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

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

Borders of Utah and Sierra Nevada
There is dispute between Louis and Fx over the borders of Utah (a canon article) and Sierra Nevada (a proposal). I believe the jist of the argument can be found here. Mediation has been requested, so please review both articles and the discussion between the two editors and help them come to a resolution. I would also ask that Louis and Fx please leave a short summary of their position here as well. Mitro 16:58, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to thank Mitro for setting this up and to reiterate what I have said already in that I am open to discussion. I have tried to lay out my arguments on the SNU discussion page, which I would suggest should be read as well as those on the Cascadia discussion page, where part of this discussion took place, as reference. This said, if I understand Louisianan's point accurately, its that some part of northeastern NV joined with UT at some point for some reason sometime in the post-war world. The problem is though there is nothing written in either UT or its history regarding this. I should note that if you enlarge and study the map of UT, it shows the inclusion of a small part of the state. Since a map in not necessarily canon without something written to support it, I took this to mean it was theoretical. I carefully did my research before writing my article on NV to ground it in reality and especially paid close attention to articles about the surrounding area. Understandably, since I could find nothing if anything, I set my boundaries for the eastern SNU by using the old state borders. Since our discussions began, Louisianan has now informed me of several other NV cities/towns which are part of UT which were not even referenced in his map. I am baffled and confused by the situation. How can one violate something not written? The only changes I can discern which would be made to accept my borders would be for a change to the UT and Cascadia maps. Suffice it to say I feel I have put forth a number of logical points supporting my thoughts and rationale in how I have written my article. I have gotten the distinct impression there is less of a desire to logically discuss the matter with me and more of a "because I told you so, you should do it" approach. I apologize for getting so lengthy is trying to lay out my thoughts.--Fxgentleman 01:34, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Fx, I request that you may change the borders to the Californian part of the nation, because it is encompassing a large portion of my article Commonwealth of California Arstarpool 03:02, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold your horses their Arstarpool. We first need to work out the Borders of Utah and Sierra Nevada. The we'll deal with the boarders of Nevada and California. --GOPZACK 15:34, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Spokane War
I have some questions in regards to the Spokane army and war. I am looking at the possibility Spokane could have sent a second military forces to attack Utah in addition to the one already detailed which invaded northern Utah. This one crosses into the SNU without clear knowledge of what is there, with the intention of cutting across the region and pouncing on central Utah in a sort of pincer movement. Once it crosses over, the Spokane army is surprised to discover the SNU and proceeds to sack and loot several farms and settlements as they move forward, before being engaged in several major battles with the SNU military who destroys them. Having read what I could find thus far, I am unclear as to what the actual size and strength of Spokane’s army would have been and what their technological prowess actually was. Did they use armor, such as tanks and armored cars, or were they on foot and horse? I gather they were a formidable force, but I am still kind of in the dark about the rest. If anyone can provide me any feedback on both my questions and idea, please let me know. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 16:37, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought about the size of the Spokanian strike force as to the precise number of people, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had rallied maybe 1,000 men for the primary force and a number of several hundred for the pincer movement you describe -- which I really like, btw.
 * Remember that with limited communication (telegraph) it's very easy for a small group of people (hundreds) to make a huge impact. I like the idea that you've set forward, and I could back that incorporation into the history of the SNU. Which cities were you thinking? I'm sure that Wells would've been one of the ones sacked and looted, although with Wendover being in communication with Fillmore, they may well have been evacuated to Wendover or even across the Mormon Sea to New Tooele. All the same, I really like the idea you've suggested so far. Louisiannan 22:42, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Spokane, someone needs to create an article for the Spokane.HAD 16:43, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Rather than take up more space on the main page, I am going to move this to SNU discussion page. Louisiannan, my response to your question will be there. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 03:49, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

New London Review
During the New Rome discusion thier was talk and general agreement about the New London part of the celtic alliance being unrealistic, If the comunity agrees i sugest that this paticular part of the celtic alliance be removed from cannonVegas adict 20:25, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I am all for communities popping up in some of the nuked cities, but it's been established that London was hit by 12 missiles. While I could believe a small community could take roots here, I do not see that more than 3 nations have claims to new cities popping up from the ashes of the old ones. Arstarpool 04:15, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

The reason i oppose New London is the same reason i oppose New Rome: bith cities would have been too heavily nuked. I expect resettlement by 2020, at the earliest for Rome and 2030 for London. Also, 12 missiles does not equal 12 impact events. 12 missiles could, due to MIRV technology mean 120 nuclear explosions, each of the 100KT yield. Thats alot. --HAD 14:36, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there could be small communities on the outskirts of Greater London Verence71 14:57, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you simply have a "New London" somewhere other than where old London was? BrianD 14:58, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the outskirts of West London would be where this 'New London' is designated. I was actually planning to write up an article on London and the fates of the scant survivors of Doomsday; would anyone like me to post up what I saw New London as being? I suppose, depending on the scale of the damage, various survivor communities could exist further in, but logically the further into the city you go the smaller the population, the greater the deformities, and the more they rely on cannibalism to survive. Any survivor states would have to exist on the more fertile outer perimeter, straddling the M25 (New London), or be heavily reliant on external supplies (Essex's communities in East London). I assumed that London was mostly hit by airbursts, but at Westminster (possibly the Docklands) there were groundbursts to scour out and ensure the destruction of the facilities there. The rest of the city would have been engulfed by a firestorm that would last for days, not dying down until perhaps a week after Doomsday, killing off nearly all the city's roughly 7 million inhabitants (as of 1983). The survivors would either have run for the country or have been forced to scrape a living in the ruins. Fegaxeyl 15:39, May 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the M25 as such did not exist in 1983 ( although a majority of sections did...)

It might be better to consider London as the GLC area ( which as such would have existsed in 1983 ) - Of course the GLC itself had it's own Bunker

under County Hall but it's proximity to major strikes in Westminster may rule it out as an effective base of operations for the GLC post Doomesday,

In the run up to the events of this timeline, I also recall the GLC being rathe pro-CND and left-wing...

Elsewhere in the notes for the UK an estimated yield of 8 MT is given for all strikes... this I think may be an underestimate. but is presumably an in-timeline

figure given that accurate records might not exist...

In terms of London, likely targeting may have included : -

- Northwood and/or Bentley Priory ( This depends on whwn Strike Command Relocated...)

- White City (BBC) or Old Oak Common (Major Railway Yards)

- Battersea - (When did the power station close? and also a LOT of railway infrastructure...

- Westminster/Whitehall

- Lea Valley ( Water Storage) - Shepperton area ( Water Storage)

- Heathrow ( Major Airport)

Docklands even by 1983 was in decline, and as such the primary port facilites had already started to move Down river... However that might not have been factored into Soviet targeting...

Kent-

No Dartford Tunnel? - (Which means you have a major headache crossing the Thames, given the inaccessability of crossing points upstream of Dartford),

also possibly no Thames Barrier, which means parts of London are much more vunerbale to a major flood...

- Chatam Naval Dockyard was until the Mid 1980's I think still an active military facility, and may have dealt with subs at some point..

