Talk:1983: Doomsday/Archive 5

Embassies and Religion
I'm exhausted right now, so please excuse any spelling and/or grammar errors. Are there embassies in the 1983 Doomsday? My next question is; what exactly is going on with religion? The major sites of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Buddhism have been destroyed. I can really only speak for the Eastern Orthodox Church for examples; but how exactly did the world restore the Patriarchs, Popes, Lamas, etc. I suppose an emergency synod could be called amongst any surviving Bishops, or even priests. Though how many Bishops, who they would pick, and at what time this historic Synod would be in I have no idea. As for everyone else; ideas anyone? I also realized that areas like Australia and New Zealand that have a huge Greek population might actually save Orthodoxy. I don't know where the seat of the Patriarch would be. Mr.Xeight 04:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You touched a large issue Xeight:)...Embassies I'd guess still exist somehow, at least in the capitals not nuked. But I do not think they fare better then any other institutions after nuclear fallout, famine and diseases. Not sure if many can manage to evac their embassadors or recall them. In General I think the diplomatic network will have to be rebuilt from the ground. And many new nations emerging will have had further consequences in the years 1983 to mid-90ties at least. We already have a lot of diplomatic elements in the TL... maybe the worldwide WCRB bases may be recognized as sth. like diplomatic corpse bases as in many regions they might be the only reliable more or less neutral institution. I propose the WCRB Platforms of Diplomacy (1983: Doomsday) or sth. similar serving as regional neutral contact bases and diplomatic missions as a worldwide infrastructure of embassies and consulates will be hard to maintain for most nations. A League of Nations Resolution might be legitimating this.--93.212.13.3 07:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, even without heads, these religions aren't just going to disappear. Islam is still around, obviously, as we've mentioned several Muslim states (Indonesia for example). Catholicism might survive in the Celtic Union, or at least the Irish part. Eventually the world religions would reorganise, get popes and Lamas, etc. Similarly for embassies. Say we have an Australian Embassy in Dublin. Obviouly they can't contact their government or represent a government they can't assure the existance of, so either the ambassadors would die of cancer, starvation, etc or integrate into society. But eventually embassadies would reorganise, though I think that each country would send ambassadors rather than just have the WRCB bases. DarthEinstein 12:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A bigger question might be: what effects did the Doomsday event have on theology and religious thought? A lot of changes no doubt happened as a response to it.  Benkarnell

Post WW II in Europe the percentages of religious people plummeted; we can all only imagine how much more it's gone down here. Of course people could be drawn closer to religion after such shocking events, my guess is that Xi'Reney might have to decide on if Atheism in 1983DD either sky-rocketed or is less than in our world. Mr.Xeight 13:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on the country, ie how much it was hit, how important religion was before Doomsday, etc. DarthEinstein 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i think Catholic church elect a independent Pope by South America where people is live and almost of them are catholict, add of catholicnot nuclear attack to south america like a god bendition, how care about 2 million of catholic in Irelan when we have 130 millions in Brazil, same numbers in all latin america Roman Catholicism by country Archivo:Mapamundi católico (2005).png --Fero 15:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fero -- I think that's a bit away from the norm, though. I don't think that the Catholics there would just up and decide to elect a pope, especially since the rules of the Catholic Church state that all the cardinals have to gather to elect a new pope.  And do we know where JPII was at that time?  Otherwise, you've got an Anti-Pope for South America. --Louisiannan 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia, John Paul II travelled a lot, and in 1983, the last place he visited was Austria, from Sept 10 to 13. I think its likely that he was in Europe at the time of Doomsday. See Pope John Paul II. DarthEinstein 16:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd sort of like expect an epic scale schism resulting from the lack of communication possibilities immediately post-DD, with self-proclaimed popes arising all over the world. Guess the only place where a pope would actually be able to gather a substantial following would indeed be South America. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be some anti-popes, but in the long run the church would be reunited under a pope chosen by the cardinals. The Roman Catholic church does have procedures in place in case contact is lost with Rome (for example 3 bishops can create other bishops thus allowing for more priests).  I would give it a year or two and then someone is going to call a conclave to choose a new pope, that is assuming that John Paul II is actually dead.  I also could see a "New Rome" being set up in South America because of its Catholic population and being missed by Doomsday.  Mitro 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i was choise Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brasília to a new vatican city base and her Leadership


