New Montgomery and 2009 WCRB report on the southern United States articles (I'm giving Charles Barkley to South if he wants him for the Neonotia article) --BrianD 03:17, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone have thoughts thus far on the proposal? It is turning out to be quite long, I'll admit. That's just how it is developing. And I'm writing this as ideas come to me while trying not to force things, so this may not be finished for another month or two (!) All that to say I am working on it, it will get finished and I'd appreciate feedback if anyone is so inclined. BrianD 21:46, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Trebizond. Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

New Haven
By Jnjaycpa. I'm pretty convinced that it won't work because Connecticuts small size plus assloads of fallout from Hartford and such. Plus the Vermont article states almost the entire state is a wasteland. Arstarpool 04:57, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Renamed from Republic of Connecticut. I'm skeptical about the article as well, but let's give Jay a chance to make his case. We also need to consider the effect it would have on the New England region and on the Vermont, Plymouth and Outer Lands articles if Jay can prove to everyone's satisfaction that New Haven/Bridgeport would have survived. I've alerted all of the relevant editors on the three articles, plus Zack, about the article. BrianD 19:12, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

I decided to restore the original name. --Jnjaycpa 23:16, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jay. Thank you for your interest in the time line, but a survirvor community on the Connecticut coast is not a promising idea. Though we don't always go by the FEMA maps, we usually have a very good reason to stray from them. It has pretty much been decided that much of Connecticut was decimated. To the right is a map based on the one | found here You will note the center and bottom of the state are practically "carpet bombed" with nukes! Lower Middlesex county (Clinton) sits between three field days of nukes. Some of these could be tertiary targets, but it doesn't look good for the chosen home for this survivor "nation." SouthWriter 02:11, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

We need to figure out which of these targets are the primary and secondary targets, as the tertiary targets wer likely not hit at all.

Yankovic270 02:21, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I got this from this web site.

CONNECTICUT Primary:  Groten-New London. Secondary: none Tertiary:  Bristol, Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, New Haven, Norwalk, Stamford.

I assumed that Hartford was nuked. I also nuked Stamford and Danbury. These strikes (along with the fallout from NYC) would devastate the western part of Fairfield County but leave New Haven county relativley unscathed. Jnjaycpa 03:15, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know exactly where this Bruce Beach guy is today, but back in May of 2001 he gave this analysis He theorizes as few 100 or as many as 2000 nukes would probably be used against North America in WW3. That would be in a planned attack of strategic targets. He defines what would be primary, secondary and tertiary targets in 2001. He says, though that targets are always changing. If we go with a certainty of primary, a high probability of secondary, and a rarity on tertiary sites, we will probably come out with a respectable patchwork of survivor states like we have now.

We cannot go back and rewrite the story though. I have to agree with Arstar on the tendency to optimism has prevailed most of the time. Nevertheless, as we rethink the size and number of strikes we acknowledge, it does look a lot better for people not living in the urban population centers. We see a lot of more surviving than originally imagined. We need a comprehensive map to see how well we're doing in our visualization of the USA and other sites around the northern hemisphere. SouthWriter 03:58, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the two cities, though you may want to add the city of Norwalk to that list - there's a lot of companies based there. And don't forget about the Submarine base at New London. Having a pair of strikes on Hartford may be best, to take out the city of New Britain, which is nearby, as well.

Though, you are right in one thing - New Haven wouldn't be hit unless someone really wanted to whack Yale or John Hopkins.

But, the fallout from New York and the surrounding strikes would have been dangerous. Fallout in the northeast US tends to drift slightly east, and then north. http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/UN_Images/FEMA.fallout.map.jpg shows this, though you'd need to at least triple the width of the new york fallout.

Maybe it would be best to have it be New Haven, but not much else, and only kept together by Yale and Hopkins? Keep the name, though. Bunch of intellectuals would be more apt to do that instead of a "Republic of Yale", for sure.

Lordganon 04:15, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, canon points to the entire state being a wasteland. Would anyone have any objections to making this obsolete? Arstarpool 04:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, canon states that most of the state is wasteland. That this area could survive does make sense, to a point. Call that an objection.

Lordganon 02:53, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Is the article finished? BrianD 02:59, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to marking this as obsolete? Mitro 14:22, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

A west-Ukraine state.

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

A west-Ukraine state.

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

A west-Ukraine state.

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

Western Ukraine Organization.

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I'll be happy to help out, let me know how I can do so. BrianD 02:14, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Me & South's proposal for the American Shadow Government post-Doomsday. --GOPZACK 02:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

A Transylvanian-supported Hungarian survivor state.