- Dover - Although there would at this date have been a bunker under Dover Castle, it's proximity to any strike on Dover docks would have rendered it useless.)

Bucks - I would call into the question the plausibility of Milton Keynes still being around give Beltchley and Wolverton being major rail centres. However, assuming Milton Keynes exists than I would perhaps consider that the concrete cows are in fact real cows in the Doomesday Timeline... Aylsebury Vale/ North Bucks are probably not affected by events in London but maybe depending on the size of waeopns used will be in respect of

what happened in respect of the Chilterns and South of the county.... High Wycombe is almost certainly affected badly, although this not due to a direct strike

but it's proximity to an RAF Bunker ( hit by a 'massive' ground strike).

None of the scenario notes so far make any mention of what happens to the Buncefield Oil Depot? ( Was this Targetted at all?)

Assuming the 'survival' of Buncefield, there is the possibility that in 2010, following a lack of mantinence for nearly 22 years, there is a minor explosion

close to the site that sets the entire complex ablaze, leading to the rediscovery of the Hundreds...

Prior to the rediscovery there may have been periodic reports of 'willo-the wisp' in certain fringes of Essex/Woodbridge...(Pipelines?)

The southern fringe of The Hundreds (OTL: South Bucks ) is presuambly lawless,

Does anyone here a rough idea what the targetting pattern for NW London was on Doomesday, because it affects how things develop?

If Little Chalfont and Chalnfot St Giles survive then it's possible thet athe Hundreds have at least 18 the century conditions,

(One key issue being a College Campus above one of the Chalfonts... ),

Greenham Common - presumably a major target.... 212.225.120.224 20:34, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Old London would have been obilterated, as would much of Greater London. A survivor state on the very outskirts of Greater London is plausible, i suppose.HAD 16:42, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean for New Rome? I would not see it becoming obliterated, seeing that it was not as active in NATO as Britian and France were, but problaby hit by 3 to 6 100 KT Missiles. All post-Doomsday nuked cities have shown to have some sort of population, as the extreme survivalists near D.C., the communities around San Diego, and several others. I suppose though that New London would be smiliar to Mainland Portugal; extremely improvised.Arstarpool 21:48, May 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the capitals would be the targets of the higher yield weapons. If Vienna was targeted with a 1 MT bomb, I would think Rome would be targeted with something bigger than a few 100kt ones. Rome was a much higher priority than Vienna, with almost twice the population, so I would see probably 3 1MT strikes. Oerwinde 20:40, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose tiny communities on the outskirts of cities that were hit are possible. However, what about the fires that were caused by the strikes. Surely they would have destroyed a large part of whatever was left standing. And we must bear in mind conditions such avaliability of food, water and such and such. HAD 10:41, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Such a strike would probably not be three 1MT warheads, but 30 100KT warheads. Same overall yield, more damage.HAD 21:41, May 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * By that logic the USSR would be out of missiles pretty damn fast. They had plenty of warheads, not so many delivery systems. A single 1MT nuke wouldn't cover as much area as 10 100KT nukes, but when the city is burning, people are fleeing, and electronics are wiped out... does it really matter? K.I.S.S. Keep it simple stupid. Why waste those extra 27 missiles when 3 can get the same jobs done? Oerwinde 08:18, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about MIRVs? A single missile can carry ten warheads.HAD 08:28, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1

New Map Time!
Its about time we got ourselves a new world map. We really need to start replacing our maps on a regular basis.Yankovic270 23:39, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

I have started work on a new map, while pretty much the same base map of the old one, but I have created a more organized Key and removed the colors that show 'powerful' countries (Union Interim Parliament, Cuba, Superior) and added some (MSP, Dixie Alliance, Taiwan). Tell me if I should continue work on this, or should I scrap the entire project in favor of a completely new map. Arstarpool 21:55, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just be sure when your making the Dixie Alliance not to make Kentucky, Cape Girardeau, & Virginia look like they are all apart of the same country. --GOPZACK 15:53, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Updating Maps
Yank raised an interesting point that we should update our maps on a regular basis. Should we have a protocol for replacing them every month of what? --GOPZACK 15:54, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

How about we update it every 15 new nations?HAD 20:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan HAD. I would just amend it slightly so we update it every 15 new nations or major territorial changes. --GOPZACK 01:19, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Flooding
I think we should establish a list of areas that were flooded after Doomsday, so that the community can ensure that when they are creating a new survivor nation they aren't accidentally placing it underwater, as well as to aid in future map-making. This could of course extend into a discussion over how nature will have reclaimed abandoned areas of the world after Doomsday, but I'd just like to start of considering areas that would be flooded. I get the ball rolling with areas that have been flooded in the UK: And globally a few more come to mind: Any more suggestions? Fegaxeyl 09:26, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Somerset Levels, located in the Celtic Alliance
 * The Fens, in/near East Britain
 * London, specifically around the River Lea and River Thames
 * The Eonile in Egypt
 * The Dutch Wastelands

Coastal Lousiana and parts of Florida spring to mind.--HAD 14:37, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

The Norfolk Broads?? Verence71 14:42, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Southern Manitoba along the Red River, the area around Leningrad in Russia, Venice, Sacramento river Valley in Northern California, Paris, the Adige in Northern Italy (an underground canal used to drain off floods, used in 2000), Northern Ireland, along the Daunbe in Europe, Rivers through the Dakotas (floods every year).

Also, a case can be made for many of the rivers in the US to have flooded somewhat, as many have levees of one sort or another.

Areas around some hydroelectric dams are also a possibility - dams may fail, or the water ends up backed up because the dam is closed and floods more areas. --Lordganon 22:58, May 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Canon is that the sea-level hasn't actually risen more than here. Louisiannan 17:19, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, but lots of areas we take for granted as high and dry today are built on easily floodable areas; with the pumps abandoned large areas will be submerged to varying degrees regardless of sea level rise. Fegaxeyl 18:24, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Feg's point. We've seen it with The Neatherlands.HAD 20:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * In regard to dams, Where any directlr targeted ( Hoover Dam for example might have been a major target...)?212.225.120.224 20:26, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt the Hoover Dam would be a target, it would be disabled by the EMP from the strike on the air base in Vegas. A strike would be redundant.Oerwinde 20:30, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt the Hoover Dam would be a target, it would be disabled by the EMP from the strike on the air base in Vegas. A strike would be redundant.Oerwinde 20:30, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Proposals
So we have about 45 proposals kicking around right now. Lets try cut that in half over the next week or so. If you see an article thats ready to be graduated announce your support and we'll see if anyone objects. If you see an article that is implausible or what have you, propose it be marked as obsolete & we'll see what happens. --GOPZACK 20:09, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Good now were down to 37. --GOPZACK 21:04, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Extended Wikibreak
Well guys, this is goodbye. I am going on an extended wiki-break and won’t be back until sometime in August. The reason for my leave of absence is because I will be taking the Illinois State Bar on July 27 and the 28. Since 1 out of 10 people fail this test, I am going to have to study hard and will not be able to spend much time here. To prove how serious I am, my fiancé will be changing my password so I cannot log in under my user name if I get tempted. So if I ever do lose control, I will be on only as a faceless anon, unable to access my watchlist or my admin abilities.