 * Archbishops of Brasília (Roman rite)
 * Archbishop João Bráz de Aviz (2004.01.28 – present)
 * Cardinal José Freire Falcão (1984.02.15 – 2004.01.28)
 * Archbishop José Newton de Almeida Baptista (1966.10.11 – 1984.02.15) like heavy popular new pope--Fero 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that if the South American (and Mexican and possibly Central American) cardinals were to elect a poe, he would be the de facto pontiff even if some Catholics elsewhere disapproved. The facts are that South America likely contains an overwhelming majority of the world's Catholics now.  If there was a Brasilian coclave in the late 80s or so, my bet would be that the rest of worldwide Catholicism has either accepted it, or else formed small splinter groups dedicated to the memory of Rome, saying that true Popes may only be elected there.  Probably the split was deep and painful - it actually reminds me of the Sunnis and Shi'ites.  But whatever the changes to Catholicism, they must have been profound.  The church is so deeply tied to that place - it is the Roman Catholic Church, after all, and that name is more than just a nice tradition.  It makes me think of the Jews after they lost Jerusalem, or the Greek Orthodox when they lost Constantinople.  Benkarnell
 * "the Jews after they lost Jerusalem, or the Greek Orthodox when they lost Constantinople", totally agree, and even more so, since Rome is now totally destroyed. Perhaps to keep the tradition alive they would make a city called New Rome (or Portuguese/Spanish equivalent) or else rename a city to New Rome. DarthEinstein 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't rule out the rest of the world's participation in the election of a new pope. 1/4 of Australia's population is Catholic.  Whether that would have a major impact on the selection I don't know but it is something to consider.  Also don't forget the prestige that goes with having the Holy Father in your country.  We may see a lot of South American nations falling over each other to get "New Rome." Mitro 01:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia might actually be the saviour for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Australasia has Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests (who could be invited because Doomsday has the habit of making drastic changes) from many of the Orthodox Churches. Now there is a small (and I stress that) group of Eastern Orthodox people in South America, Asia, Africa, and the survivors of Europe, though they would be so small they would most likely be Kenothronists, with the clergy and laity remembering the Patriarchs with honor. Of course with Greece taking mandateship over North Africa, great strides could be made in Africa, maybe in some missionaries making it into Sub-Saharan Africa. Mr.Xeight 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

i think somone like Micheal jackson would be viewed as a prophet and would attract a fallowing which would be viewed as a religion--Owen1983 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope not. Mr.Xeight 19:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

#3
1983: Doomsday is now #3 on the editor's pick. Mitro 15:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hurrah! By the way, who picks it anyway? DarthEinstein 15:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong but I think it involves how often it is edited. Hence, editors choice.  Mitro 01:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Where were you? Where are you?
My own birth did not occur until almost exactly a year after Doomsday was averted in Our Timeline. It's safe to assume that my parents, in suburban Chicago, would not have survived to create me or anyone similar to me in This ATL. But some of you are older than I am. Where would you have been on Doomsday? Are you a likely survivor? Where are you living now? It's a fair thing to include in the TL, if you ask me, since we've already tapped so many rather average figures for major roles! Benkarnell 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas, I was also born after Doomsday and I am double unlucky because my parents lived in the city of Chicago. If they did avoid being turned into radioactive dust, my guess is there likelihood of survival is small.  Kind of depressing to think about, I'd rather they both survive unharmed and lead a group of bad ass refugees across cannibal infested Wisconsin until they set up a homestead in Upper Penninsula Michigan (which might have survived intact).  Mitro 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be in Utah, and would likely be a survivor, possibly a veteran of the Spokane War. I definitely wouldn't be a linguist, or do much else of what I've done in my life, that's for sure. Louisiannan 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not born to 1983, but my parents was (how tha fack i say that in englsih?)in a Romantic friendship in Buenos Aires, that mind they was not died, that is good. (time to diner, i back later)--Fero 01:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't born before Doomsday, so my likelihood of birth would be low. It's safe to say that I don't exist in the timeline, as both my parents were either in an American or Canadian major city. DarthEinstein 01:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My whole family would be dead in southern Chicago :( Mr.Xeight 13:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My family live in rural Lincolnshire so I don't think my parents would have been killed. Unfotunately my parents hadn't met yet so I wouldn't exist. However I may have many "half-siblings". Bob 18:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No me around yet either. But since my parents live in the rare truly rural part of The Netherlands I guess they'd have a fair chance at survival. Whether they'd meet is a much different matter though. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I lived about half an hour drive from Montreal so I might have survived and being one of the