Lordganon 09:58, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic archdioceses in North America
My proposal for a list of Roman Catholic archdioceses and dioceses in North America. Intended to be a community project. BrianD 19:57, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I wrote about my "home" state of Florida and the Catholic institutions in Naples, FL? Arstarpool 21:57, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Go for it! I put them under the San Juan Archdiocese, as from reading the Florida articles it seems that those towns have closer ties to the Caribbean nations than any of the other regional nations and survivor states. BrianD 22:43, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...while Florida is a heavily Hispanic state the area of the, or more specifically South Florida is mostly White and most of which might not follow the heavily Church influenced lifestyle of the Hispanic churches. Most of the people in FL, or at least North Florida would probably go it alone or with another state in the South, in my humble opinion. But it's your call. Arstarpool 22:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

The closest archdiocese north of Florida TTL is in East Tennessee. How much contact have the Florida survivor states had with the other Southern survivor states, versus Puerto Rico, Cuba and the East Caribbean Federation?BrianD 22:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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

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)

Since the Plymouth/Outer Lands issue is over, I've made this page to document the state. Would be nice if Brian could do some work on it since he is the other person with land in the state. Arstarpool 02:42, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not noting this earlier; I'm not getting emails for most of the updates in the wiki. I'll work on something today. BrianD 16:02, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

wouldn't it have been in the Confederation of New England. --Owen1983 19:23, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Owen, the confederation of New England was something that was proposed by editors and in the TL now and then by various proponents of such a union. That is not to say that a confederation won't happen, only that it is not currently, and never has been, a reality. BrianD 20:03, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Article for the Alpine Confederation. Arstarpool 04:34, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

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




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

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

I created a page about Billy Joel, who survived and lives on. He has become a major celebrity and personality of the. It's still a work-in-progress. --NuclearVacuum 19:27, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Clothes and Fashion
I started this one a while ago but didn't get around to adding it here. Pretty much what the title suggests.Tessitore 23:53, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

I made this article a while back but never got around to adding it here. It uses a lot of the elements of Ben's article in the history section. Are there any objections to passing this as a stub? Arstar [talk] 03:46, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I'd graduate this outright. Only thing missing in my mind is a coa/map.

Lordganon 03:51, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever held an article back for a coa or map (many nations in OTL don't have a COA) so I'm just going to override that objection and graduate it as a stub if its fine with you guys. I'm marking it a stub because I have much more planned for the article than is currently standing but the current issue with Superior is a big headache. Nevertheless I will add a map eventually. Arstar [talk] 04:17, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have more work to do why not just keep it as a proposal and return to it when you get the time? Mitro 14:53, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Because I don't want the proposal list to be clogged up and I don't like having tons of proposals all out at the same time? Arstar 21:48, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * We have already seen the danger of rushing through proposals. Furthermore having a lot of proposals just shows that the TL is active which is a good thing.  No offense Arstar, but you personally have a lot of outstanding proposals.  I reccomend not creating any new articles until you cut down your own list.  Mitro 21:48, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario article in relation to the general re-write.

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

Ontario article in relation to the general re-write.

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

Åland
I asked Realismadder about creating a story for Åland and he said he'd think it over... that was well over a year ago, so I think it's safe for me to try. It's not finished yet, but this is a basic outline of the history of the islands. Benkarnell 20:24, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was an article created by Jnj in late July and apparently was never marked as a proposal. Mitro 17:43, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

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

I've made a great deal of comments on this one, in the talk page about Japan. As it's never had a caretaker, and I've been given the blessing to take that role, I'd like to make the discussed changes, unless anyone has any objections. <3 --Back Alley Hero 16:24, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Before making any changes make sure you understand the and QSS and QAA. Just being caretaker doesn't give you the absolute right to make changes to an article that was not your original work. We try to respect the work of those editors who came before, which means sometimes slight implausibilities are allowed to slide. You seem knowledgable though about Japan, so I'd suggest detailing your changes first on the talk page first before changing the article. Also in the future put new topics at the bottom of a section and not the top. Mitro 16:37, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, thank you very much. I promise I shall do my best. Back Alley Hero 17:48, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have some problems with someone just outrightly changing the article. Mitro is right we do respect the edits of older users, regardless of if it had a caretaker or not. Not that it'll change anything but I want to see who supports these changes. Sign your name below.
 * I have some problems with someone just outrightly changing the article. Mitro is right we do respect the edits of older users, regardless of if it had a caretaker or not. Not that it'll change anything but I want to see who supports these changes. Sign your name below.

Do you support the changes Back Alley has made?