There are a few things I would like to say though now that I have the chance:
 * Except for those articles that I have officially opened up to adoption, I delegate the caretaking duties to Ben and Louis for all of my articles until my triumphant return. Any questions or decisions about said articles should be directed to them, unless it is something so important that my input is required. If that is the case you may contact me at mitro85@yahoo.com.
 * I said it before, but remember I am not the official graduator of the timeline. Anyone can graduate an article as long as they follow the . Please, however, follow through on your graduation. There is more to graduating an article than just removing the proposal template. Here is a suggested checklist:
 * Request the article to be graduated on the main talk page.
 * Allow time for people to insert any objections. In fact I would suggest waiting 1 to 3 days before graduating an article. I think we have been graduating articles too quickly, which is partly my fault, and is one of the factors that have led to some of our current issues. Also treat nation articles with a fine tooth comb.
 * If there are no objections or any objections have been satisfied, you can graduate the article. Start by archiving the article’s proposal in the Former Proposal archives.
 * Go to the article’s page and remove the proposal template. Also take the time to add the template and any categories that are needed.
 * Add article’s link at the top of the new content list on the portal page. Also remove the last item on the list.
 * Be respectful to each other. Just because you do not agree with someone does not mean you have to be an ass about it. Also don't fly off the handle because someone is disagreeing with you. A disagreement does not equal a personal attack.
 * There has been a lot of good discussion involving the issues of this TL. Keep it up. Discussion is good.

Finally I just want everyone to know how proud I am of everything that we created. This TL has evolved from its original 2 pages to one of the largest and most active communities on this wiki. I'm going to miss working on this TL with all of you, but my exile is not going to last forever. I'm looking forward to seeing what has been created in my absence. Mitro 17:04, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Good luck!! Verence71 18:54, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

I hope you pass the Bar, my American Comrade. Good luck!HAD 19:38, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes, Mitro. Here's to excellent results!BrianD 22:38, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

All the best sir! GOPZACK 22:41, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wish you the best of luck! Arstarpool 00:36, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

RV/Trailer Parks & Camp Grounds
How do small communities based in the various recreation parks around the world sound?

Yankovic270 23:12, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * They would be hard-pressed to find/make the necessary food and supplies for themselves. Most people in these parks are retirees, and more likely targets of aggression than survivors. Moreover, this is a very "consumptive" lifestyle. If you don't have a society supporting you, you cannot survive long-term. (I work in the RV industry.) Louisiannan 21:30, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Possible Spammer
After several weeks, I have noticed that user Ocelot9011 has made 6 articles that contain the exact same content, albeit under different names. He has tried to pitch offers with several of us experienced editors, even telling Mitro "You will graduate this article. You cannot say no". I think someone should talk some sense into this guy and tell him his articles are not going anywhere. Arstarpool 03:13, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

This is about the Cascadia thing, right? Because I've noticed that as well.HAD 09:04, May 31, 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).

Kabylie
Is an article about a countrie wich gain independence from Algeria after it was given to Greece by The League of Nations, then a dictator modernized the small countrie.

VENEZUELA 23:35, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Per the scenario I listed earlier on the New Vegas discussion page, this is a nation consisting of parts of Nevada and adjacent California which I have been working on. I hope to proivde a map soon. However, I don't want to accidently encroach on New Vegas in regards to borders. When I originally envisioned this, I had loosely used Route Six to define the southern border, imagining everything south of there was of little concern to this nation. I welcome comments on this article, which I will add more to as time allows. Thanks..Fxgentleman 05:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you link to the page? Benkarnell 16:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation? I, for one, have none. Yankovic270 03:48, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

If you could remove the claims to Californian part of the nation, I will have no problems, but as of now the land you claimed in California is encroaching on my proposal Commonwealth of California. Arstarpool 05:41, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool this article came well before yours. The creator of Sierra Nevada has first dibs on the boarder. --GOPZACK 15:56, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

He's right if you want this to work you must remove the counties of Pulmas, Sierra, Nevada county, Placer, El Dorado, and Alpine from the borders of the California Commonwealth Riley.Konner 14:49, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the raised question over the western border of the SNU, only those portions of El Dorado, Placer, Alpine, and Mono Counties, CA east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are actually part of the nation. The SNU has no claim or reason to claim any part of these counties west of the mountains, especially since the mountains act as a barricade to the chaos of CA. In that the Sierras are an extremely rugged and formidable natural barrier even in this day and given the overall existence of affairs post-Doomsday (no phones, electricity, etc.), communities east of the mountains might as well be on the moon in relation to those west. With the loss of the CA state government and the closer ties to Nevada (especially the Lake Tahoe region), it would be logical they would accept the offer to work with and join Nevada in the establishment of the SNU. Given the enormous logistical problems such a nation as the COC would have to overcome: the nuclear strikes and heavy fallout of Doomsday; the failure of infrastructure; refugees; and violence (such as illustrated in the nearby MSP) to name a few, any existing government would be more focused on basic survival and not be able to reasonably extend its authority east of the mountains. I should also note in passing, my article does in fact predate the COC. As to graduating my article, as much as I would like to do so, I feel it would not be fair to do this until the disagreement is resolved over the eastern borders with Louisianan. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 17:40, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I still question how a fully developed nation-state could take shape in one of the USA's most inhospitable areas. The New Zealand flyover in the 1990s found absolutely nothing - why is it so difficult for us to respect what's already been written? Benkarnell 21:17, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Ben, let me begin by saying when I originally wrote this article it was not my intent in any way shape or form to disrespect anything previously written. In fact, I have always tried to go out of my way to be respectful to others here. I had in fact read the section you reference and did take note of it. It surprised me to some extent given my personal knowledge of the region, having visited it a number of times and developed a feeling for it. When I first started thinking about this idea back in January I decided to do my customary lengthy analysis to see if my idea had any merit. I focused on two thoughts, was there any evidence to support the supposition the region could have become a wasteland/vast desert and that aside, could NV logically survive and exist as a nation. The more I read and researched, I could find nothing to logically support the idea it was a wasteland. I also found substantial evidence supporting the premise of the state surviving and the viability of becoming a survivor nation. I took note for example there was only one primary and one secondary target site in the state. This in turn reflected a northern and central area (with one exception) being free of the same damage we have seen elsewhere. Thus intact roads, rails, etc. The bulk of the fallout would more likely be to the south, with that reaching the north having to make it over the Sierras and the rest coming from Oregon, Washington, or Idaho, which did not strike me as being as severe as that of say, southern CA. Further, Carson City, the state capital, would more than likely have survived since it was not on the strike list (in fact nearby Reno was a third place target). Given this, I felt it was very realistic the governor survived along with the bulk of the state government and as such, there would be an existing framework on which to build on where as most states did not have. I also noted the existence of many farms and ranches throughout the region to help with food production; the existence of water supplies; and even energy deposits. Lastly, given the altered weather patterns, this would have assured rainfall far and above that of the pre-DD period as seen elsewhere and would assured the blooming of plant life and aid the growing of agriculture.