many refugees going to the Saguenay (part of my familly is from there).

I would have survived becuse my perants well my mum lived in the Algarve at the point of DD I live in Bury a small town in Mancunia--Owen1983 14:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I would have had any chance of survival... On September 26th, 1983, I just turned 4 months :( And living in Westfalia at that time... 2 hours west from the Inner-German Border, south of Hamburg, east of Cologne, north of Frankfurt, close to the Rhein-Ruhr region...hmm.. looks like I've been living at the junction of Mushroom Cloud Alley and Radiation Avenue... Even if I had been with my grandparents... one surrounded by (known and confirmed) US nuclear missile bases and German army bases and 10 kms of Frankfurt-Hahn Airbase... the other 40 kms east of Frankfurt near Hanau...US army bases, German Border again, near the Fulda Gap... anthing I need to add? --Xi&#39;Reney 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, my own birthday, May 30th, is infamous to be the expected Doomsday! According to Jehovas Witnesses and a german folk song...:( --Xi&#39;Reney 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My birthday was the day a fictional British Empire took Cuba from the Spanish :D Mr.Xeight 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * @Xi'Reney Well... at least the last thing you'll be doing is having a party, can imagine worse things to end life with... Anyway, can I find the text of this folk song somewhere? Just a bit curious ;). --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Karsten, here a link to the youtubevideo of the german folk song "Am 30. Mai ist der Weltuntergang" Youtube
 * And the lyrics: Lyrics in German if anyone is interested I might translate that to English, but it is in general a 1955-song about "The world is coming to an end and we have to drink as much as we can before" :):):) I always hated this belief in my birthday being th end of the world, but what can I do about it...--Xi&#39;Reney 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well my parents would be dead 10 years before I'm born, fun fun fun... And I only just noticed that (@Mr.Xeight) :D --Gamb1993 09:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Absence
Just a heads up to everyone: I'll be gone until the sixth of July. Farewell. DarthEinstein 04:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bye! If it's a vacation, I hope you have fun. If it's job related-I hope the conferences aren't too boring :) Mr.Xeight 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and by the way I miscalculated, make that 13th of July. Farewell again! DarthEinstein 15:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you still doing here? You'll miss your flight - get going!  Benkarnell

Have been away for a few days...road trip in Germany, and only briefly here, at least until the weekend (going to visit a Belgian girl :):) . So please do not be sad/in anger/in despair :P will throw in comments again soon. --Xi&#39;Reney 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC) To all WCRB: Keep up the fabulou work !! THank you, you guys are amazing!!

Not sure if I need to put this here, but incase anyone needs me I will be gone throughout the rest of August. I'll try to get all my pages back in order when I get back.--ShutUpNavi 14:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Best
What do you think are the best articles on this TL (note: don't name your creations or anything you made major contributions too)? Mitro 13:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head, I'm a big fan of the Netherlands Antilles. Benkarnell 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * hmmm..after your limiting question, mitro ;)

--Xi&#39;Reney 17:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Hawaii
 * 2) Nordic Union

the world in 2009
Climate change this has had an odvious effect on the world and is a major concern

Disease the rsate of a lot of cancers has increased

Europe with the braek up of SSR last year things are looking hopeful

Technology since DD all technology ceased but this restarted 9 years ago

Transportation this is back to pre doomday levels thanks to a huge effort to kickstart automotve production