Yay or Nay

Nay - Arstarpool

I'm sorry but voting on article reviews are silly. Consensus should always rule and consensus is not obtained by a simple majority. I support Back Alley expanding the article, but I am against changing canon. Mitro 17:39, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Back Alley's a major violation of QSS&QAA. I am going to save the old revision on my ideas page until we decide what we're going to do. There has just been so much written around Japan how it is in its current state that it wouldn't be fair to change everything. I'm sorry if I came across as an jerk but I have a problem with a new arrival coming in and just changing canon without community consent. Like Mitro said we have to respect the consent of works that have already been written. But we should come to a consensus soon so show your support for changes or older canon. Arstar 03:53, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009 Saguenay War
With much of Southern Ontario actually surviving, the war would go much differently.Oerwinde 10:05, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

And how so? Give me some examples on how it would be different, thats all I want. Arstar 01:19, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously Arstar? I mean, really.

All you have to do is look at the Canada talk page and the war talk page. This has been discussed for how long and you don't know? .....

Lordganon 01:39, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

I know all right. I just want to know what in specifics. Okay, we might need to include the London, Norfolk, and Kitchener states into the war, or maybe the war will be ongoing, or maybe it ended earlier? Arstar 02:24, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

The suggestions on both the talk pages, with the nation states you list being mentioned, are how it should go, with much the same result.

Lordganon 03:43, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

One of the major issues would be unrest in Superior`s Canadian territories. Since Ontario is much more populated than first thought, the Canadian population of Superior would be much larger and therefore have a much larger voice in Superior`s politics, though still a minority on a national level, but a majority on a regional level. These citizens would not want to go to war with Canada. The existence of Canadian survivor states in southern Ontario would hinder Superior`s ability to wage war in the Saguenay region, and engaging in hostilities with other Canadian survivor states would increase the previously stated unrest. All this was discussed in the Canada and 2009 Saguenay War talk pages.Oerwinde 08:02, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And the inability of Superior troops to have easy access to the battlefields in Quebec means a large-scale edit to the war article is needed.

Lordganon 00:47, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not necessarily true Oerwinde. Like many other survivor states, these Canadians within Superior may have abandoned their old national identity and adopted a new one. Or, they may see Superior as the successor state to pre-Doomsday Canada. Also, like you said, they're a majority on the national level and it's doubtful that they would rebel, so they may oppose it bu the war would still occur.


 * LG, getting troops to Quebec would be easy. They would just go through the Great Lakes and up the St. Laurence. Superior's allies control the Great Lakes region and would allow their troops to pass through. Caeruleus 19:07, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Canon says that the St. Lawrence itself is controlled by packs of raiders - the "Lawrence Raiders." There's even an article about it. With the existence of actual survivors inside Ontario itself - the majority of which are not allied with Superior - any troops sent to Gaspe would have trouble.

Contact with the Canadian government - and the story of its roots with the escape of Trudeau eastward - would ensure that they wouldn't view it as the successor state to Canada. If anything, it would be viewed as the successor state to the USA - and many of the Canadians would believe that the US had caused the nukes, so they wouldn't willingly go along with it.

Lordganon 06:25, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Canada was a member of NATO too so they would feel this responsibility of Doomsday too if anything. Why does everything get blamed on America or the Soviets! Can't Canada take blame for at least one nuke? Arstar [talk] 18:31, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you right now that the Canadian government would not be the ones blamed - it would definitely be the Americans. It's just how we are, really - heck, a fairly common political insult during elections is to say the other side is "in bed with the Americans," or something less offensive along those lines. And people will often lose elections over how close they are to the US. We like ourselves with them, but usually as far away as we can get.

Lordganon 01:53, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Canada also doesn't have nukes, so how could we be blamed for them?--Oerwinde 00:20, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

If Canada takes part of the blame for World War III, I demand we hold Liechtenstein accountable as well. ;) --Zack 00:30, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

It came to my attention that Midland, and Simcoe County for that matter is part of Superior. Technically there is no way this article can be saved in its current revision but if it was transformed into another article that controls some of the other counties that would be alright. Arstar [talk] 06:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

While you are correct about the town of midland, according to the map on the Superior article, they only control the lake-shore of Simcoe county, and no more than that.

All the article needs is a slight adjustment of names to the city of Barrie.

Though, you need to adjust your map to be the real boundaries, not the accursed county lines. It makes no sense for those to be the boundaries of controlled territory.

Lordganon 07:03, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

This article came about after many discussions on the fate of Ontario. The Superior article is the one that needs reviewing, not Midland.--Oerwinde 10:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I added this back under review. With so much debate on Ontario, I think it is only fair that this article remain under review until everything is decided.  Mitro 22:37, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. No matter what we do with Superior I think that this state, and other of these Ontario statelets should have a smaller area of control. Just an idea. Arstar [talk] 02:49, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its all fine & good you have this "idea" but I'd like to know why you believe these "statelets" as you call them should be smaller. --ZACK 02:57, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out how large they can be and still be plausible. Remember that even though its been decided that Ontario's not a total wasteland there still is radiation and there still were strikes, especially the northern area of Southern Ontario right? Arstar [talk] 03:29, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Outside of metro Toronto and Ottawa - as well as most of North Bay and Windsor - the area should be pretty free of radiation. Really, the only badly effected area is the north shores of Lake Ontario, where the metro area of Toronto is - the strike(s) there would render it uninhabitable for many, many years. You'll have to look it up on a map, but most radiation would effect only the southernmost parts of Ontario, near Lake Erie.