I realize given what the general perception of NV tends to be by most folks, i.e. desert, I can understand the immediate thought would be to simply write it off as being some inhospitable region. But as I have said, I found to much evidence in my research which contradicted this assumption and gave every indication it had more than a better fighting chance at survival. In fact, I would have given NV far better odds than some other nations which have arisen in areas which just seemed...downright odd to me on the survivability scale. The insight I have developed through my own work and everything I have read thus far was when this story first originated, it was a blank slate so to speak and was filled in sporadically at first. With time, many of the grey areas have little by little been filled in and some earlier assumptions have been changed, sometimes in small ways and some big. Last fall for example, I put forward a lengthy examination as to why Israel should be removed from the defunct list. As a result, this was changed and I went on to write the article. It had been my hope from the beginning my article and what I stated would speak for itself as to why the SNU logically could exist without having to go into lengthy dialogues that I seem to have to continually do. Perhaps if I had set aside my zeal in writing this and extensively laid out all these thoughts earlier, these issues could have been avoided. I have observed with some considerable perplexity, no major issues were raised with me regarding my article as to it being unfeasible or its borders until the current disagreement arose.

Lastly, I should point out I did in fact read all the articles dealing with the surrounding areas before I wrote my piece. For example, I did note and include that LV was destroyed, which appeared in the UT article. The reason the problem arose over the border issue was because next to nothing was in fact ever written in any existing articles concerning NV or part of it joining another state/nation. Additionally, the sentence in the Benjamin Franklin article seems confusing. If you read it, it states a pilot flew inland from Tillamook, OR and "reports reaching a vast desert as he approached the old Idaho/Nevada border. Radiation levels were minimal, but the area seemed devoid of plant and animal life." Where did this desert exist, NV or ID? What would have concievability existed in this region to have received such catastropic damage to transform the entire region into a deadzone, especially we have since ascertained there were few major hits in this region. Given the altered weather patterns, where is the presence of the heavy rains and why is the desert not blooming due to them? Even if no one was alive for some reason, water would already begun filling up the ancient endorheic lake flooding the northwestern part of the state. It has alreday been stated people are farming in southern ID and the region was cultivated.

As I have said, I am open to discussion. If my conclusions are so skewed, please show me where my logic is faulty and I would gladly discuss making revisions. Thanks for your time.--Fxgentleman 02:07, May 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning your research or your conclusions. But I really do not think that North America, particularly the western third of the continent, has room for another large state. There are already four big ones, five if you count the pUSA and pCanada as separate, which they are. Another big one simply pushes the region well beyond the letter and spirit of our established material.
 * Could it be shrunk down? Rather than all of Nevada, could it encompass just the western mountainous area? That would be all the state government would be interested in protecting anyway, during the 80s and 90s and most of the 00s. The desert would be moister by now, but for the first decade it would definitely still be a desert, and those who could would leave for places that could support them. Nowadays, maybe the former desert is starting to be re-peopled by subsistence farmers, and the Nevada republic is doing what it can to bring/keep them under its jurisdiction. That would incidentally solve the Utah border issue.
 * The bottom line, though, is that we no longer have a picture of a society wiped out. It's more of a society where everybody is OK, but they inexplicably split up into little micro-republics. SouthWriter has posed the question before: if so many people and places survived so well, why did they stop caring about the national government? The old answer was that everything was just too devastated for any thought of national institutions. Now, the answer seems to be that everyone spontaneously created local republics and didn't bother communicating with anyone outside their new borders.
 * So I think S.N. would be a perfect addition if we still had a blank slate - to me it's an excellently written and researched page, and it makes more sense than a lot of what we've got - but it's not a blank slate anymore. Another large survivor, large enough to rub against other large survivors, raises new questions of "why didn't they just stick together as the USA". There is literally no way to explain the overall picture in the context of our Doomsday scenario. Benkarnell 16:16, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Georgia
I just made a proposal about the Republic of Georgia, a breakaway Georgia that got independence from the Soviet Union on Doomesday. Fedelede 19:41, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would rename it to distinguish it from the former U.S. state of Georgia TTL. Georgia (Europe) (1983: Doomsday)?BrianD 02:16, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or when someone creates an article on the state of Georgia they could title in Georgia (U.S. state) (1983: Doomsday). We can also put a little blurb on the top of both pages telling people that there is also another Georgia in case they are confused. Mitro 14:19, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did a blurb as I don't know how to rename a page. Fedelede 21:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You make vague mention of military bases in Georgia being hit. Can you be more specific? I think Batumi would be hit. Mitro 16:05, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Both Ossetias
This is a proposal about the Republic of Both Ossetias, a republic that comprises all of Ossetia and got independence from Georgia in 1998. Fedelede 20:07, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't they simply call themselves the Republic of Ossetia? Is there really a need to stress that it includes both South and Nort Ossetia?--Vladivostok 16:37, April 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * A few things need to be taken into account. First off although I can’t pinpoint its location I believe that there was a nuclear bomber airbase somewhere in North Ossetia. Secondly I think it’s quite likely that more of the caucuses was hit as there were a few big cities and bases in the region.--ShutUpNavi 17:21, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstarpool. Mitro 22:39, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Any chances for a speedy graduation? Arstarpool 01:18, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * 27,900 people living outside of a locale that was hit by several ICBMs. I'm sorry but that sounds very implausible. It would be incredibly difficult just to feed these people. Maybe if this state was moved to Umbria, I could believe it. Mitro 01:48, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is true. I think that Tuscany article has move a chance. --GOPZACK 01:51, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I lowered the population, but something else has caught my attention. There are 3 nations in the former U.K. that have territory in London. LONDON, the city of 8 million people. LONDON, the city that was undoubtedly one of the most important capitals of the modern world. When it comes to someones advantage, cities like D.C. and New York are "burnt to the ground" or "completely and entirely obliterated". When I ask to plop a nation state on the remnants of a city of 1.5 million people, I am told it is very implausible, But when someone puts 3 NATION STATES in or on the city of London, it is a bravo to them. The city of New London, has been wrapped and packaged nicely with "lowered radiation" levels enough for many people to leave healthily. Again, when I ask for a federated state of villages and towns near and in the suburbs of the city of Rome, it is told to be moved, abandoned, and rewritten. I am not asking for a nation of 800,000 people, I am not asking it to be a major power of southern Europe, all I am asking for is a little patch of city-states. Arstarpool 01:21, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a guideline which states that people can argue to keep an article from being deleted by saying other artiles similar to it exist. I think that is good philosophy to follow. You are probably right that the info on London is implausible and if that is the case I would reccomend bringing that up to the group, however, that doesn't change my argument for New Rome. Mitro 16:16, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will choose to go with what Mitro stated, that an article can be kept from being deleted if it proves others like it exist. However, I will agree to let go of New Rome if any and all communities in/near London, as well as Richmond, New Taipei, and Panama City are taken down as well, and I'm sure people like Yank and Vegas addict would not be happy about that.
 * I will choose to go with what Mitro stated, that an article can be kept from being deleted if it proves others like it exist. However, I will agree to let go of New Rome if any and all communities in/near London, as well as Richmond, New Taipei, and Panama City are taken down as well, and I'm sure people like Yank and Vegas addict would not be happy about that.
 * I will choose to go with what Mitro stated, that an article can be kept from being deleted if it proves others like it exist. However, I will agree to let go of New Rome if any and all communities in/near London, as well as Richmond, New Taipei, and Panama City are taken down as well, and I'm sure people like Yank and Vegas addict would not be happy about that.