Willdlife has suffered due to radiation but this is getting better

--Owen1983 16:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
User :86.156.70.49 is actually User:Mumby but my computer has been a tad funny of late. 86.156.70.49 16:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2009
i think there would be major differences between are 2009 ant this ATLs 2009 for instence major world events aftere 1983 never ocured oor happened differently --Owen1983 19:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First off please put topics under the right headings, this is the second time I had to do this for you. Second off, I don't think anyone doubts that the world would be a different place after a nuclear war in 1983.  What exactly are you getting at?  Mitro 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RZA
What does it stand for? Bob 09:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the ISO country code for South Africa. It comes from Republiek Zuid-Afrika, the name in Dutch... Dutch, of course, is no longer an official language in South Africa, but it was a the time the ISO code was assigned. Benkarnell 14:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

New Britain
I have received some comments that there is no point in New Britain and that it probably wouldn't exist anyway. All that I wanted was to have the Union Flag fly over land, no matter how small. A world in which that banner is lost is a sad world indeed. I think we should canvas some votes to find out whether we should keep New Britain or not. Option 1 is that New Britain exists. Option 2 is that it does not. Before you vote may I remind you that people have been calling themselves British for something like two thousand years. Thanks to the existence of the Empire something like 125,043,387 either consider themselves British or are descended from British people. Something little like a nuclear war won't end that legacy.

Existence of New Britain Option One Option Two

I think the largest and common concern, Mumby, is that your plans have all been very optimistic in a very dystopian timeline. Louisiannan 14:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about the existence of one thing or another. The original ideas for NB and its permutations ignored the history of South Africa.  Any British survivor community has to exist in a local context.  We have spent a very long time talking about this, and I think you had finally reduced the idea to something workable.  But if you're mostly concerned with preserving a feeling, then there are lots of ways that can be preserved outside of South Africa (where the British flag had not flown since 1910, and which had severed all connections to Britain in 1961).  The Falklands probably have some official recognition of their Britishness, as do the British citizens of the Celtic Alliance. There could theoretically be a British parallel to the Committee to Restore the USA operating in the British Isles, including Ireland.
 * Another possibility is Prince Andrew, who we've established was a likely survivor. Find a place for him to establish a court-in-exile (the Caribbean?  ANZ?), and he could even be contemplating a recolonization of Britain itself, possibly in cooperation with the Celts, possibly in competition with them.  Come to think of it, we know very little about the Caribbean.  He could have ended up in one of the colonies or Commonwealth realms there, where he still was heir to the throne.
 * I'll echo Dan: this TL is not about wish fulfillment, quite the opposite in fact. Some of us may enjoy the idea of Nordic union or revived Celticism or independence for Hawaii, and therefore may like aspects of the world of 1983.  But it's supposed to be a realistic look at how the world would re-form itself following a catastrophe.  As far as nationality goes, my loyalty lies with the USA, and yet for this TL I've been telling the story of its dismemberment; I even argued against the original version of the North American Union, which was an over-optimistic USA rump state.  My point is that we're trying (hopefully) to explore the most plausible results of an apocalyptic event, and that will involve things that nobody likes.
 * Finally, I will add that the British identity isn't as old as you suggest; there was no such thing as "Britain" until 1707, and even then many people hated the idea. Benkarnell 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mumby we're all truly sorry but there is no way whatsoever that Britain can survive in any way at all. Any royal family in London at the time I can bet all of my life's savings are dead; radioactive piles of ash scattered across hellish ruins. If there was anyone in succession to the throne somewhere in the world that didn't see radioactive Hellfire rain down from the skies carried by enemy planes, maybe he could set up a government in exile in wherever. If he was in Australia, he would actually be the head of the government anyway, and be given high esteem in the country, maybe a palace built for him, he could marry a native Aussie, etc. When the world can set up communications again and everyone knows everyone else is out there, this successor to the throne could set up his government in the Celts' Cornwall area, the closest place he can get to England without fighting three-eyed cannibals. As for a 2nd British Raj in Nepal or a British Empire from Cape Town to the Congo is pure ASB, please take that somewhere else. Mr.Xeight 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't share Mr. X's view that it is impossible for their to be a British exile state somewhere. South Africa might work but as we have said repeatedly you need to tone down the scope and optimism.  I fear that you are trying more to recreate the British Empire then a British state.  This will not be some enlightened empire bringing light to the darkness, but just one more survivor state that is trying to ignore then mass grave of skeletons in their closet.
 * Furthermore I agree with Ben. The concept of being "British" was a product of the 18th century and is certainly not 2000 years old (I think you mean "Britons" who were Celts and have more in common with Ireland then Britain today).  I doubt even the concept of being "English" existed back then since the Anglo-Saxons hadn't shown up yet and I doubt any Picts thought of themselves as being British.  Plus not everyone in Britain today likes being British (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#United_Kingdom_and_associated_territories_.28Europe.29 for a complete list).
 * Also a nuclear war wouldn't end the British legacy just because there state doesn't exist. The US might be disbanded in this history but their "legacy" lives on in the ANZC, the Committee to Restore the USA, the US government in the NAU and the various successor states.
 * Finally nationalism is great and all but this is supposed to be a plausible alternate history. Plausibility, not nationalism, should be at the forefront every time you sit down to write something on this TL.  Mitro 17:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