The only strikes in the area atm are Toronto (would be more than one, quite likely), Ottawa, North Bay, and Windsor would have been essentially destroyed in the Detroit strikes. Some radiation from upstate New York would effect the Kingston/eastern Lake Ontario region as well. I do personally believe the city of Hamilton should have been nuked as well, of course.

Call it the south-central part of the area, mostly. But you'll need to look at map~

Lordganon 08:21, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Right, so Midland's size should stay pretty much the same. Zack 12:45, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd shrink it somewhat in the northern stretches of its control on the maps, but more or less, yes.

Lordganon 03:34, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections for return to canon? Arstar 21:21, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

We need to change the map with regards to Superior territory first, but otherwise yes.

Lordganon 21:25, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously, you guys, it's not about the strikes. It's never been about just the missile strikes.  The whole premise of the timeline is a breakdown of society.  Turning a large, happy democracy into a patchwork of small, happy democracies does not exactly agree with that premise.  Benkarnell 21:33, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ben it must be odd for you to have been here since the beginning and now you're seeing how the timeline has become. Nobody respect canon anymore, if you don't like something its "review, review, review". But I'll graduate the page anyways. Arstar 21:46, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense Arstar, but how can you take the righteous stance when you tried reviewing one of Ben's own articles recently? But I agree with you in spirit and I agree with Ben as well.  Mitro 21:53, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Arstar, a few days ago you were professing this conspiracy theory that these reforms to Superior were all being done for the sole purpose of saving this article. --Zack 16:34, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

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

=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.''

Britain
Maybe its just me but it seems that Britain fared incredibly well post-Doomsday. The British government predicted in the 80s that the country would lose 65% of its population after a nuclear war, either immediately after the bombs go off or afterwards due to serious injuries. Those estimates don't consider fallout, disease, famine and social disorder that will effect the survivors. Its already long been canon that the devestation was bad enough that the government abandoned the islands for South Africa, and yet a lot of large survivor states (for Britain's size that is) made it out ok. I'm not saying that we should start obsoleting or rewriting articles, but maybe we have reached the point where we are no longer going to see anymore British survivor states anymore and current proposals need to be carefully reviewed. Mitro 14:36, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to balance some of the optimism out with a reconsideration of my own articles, and creating some less optimistic ones too. But I would still submit to a review. Fegaxeyl 15:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree Mitro that its getting to crowded --Owen1983 15:41, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that reviews are necessary but i agree that there should be no more large british survivor states. The north is way to crowded and the east is reaching that point while the south was badly damaged on DoomsdayVegas adict 15:57, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think reviews are necessary either, they should only be a last resort. I like what Feg is doing by taking the initiative to trim his own work for optimism or implausibilities. I would rather see more authors do this, except when the info has been relied on by other editors when creating articles. If that comes up the best thing to do would be for those editors to discuss the material and see if something could be added, instead of removing or changing canon, to explain away an issue. Review only if there is really no choice whatsoever. Mitro 16:38, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Regarding the north of England, I don't know about Smoggy's nations but the eastern half of Lancaster is mostly empty space that was claimed by Lancaster more or less because it was there. That said, I did my best to keep Lancaster plausible but if anyone's spotted anything that's implausible please let me know.Tessitore 17:44, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Regarding the north of England, I don't know about Smoggy's nations but the eastern half of Lancaster is mostly empty space that was claimed by Lancaster more or less because it was there. That said, I did my best to keep Lancaster plausible but if anyone's spotted anything that's implausible please let me know.Tessitore 17:44, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough and I've just made a start on altering Woodbridge slightly by reducing the population to 100,000. It also occurs to me that there would be a fair bit more violence between the Brits and Americans in the early days so that's something to work on Verence71 20:05, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that that isn't really necessary with Woodbridge. The fact that humans always tend to co-operate - and that the base is clearly in a position of strength - would mean that Woodbridge would not have as much conflict in its early days. Yes, there might be some anger, and the whole nuclear war thing, that would create tension, but really I think Woodbridge would only face major conflicts after it has established itself - like these 'pirates' that were once mentioned. And I always thought Woodbridge's population was low, especially given how (comparatively) developed it's considered to be. Fegaxeyl 20:25, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Guys could you give me a map on a more appropriate size of the Celtic Alliance which shrinks the amount of land in England? Arstar [talk] 04:20, October 8, 2010 (UTC)