 * But remember, it has been nearly 30 years, and OTL Hiroshima (I do know the nature was far less severe) began to recover months after it was (equivalent of) nuked. Test zones which were nuked for military demonstrations in OTL have also have already shown advanced signs of recovery from radiation. Should the owners of the aforementioned articles show no desire to decanonize their articles, then I will continue to request the article to be graduated. Arstarpool 00:43, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to renew the question: Any chances to a speedy graduation? Arstarpool 02:37, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been one that constantly brings up Hiroshima when it comes to the state of nuked areas. The city was directly hit by a 1MT nuclear weapon, and remained populated afterwards. In fact only about 20-30k people died as a direct result. Rome is much bigger, but had two bombs so the damage would be greater, as well as the nation collapsing afterwards removing the possibility of aid, but not my point. 28 thousand people living in the metro area of a city that OTL has almost 3 million doesn't seem unreasonable to me. These people aren't all in one city, and most are likely subsistence farmers now, growing their own food and bartering for what they don't have. I don't see a problem with the article.
 * Hiroshima wasn't hit by a 1MT bomb. More like a 12KT bomb. That is much less powerful. Personally, i am agianst New Rome being graduadted and i am agianst New London even morse so. HAD 07:49, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me make somthing clear i am NOT someone who has a nation with teritory in london so i don't know why my name was brought up.Vegas adict 08:31, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 130,000 people died in Hiroshima, and it remained radiated for two months.and sorry Vegas, I just got you confused with whoever made Essex. Would the anonymous person who posted the comment above HAD please identify yourself? I am not attempting to build some superpower in Italy, just one damn city-state. Arstarpool 16:38, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, had my numbers confused. I think it was more like 20-30% of the population was killed, not 20-30k. But anyway, the entire metro area isn't going to be a city of glass, only the initial blast points. Hiroshima began reconstruction 3 years after the blast, and remained populated the entire time, so 20 years later Rome should be ok. (the article states Rome itself isn't settled until 2003 or so). I think what we need here to make some sense of it is what is the population of the City of New Rome rather than the entire territory it encompasses? Because we're not talking about a single city here which I think is what people are assuming. Theres New Rome and the other minor towns and villages that answer to it. Oh, and sorry, forgot to sign the comment above, it was me before HAD.Oerwinde 17:36, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Go on Google maps, now look towards the north of Rome. You will see the Lago Bracciano. Now look at the Tiber River. Look at all the little towns and suburbs near it. THAT IS NEW ROME. If you would actually read the article, and thank you Oer for taking the time to read it, you will see that it is not a single town, but a collection of city-states along the River that have started to sprawl into each other. Next time you diss an article, do so after you actually read it.Arstarpool 01:23, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, had my numbers confused. I think it was more like 20-30% of the population was killed, not 20-30k. But anyway, the entire metro area isn't going to be a city of glass, only the initial blast points. Hiroshima began reconstruction 3 years after the blast, and remained populated the entire time, so 20 years later Rome should be ok. (the article states Rome itself isn't settled until 2003 or so). I think what we need here to make some sense of it is what is the population of the City of New Rome rather than the entire territory it encompasses? Because we're not talking about a single city here which I think is what people are assuming. Theres New Rome and the other minor towns and villages that answer to it. Oh, and sorry, forgot to sign the comment above, it was me before HAD.Oerwinde 17:36, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Go on Google maps, now look towards the north of Rome. You will see the Lago Bracciano. Now look at the Tiber River. Look at all the little towns and suburbs near it. THAT IS NEW ROME. If you would actually read the article, and thank you Oer for taking the time to read it, you will see that it is not a single town, but a collection of city-states along the River that have started to sprawl into each other. Next time you diss an article, do so after you actually read it.Arstarpool 01:23, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Go on Google maps, now look towards the north of Rome. You will see the Lago Bracciano. Now look at the Tiber River. Look at all the little towns and suburbs near it. THAT IS NEW ROME. If you would actually read the article, and thank you Oer for taking the time to read it, you will see that it is not a single town, but a collection of city-states along the River that have started to sprawl into each other. Next time you diss an article, do so after you actually read it.Arstarpool 01:23, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

May I ask who marked this page obsolete, and for what purpose? Arstarpool 01:02, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was due to the "Plausibility Singularity" debate we recently had. HAD 15:24, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar, I'm afraid you didn't really get a chance to defend your creation. But I think consensus is that we're rapidly reaching the point (or have already reached the point) where any more nations in North America just keeps it from being true to the timeline. On its own, I think, nobody had any problems with the Commonwealth. But taken together, I think there was just too much near the West Coast. Benkarnell 15:37, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should graduate it quickly, and place some sort of block on building nations in the West Coast of the United States. It would be a shame to see an otherwise perfectly canonj-worthy nation go to waste.

Yankovic270 16:01, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for speedy graduation. Can we get a show in hands?

P.S:

Ben, when saying the short version of my username, it's said, Ars, not Arstar :) Arstarpool 23:11, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't graduate articles by vote. Furthermore I am with Ben, the west has gotten way to crowded and probably has fallen into the probability singularity. That being said maybe this article could be graduated if it is reconceived as one of the many city-states that ruled over Northern California and Southern Oregon, but managed to avoid coming under the jurisdiction of the MSP. Mitro 23:26, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know things aren't graduated by vote, but it would be better to see who would support this article becoming canon. And Mitro, the area is not as near to the MSP as seen by alot of you guys, and the location was changed several times to be sure that it would be closer to plausible canon. Arstarpool 20:44, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think he means, shrink it down a bit so it's more of a single settlement, or a confederation of small settlements, rather than a modern republic. It could still call itself the Commonwealth of California. IMO North America ought to have a lot more "nations" that are governed at the local level, than modern territorial states. That's how my only contribution to the continent (the Yukon) works, along with the first North American survivor state we discovered (the MSP). Benkarnell 21:15, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the map the Commonwealth is at the southern border of the MSP, unless that is wrong. Mitro 00:02, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to graduation? Arstarpool 02:52, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to graduation? Arstarpool 02:52, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to graduate this just yet. Lets wait until Sierra Nevada becomes canon because that will surly effect the history of the Commonwealth of California. --GOPZACK 03:22, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

A small article associated with the article. --GOPZACK 20:08, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Zach, I clearly said on the Activity Feed page that I claimed the Muscle Shoals CSA:

Confederate States of America (1983: Doomsday) created by BrianD 20 hours ago Waynesboro is in the Muscle Shoals CSA. That said, if you can come up with a proposal for Waynesboro that works with what I come up with for this version of the CSA, I'll work it in...please keep in mind I came up with the proposal for these towns, and I've already made a claim on them for subsequent articles. BrianD 20:23, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm terribly sorry about that, I did not see the original post when it was created. I hope you don't take this article as a slap in the face but rather me failing to read the fine print. In any event I hope it can be incorporated somehow. --GOPZACK 20:34, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * De nada. Take a look at the Muscle SHoals CSA article below.BrianD 00:32, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm temporarily suspending work on this article until the framework for the "new" CSA is formed then me & Brain will work to make articles for the now independent city states of the CSA. --GOPZACK 19:43, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 20:00, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to it being graduated? Any issues you may have will be dealt with. I just need to know what they are.