After thinking a while I casted "no". A "no" which means New Britain as a separate, sovereign nation of that name not existing. From all experiences I made, especially in 6 months in New Zealand, so breathing in Commonwealth Air and meeting a lot of BRITAINS, the strongest impression I had is that a true "british" identity/nationality share by the largest part of the country does not really exist. "British" seems to me more a kind of a collecton of several national identities mixed up and rought together in a name. I felt that the lived and felt nationality in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and it's people lays more in the English, Scotish, Welsh (Irish?) heritage, language and culture. This based on the centuries-long process of forming different cultures (norse, anglo-saxon, celticetc.) and nations, often battling each other for decades into the United Kingdom.

If you add the 17th-19th century British Empire and later the 20th century Commonwealth I do not argue that a certain, common "british" heritage exists and will definitely be carried on post-Doomsday (English, basic law system, culture etc.). But given the diversity and the highly developed national identities in the "colonies" at that point, in 1983... I do not see a serious oppurtunity for a formal, sovereign and influential state of "New Britain" surviving, not in the scale of a nation in South Africa. What I could imagine, taking your phrase "have the Union Flag fly over land, no matter how small" is one (or several) of the small, then-still-crown colonies after being able to survive declaring a "New Britain", maybe in a symbolic gesture after a surviving royal(Prince Andrew or alike) takes his residency there...this might be accepted by the ANZC, MSP etc. to tease/appease a "British Royalists Movement" having gained political influence there(headed by old "Lords", RAF&Navy members or sth aka) canditates? but St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Ascension... Or maybe a Federation of all/most of them? "British colonial Federation", "British Crown colonies Association"... sth. a like?? Hard to imagine sth. in the Pacific... too far and to small... Or can you imagine Adamstown on Pitcairn being declared British Capital?? And to dependable on the ANZC.
 * Carribean was a good hint: Bermuda, Brit Virgin, Cayman Islands, St. Vincent etc...
 * South aAtlantic would be potential...NOT the Falklands!
 * In Europe sth. like the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, Malta...

A "NEw Britain"/ "NEw British Empire" is more something suitable for a Doomsday-Scenario taking place decades earlier, 1950's or 60's, resulting NOT in a devastation as large as a mid-80's total nuclear war.

And if I were a refugee from the UK somehow being able to survive I would probably try to get as far away from the radiation on the Island as possible. If the ANZC takes me, okey then. I would guess there would be a strong variety of refugees and where they go. The Scotsmen would probably stay within the Celtic Alliance territory, if possible...also the Welsh and Irish expected to be working closely...the English...I guess they wouldbe keen to leave, if they can...being privileged to most european survivors/refugees because having at least some countries helping them out of old tradition!!! (Imagine a german, Italian or East European survivor trying to being brought to Australia??)--Xi&#39;Reney 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I had an idea last night. How about an enclave similar to Orania in ANZC for self governing British remnants. They could have a head of state in some distant heir to the throne and actually be governed by a 'British Survivors Administration'. Bob 17:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would this happen when in this TL it did not happen for the Americans? ATL the US disbanded in 1995 and its remaining territories were given the option to either join ANZC or try for independence.  Mitro 18:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob, the best we can give you is the closest surviving relative of the Current Royal Family setting up a government-in-exile in some state, maybe even with autonomy if the group sees fit. No Nova Imperium Britannia. Mr.Xeight 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the fact that the ancient Britons shared more in common with the Irish. The three groups of Celts in the UK were very distinct, especially the Brythonic Celts from the Goidelic ones. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britons_(historical)) As for your secessionist parties, almost all of these are objects of derision and often amusement in the UK. The only really serious one is the Scottish National Party and even then doesn't manage to get a majority in the Scottish Parliament. It took a very long time for Scottish devolution to set in and the main reason they wanted it was because they felt detached from Westminster because of the policies of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Today under a more Scotcentric Labour government the Union is much more popular. Independence to Northern Ireland is often met with outright hostility. In 1974-79 welsh devolution was suggested but the referendum declared a staggering no by almost 700'000 votes. Even when they got their own Assembly it only got in by a very narrow margin. The very idea that English is British is a fallacy. The Scots mostly guided the development of the British identity in the early years. It was a Scottish king who envisaged himself as a new Arthur, King of the Britons. Saxon and Celt were united against the threat of Papacy. Both World Wars reinforced the Union of the two races. If you come on a jubilee or another time of national celebration you will see the union of which I speak. In the past, it has always been crises and the threat of liberty and freedom which has drwan English, Scot, Welsh, Cornish and Irish together into the umbrella of Britishness. Besides British has a better ring to it. Also 98% of the genes of the British Isles is the same as the first settler in this green and pleasant land. Bob 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bob -- whether the Britons considered themselves Britons or not, the true point of all of this discussion is this: For the 1983: Doomsday timeline your proposals are quite simply too optimistic and too broad.  They don't fit the timeline because of this.  If you can tailor your proposals down using the suggestions of the kind-minded folks who've taken time to review your many suggestions, I think your ideas can find a place here.  If you don't wish to tailor them down, you might wish to elaborate a timeline in which they will fit.  Louisiannan 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with being optimistic? Sometimes in these times of death and despair is when more people are unshakingly optimistic than the jolly times. Sultan Narp 17:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't mean optimistic as in the population is happy, he means optimistic in the fact that everyone survives the England Bombings and relocates to South Africa where they outbreed the natives and conquer the whole continent. Mr.Xeight 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * @Mr. X: What you described was Rhodesia, which is no longer canon. In all fairness to Bob,  is much more realistic.  Only a small number manage to relocate and the state itself is just one of many factions fighting in South Africa.  Though it still needs work it is much more plausible then its predecessors.
 * @Sultan Narp: Maybe for the post-Doomsday world a little optimism can go a long way. But in OTL we aren’t living in times of death and despair (relatively speaking) but we still need to be realistic when portraying a world that went through a nuclear war.  Any nation we create must reflect that.  Mitro 17:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That was just me using what you meant as optimism in a sentence. We don't mean optimism as in the state of mind a person has, but optimism as in the movies; where the hero and his girlfriend live to fight another day and everything turns out just fine; even if something like a dragon or horde of zombie bikers were the antognists. Mr.Xeight 17:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Yes the mindset of the writer should not be optimistic.  Mitro 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Geography
It just occured to me whilst reading the Climate page, that Geography may have been altered dramatically. There may well be craters from the bombs which have become lakes. And the rise in sea level would surely alter continent shapes dramatcally. Surely we should take this into account in the map?Bob 14:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fero once made a map showing likely places where bays had been deepened. We've already seen a large lake appear in Egypt.  I'll bet a lot of those island targets in the Pacific look very different today.  Benkarnell 20:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per my suggestions on Climate, the sea-level isn't actually rising because of the increase of rain/snow across the northern hemisphere, which is leading to the greening of the Sahara, increase in glaciation, etc. It's also resulting in the temperate zone pushing a scosh more northerly, meaning that temperatures there are much the same as here -- just wetter.  But that also means there are going to be more than a few nuclear lakes. Louisiannan 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