Yankovic270 01:25, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe more information on the geographical area occupied? Also, you may want to take into account the air base at Cold Lake, in northeastern Alberta, which would likely have been hit; even if not the case it would need to be taken into account.

--Lordganon 8:29, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

I can't let this be graduated until Oerwinde's concerns are addressed. --GOPZACK 18:03, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Jnjaycpa. Mitro 20:00, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Series of Cleveland related articles. Mitro 20:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Any objections to graduating Sports in the Kingdom of Cleveland? --GOPZACK 15:47, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Zack. Mitro 20:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm holding off on this one until Gainsville is canonized. --GOPZACK 02:15, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstarpool. Mitro 20:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation to a stub? Arstarpool 06:03, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the details of strikes in the area needs to get ironed out first. We need to come to a consensus on whether Florence was hit and what the strikes on Camp Darby, Livorno, and La Spezia would do to the region.Oerwinde 09:48, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

An article to document the Somali Civil WarVegas adict 21:02, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The vote from the poll above resulted in the war still being ongoing. Mitro 23:11, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense as the real Somali Civil War has been going on for nearly 20 years Verence71 14:48, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Kansas
I am presently trying to build up the Provisional United States as it now stands. This is the start of the article on Kansas. SouthWriter 21:40, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Wyoming
And here is the article on Wyoming. I have not necessarily "adopted" the PUSA, but I have started these articles to allow others to fill in the gaps. SouthWriter 02:47, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Kootenai
Here is one of the "Hunkins' states." I decided to go with the "appease the natives" approach. The creation of the two states is designed to reduce the chances of another "Indian War" like that with the Lakota. --SouthWriter 23:33, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Absaroka
Here is the other Hunkins' state. This one involved relocating the "reservation" from near Billings to the border with the Republic of Lakota, but it was deemed necessary to assure peace with that nation. --SouthWriter 17:11, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to a quick graduation? --GOPZACK 19:48, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

A small article on a city state set in Hugo, Oklahoma. I believe small communities like this will be the only "new" survivor states found in North America. --GOPZACK 20:10, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * The incompetence of the WCRB, or to be fair, the inadequacy of the WCRB, might be "finding" North American towns for a long time. We need to take a good look at those FEMA maps, discount the tertiary targets, and see what we've missed. The Dakotas were surely neglected for quite a while. Lower Minnesota (south of the Missouri) could easily survive along with northern Iowa. There is some hope for Northern California outside of the MSP. I think that most of Oklahoma is salvagable, and not as little isolated "states" (By the way, why does "Hugo" get a whole county, while Broken Bow is relegated to the district around the lake by the same name?) - It's bed time -- if I'm getting up for Bible Study in the morning! SouthWriter 05:04, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you South, I'm going to revise the map so Broken Bow has the whole county. --GOPZACK 17:32, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

A state based around my home county of sussex and the Isle of WightVegas adict 18:04, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to graduation?Vegas adict 17:29, May 18, 2010 (UTC)



Vegas adict 19:50, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I support it being graduated but I think we should hold off until we sort out the future of this TL. --GOPZACK 22:22, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the article but I'm a bit concerned over the size of its military. Spitfires? Okay, they're cool, but where are you getting the fuel from, and where are their launch facilities? With the exception of a scant few facilities like Woodbridge, practically every airport in the entirety of the UK was destroyed. Unless they're operating from a grass-runway aerodrome, which might be an option. But still, the fuel must come from somewhere, as must the metal; and Southern England seems to have exhausted much of its usable metal producing its navy. And remember, just because you have the facilities to build something doesn't mean you have the know-how to build it. Fegaxeyl 09:17, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats why i asked if thier were any objections. To answer you points:
 * There are two small airports on the island, one with a concrete runway and facility's for small aircraft construction and another with a grass runway and aerodrome.
 * You make a good point about the metal suplies, The conversion of the ships would have probabley have used up most spare metal on the island.
 * Spitfires are probabley imposible. However there were around 10 norman-britten defender military aircraft on order at the time as well as several Trislanders and Islanders suitible for conversion.
 * With regards to the skilled population, most of East Cowes was still involved in the shipyards at the time of thier closure just before Doomsday so thier would probabley be enough skilled builders and as mentioned before Sanders-Roe/Westland (A hovercraft and aircraft company) and Norman-Britten (An aircraft manufacturer) were based on the island so thier would hopefully be one or two engineers still on the island.

Any further objections?Vegas adict 20:15, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

None here. Fegaxeyl 15:48, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * So are we set to graduate this? --GOPZACK 01:18, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like itVegas adict 19:59, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

A newly discovered city state in central Germany.Oerwinde 06:40, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Any ideas/objections/suggestions?Oerwinde 09:49, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Sport in the British Isles
Just a thought about proposed sporting competitions between various British survivor states Verence71 19:56, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduating this to a stub? --GOPZACK 15:43, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia
Another nation I wrote about in Southeast Asia. Post-DD history is for anyone to fill in, because I don't want to contradict anyone's plan for the nation. --Yankovic270 23:55, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

My proposal for the island nation of Maldives --GOPZACK 19:35, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Sultanate of Turkey
The Sultanate of Turkey is the successor state of the now defunct Republic of Turkey. I've started to write the article. Commentary and ideas are welcome. Most of the pre-Doomsday history is straight off Wikipedia. And I hope this doesn't conflict with any already accepted nations in this althist. I've accounted for the existence of Kurdistan, the Greek control of Rhodes and the (formerly) Turkish Straits, and the possiblity of an enlarged Armenia in eastern Turkey, though I'm not sure there's an accepted article about Armenia.

Caeruleus 22:17, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

An article by Yank. --GOPZACK 23:14, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just looked over the article and it is very positive. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but I couldn't help thinking as I read it: 'This country is extremely, unrealistically lucky'. Okay, so you have access to a pool of bright, intelligent young people, but that doesn't mean they will all keep their heads on and get down to business as soon as Doomsday passes. Especially given that there will probably be a horde of hostile refugees from New York City and elsewhere who will probably make life hell for anyone in the region for months, even years. And a 'regional economy' reestablishing itself? Pretty much all that that area can offer is food and a rapidly diminishing amount of salvage. I guess my problem with this article is that it seems exceptionally positive; throw in some darkness and tone down the brightness into a more realistic atmosphere and I'll probably be more appreciative. Fegaxeyl 06:59, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to change the article as you see fit.