request
could pple please put new posts at the bottom becuse the tak page is becoming cheotic thanks --Owen1983 23:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should. Our current setup has three separate sections for general discussion, proposals and the world map.  If we get rid of said sections things would actually get more chaotic since they would no longer be organized in their category.Mitro 00:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could setting up a forum structure like The Nexus be an idea? This page is getting rather lengthy, so it might be worthwhile to split it up. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, we could split this page into three seperate pages with the links to each on the back of this page. Mitro 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

we need some kind of structure my favoure idea is to saught the article into alphabeticle order this will make the talk page easier to use --Owen1983 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No More Nationalism
I don't know about you all, but new people who happen to have nationalist tendencies are starting to axacerbate the situation of this particular TL slipping from reality to the most unfortunate condition known as "ASB". We need to do something. I propose a sort of "Inquisition" of Contributors where they split up the pages and carefully exam them to see what should stay, what should be downgraded, and what should... I supposed you could see it as a "surrender of democracy", but is it really that bad? Frankly I'll admit that my Peloponnesian plans for Libyan domination might be a little unrealistic, so I'm not afraid to volunteer my work first. Mr.Xeight 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that if everyone sticks to there own country it will ad to distrust between nations i would like to remind people of the events of 26 years ago when nationalism and fear between the old USA and the old USSR led to 3billion deaths --Owen1983 13:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Owen, it IS a dystopian time line. It's not meant to be all rosy and happy utopia rising from the ashes, unless I've misunderstood.  I think it's definitely important that we don't have anyone in the northern hemisphere declaring that they were somehow not nuked, that they some how have the wherewithal to "save the world."
 * I don't agree, however, that we should go through and rip out work -- I think that we need to work with those would be contributors, just like other projects I'm involved with. Granted, some of them just won't get the hint, and we'll have to ask them to leave, but some should start to understand the feel of the timeline, and will be accepted into the group.  I think more of the pen, less of the sword. Louisiannan 14:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry-but this is not a place to reiterate the foundation of DD. I am quite serious of letting stronger hands take over and fix the mistakes we have; unless the group is perfectly happy with some of the recent shortcomings. Mr.Xeight 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Louisiannan has got a valid point and on occasion it is inportent to reiterate the foundation of DD I consider myself as somone with stronger hands but I am happy to let the group evolve --Owen1983 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since creating the proposal procedure generally three things have happened when group consensus is against approving the proposal:


 * 1) Editor changes the proposal or the article he has made to make it more plausible.
 * 2) If no article is created, the proposal is rejected and removed from the talk page and the editor does not object.
 * 3) If an article is created, the editor agrees to allow his work to be listed as obsolete or voluntarily asks for it to be deleted.

Eventually though we are going to run into an editor who is either uninterested/unwilling to make the changes to his or her work for it to be acceptable to the group. Unless we have a plan about what to do in this situation we may have articles that sit in proposal status for a long time. It would be even worse if the editor does not agree to mark his work as obsolete or voluntarily request deletion.

I think a gradual process is in order. First we continue to try to reason with the editor about why his or her work needs to change for it to be canon. Second if the editor continues to be unwilling in making the changes we should reject the proposal if that is the group’s consensus and politely ask that he or she remove mention of 1983: Doomsday from the article. If he or she refuses someone should go in and remove all mention of 1983: Doomsday from the article (article name, categories, links, etc.). If the editor attempts to revert this then I think requesting deletion is necessary, but only as a last resort.

I suggest this procedure because I do agree that we should not be hasty in deleting or removing someone’s work. No one likes to see there work be unceremoniously removed by complete strangers and it is better to give them a chance to either improve their work or take it to their own fictional universe. Marking it with the obsolete banner gives them a chance to return in the future or have someone else come along and make changes to it.

Hopefully we will never come to this situation. Someone who is truly able to work in collaborative setting would probably not be so stubborn that he would refuse to accept the rejection of his proposal. Still it is best to be prepared with a process to follow in case the situation ever comes. Mitro 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)