Yankovic270 14:38, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

An article by Yank. --GOPZACK 18:55, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

An article by Yank. GOPZACK 18:55, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

An article created by Yank but up for adoption. --GOPZACK 03:56, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

A proposal of a Post-DD Bavaria. --Jnjaycpa 20:46, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Croatia
Article created by me.

Yankovic270 20:56, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Slab City (1983: Doomsday)
Article I created about a very small state in southern California. --Yankovic270 01:18, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Article I created that will be made soon Riley.Konner 13:05, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Article I created that will be made soon Riley.Konner 13:05, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Somalia
Just a little idea I had for something arising out of the ongoing Somali Civil War Verence71 19:01, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Review:Pojoaqua
On behalf of my Doomsday article, I ask what I need to do to get The Republic of Pojoaque into the Doomsday timeline, please tell me BlackSkyEmpire 16:54, May 30, 2010 (UTC)BlackSkyEmpire

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

''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.''

Original Author Update
First off again, I'd like to say how proud I am to have been the inspiration for this monumental series on my althist. It's really amazing, given I did nothing more than extrapolate a bit based on what happened with Colonel Petrov. It's really amazing how that incident and "how things might have gone" has inspired so much great work and imagination from so many people. I'm glad to have "gotten the ball rolling" so many years ago.

That said, one thing I do find disturbing about all the Post-Doomsday articles and elements....a rather optimistic view of how things turned out the post-holocaust years. The rise of viable, even militarily strong American nation-states...as well as a "Well, wasn't that inconvenient?" attitude about the impact of a nuclear war on the world.

People, such an event would have been catastrophic to humanity. Setting aside America being knocked back to a population level LOWER than what it was before Columbus arrived...and the ensuing lack of agriculture and rise of diseases not seen since the 1600s....the effect on the rest of the world, even the Southern Hemisphere would have been tremendous. Even by 1983, the world was fairly "inter-connected"...the loss of American, Soviet, European, and Japanese industries would have crippled Australia and South America's engineering, construxtion, medical supplies, and more importantly...food production.

I'm sorry, but all this "Mad Max" meets "New World Order based in Canberra" stuff is EXTREMELY rose-colored glasses. The world would be knocked back in time CENTURIES in terms of economics and technology and political organization.

Sorry....just my opinion for what it's worth. 12.169.202.130 18:23, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Before I address the merits of your argument I have to ask: how do we know you were the original creator? Considering that I already had to deal with one person falsely claiming to be the creator and your IP address does not match with the one the original creator used, I hope you can understand why I am skeptical. Mitro 19:24, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear this as well. BrianD 21:42, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly can understand scepticism. Please check my IP address. There is also discussion on previous Doomsday Talk pages dating back to the original posting of it in 2007. Happy to have the webmaster confirm that.12.169.202.130 17:45, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I do not quite understand what you are asking me to do to confirm you are the creator. The original creator used the 70.150.208.34 ip address which is obviously not the one you are using now. Since this is a wiki there is no webmaster (and if there was one I doubt even they could be of help) to confirm that these two seperate addresses are used by the same person. To tell you the truth I am inclined to believe you are the original creator, based on a comparison of edits, but there is no hard evidence to connect both addresses to the same person. Mitro 18:06, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, home vs office....try this IP97.82.131.34 02:00, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Otherwise I don't know how to prove it. Suffice it to say that I heard about Stanislav Petrov on a news magazine show in 2007ish and thought it would make a good althist, using a combo of "The Day After" and a little "On the Beach" (though I noted in my discussion, that it was no rip-off of OTB, but simply logical that Australia would pull through.).


 * Well, I certainly don't see any reason not to believe you... are you interested in joining our collaboration more fully? If you're concerned with where your creation has gone, you'd be better able to change things if you were actively involved. You could even get yourself a username so we had something to call you... Benkarnell 15:27, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Deus Ex Machina sound good for this guy?HAD 17:10, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have an account...just never log in. This is me. Gblack61 19:33, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I have a problem with the extrapolation of "Doomsday"...it's just too optimistic. You've got a "League of Nations" and a world in the Southern Hemisphere back to practically 1980s economic and political levels only 20-25 years after nuclea holocaust. Plus some of these "American republics"...which would take CENTURIES to re-form, given the ecological damage and collapse of civilization.Gblack61 19:33, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is that if you are the original creator (Which i will asume for the purposes of the conversations) you never stated how badly the world was nuked. This isn't fallout where every city in the world was nuked, it was a series of co-ordinated military strikes. However i do feel that you have a point with the american republics, certainly in america which would have been the USSR's main target there was no chance of things reaching a stable level. If this was inteaded to be a timeline in which the world was ment to be nuked back to the stone age then you should have made it clearer and i'm sorry if we'v interpreted it wronglyVegas adict 19:57, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, But QSS/QAA (is it that way round?) makes that impossible to change.HAD 20:07, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and no, HAD. Things can be harmonized or explained on individual articles without affecting the TL as a whole. At the same time we have a review procedure in place for situations when articles that are graduated into canon are objected to. The way I see it, we all make mistakes and as a group we have the added danger of falling into group think. I have been a strong advocate of said procedure and while I know it has inherit dangers with it, I think if used very sparingly it can be helpful in making sure newer articles don't step over older articles. That being said, even I find Gblack61's prediction of the post-Doomsday world to be very pessimistic (and that is saying something from someone who was once asked "ins't this enough of dystopia already for you?"). Mitro 01:57, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and no, HAD. Things can be harmonized or explained on individual articles without affecting the TL as a whole. At the same time we have a review procedure in place for situations when articles that are graduated into canon are objected to. The way I see it, we all make mistakes and as a group we have the added danger of falling into group think. I have been a strong advocate of said procedure and while I know it has inherit dangers with it, I think if used very sparingly it can be helpful in making sure newer articles don't step over older articles. That being said, even I find Gblack61's prediction of the post-Doomsday world to be very pessimistic (and that is saying something from someone who was once asked "ins't this enough of dystopia already for you?"). Mitro 01:57, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Gblack - it's nice to know whom to credit, even if it is just an alias. I'll echo HAD and say that it's simply too late to go back to the vision of things you describe. The revived UN idea dates back to before any of us got involved, to when it was just XiReney playing with your source material. And, I'll add, if even the non-targeted nations are incapable of something as simple as creating a forum for dialogue after 25 years, well, there's not a whole lot left to write a story about!
 * You do keep bringing up something that I also repeat often (and I often get ignored). That's the importance of infrastructure. When global trade patterns break down, communities will be left with 18th-century resources, and that means 18th-century population densities and settlement patterns. That, at least, holds as true for the un-bombed 3rd world as it does for the bombed-out 1st and 2nd. However, old technology will still be around; it will just be rare and costly. Typical governments, IMO, ought to have access to gasoline-powered vehicles, even if most people and businesses around the world do not. (To name one example.)
 * Anyway, our guiding principle is (or ought to be) respect for the work of others - and that means those who came after us as well as before us. It would be most un-Wiki to utterly scrap anything. Benkarnell 03:46, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Gblack81's vision is very much in keeping with On the Beach/The Day After....but remember the former was made to show that nuclear war was unwinnable. Perhaps it is closest to the truth of what actually would happen. But I cannot help but think that if there was a fighting chance to survive, people would try their best to do so if they could. BrianD 05:08, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I DID note that it was a full-out deployment of all nuclear weapons...note (paraphrasing) "Reagan gave orders for all forces, including "city buster" missiles launched", plus the Pershing-Is in Europe, as well as Russian strikes and the 30% remaining Chinese nuclear forces....AND a notation of the number of weapons fired and the time it took to fire them all (again paraphrasing) "for over an hour and and half".
 * The "total commitment" doctrine was in full swing in 1982. Fear of Russia taking out launch sites, with a surprise attack or their own SLBMs or a cruise missile, was what prompted the development of the "Minuteman" and the idea of "mobile launchers" or a missiles moviing from one silo to another on rail-tracks. Any reserve forces would have been the nuclear bombers (airborne) or the ballistic missile subs. Given Reagan's rhetoric (pre-Reykjavik) he likely would have "fired everything we had" on advice from civilian and military advisors who would see little point in keeping another "reserve" that risked being destroyed, rather than launched.
 * Secondly, again, I think people are VASTLY underestimating the ecological damage as well as the damage to inter-connected foreign trade. Australia had little manufacturing in 1982, especially for tractors, medical supplies, electronics, spare parts for naval,air, land vehicles. Then there's a HUGE loss in oil supplies.
 * Think "chaos theory"...pull the plug on their farmers getting enough oil for their tractors (as well as spare parts) and food production drops dramatically. Then you've got major shortages, rationing AT BEST for years to come, likely at near-starvation levels. Then the rest of the economy collapses and you've got a LOT of unemployed Aussies. Recently?....think the situation in Greece in 2010...and multiply that by 1000-fold.
 * Sorry, but 21st Century "Doomsday" world...is WAY too optimistic.Gblack61 19:44, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but 21st Century "Doomsday" world...is WAY too optimistic.Gblack61 19:44, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty hard-to-refute argument. Especially about the manufacturing capacity of Australia and New Zealand, a pretty foundational issue to the ATL but not one we've researched thoroughly... still, again, it's too late to throw away everything - everything - that's been written since you opened it for adoption. If we are going to attempt a full review fo the TL, food should be the first issue we focus on. Benkarnell 21:24, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * You certainly put a good argument about food supplys and resources, however the first revision of the 1983:Doomsday and most of the subsequent revisions by you and others stated;

1983: Doomsday postulated the alternative outcome of the Sept. 26, 1983, when Colonel Stanislav Petrov was alerted, in error, to a possible US missile strike against the Soviet Union.

In OTL, Colonel Petrov believed the information to be false and did not alert the Kremlin to the data he was receiving. Given Cold War tensions at the time, such information would likely have convinced the Soviets that the US had launched a first strike attempting to "cut off the head" and launched their forces, in the believe it was a "counter-strike", not a first-strike.

The resulting nuclear exchange would have been close to the forecasts of almost complete destruction and "nuclear winter" predicted by many scientists of the day, resulting in as much as two billion people killed initially, possibly another two billion in the subsequent environmental disaster.
 * That implys that both sides belived that they were being attacked and would have launched a counter strike to destroy military bases and control centers. That doesn't imply it was an attack at all population centers, in counterstrikes you normaly try to stop the enemy attacking you again Not on food centers or population centers without strategic importanceVegas adict 08:27, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

But there is no evidence that the Soviets, seeing an American "first strike" in progress (even though false) would "hold anything back". Again, given Reagan's rhetoric and open discussions by Americans "hawks" of "winning a nuclear war"...the USSR would launch everything it had, to prevent reserves being destroyed. "Limited nuclear war" was theorized, but never policy nor thought to be workable. Gblack61 19:50, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

NAU Treaty?
Do we have/should we develop a page for the North American Union Treaty? Louisiannan 20:31, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I never actually thought what the treaty would look like, but after seeing South's version of the PUSA constitution I think we should consider what the Treaty would read like. Mitro 21:07, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Might this be of use? Louisiannan 22:25, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Disregard for the Cooperative Nature of the Timeline
More and more it seems to me that contributors to this timeline are taking a "this is mine, screw you and your suggestions" attitude. If this is how the timeline is developing, I'm just about ready to pull out. This doesn't jive with QSS and QAA - and I don't want any part of it if that's where we're heading. Louisiannan 19:57, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Louis what exactly has happened that makes you think this way? Mitro 20:09, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * The debacle between me and Fxgentleman about Utah and Sierra Nevada, the snit between GOPZack and Black Sky Empire about creating the "Socialist States of Georgia", the whole issue of Superior and its 100,000 man army, and so on. It just seems to be getting worse - everyone's carving out their own little sphere of influence and giving the finger (or two if you're British) to those who have any sort of comment on the subject to the contrary of the author's imagining. It was all I could do to stop myself from destroying Utah under a massive earthquake and subsequent flood of radioactive water, and France capitulating to a sneak attack of the Sicilians for the last few days. Louisiannan 22:11, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear Louisianan feels our current disagreement over the eastern border between the SNU and Utah is a disaster. I have been patiently waiting since the request was made for mediation and had not said anything further since. I realize I have only been a contributor since last September, but I have always done my best to conduct myself in accordance with the decorum of the room and I believe my writings support that. As to our difference of opinion, I have already laid out my arguments on the SNU discussion page in a logical manner. I must confess surprise when another writer implies I am being uncooperative and trying to subvert canon history to ensure the storyline I envision. Especially, given I read said relevant articles before penning my own and did not find any written reference to the history I am informed I am not adhering to. As I have stated before, if I have missed something, please show me where it is and I will do my best to try and adjust my article. Having said this, I don't know what more to say in response. --Fxgentleman 22:58, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

I to am sorry Louis that me and Black Sky Empire's disagreement over the viability of socialism in Georgia has been a contributing factor in making you feel this way. With that said I am baffled that a discussion about socialism in Georgia would make you feel the way you do. I do not have object to the idea of a city state of some kind in Georgia its the embrace of socialism and communism, (the ideology of the nation that destroyed them) that troubles me. There are a few other sections in the article itself I would object to but I would hardly call that giving the finger. After all we do ask before an article is graduated something along the lines of "Any objections to graduation?" You have raised objections, I have raised objections and I'd hardly call 95% of these debates "snits" or "debacles" or "giving the finger". --GOPZACK 23:27, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Louis and Fx, I have started a discussion near the top of this page about your dispute over the borders of Utah and SN. I feel that bringing this to the group's attention and letting them decide is the proper way to resolve your dispute.
 * That being said, there are a few comments I wish to make regarding what Louis has said. One of the reasons I prefer this wiki in discussing alternate history instead of the larger forum of AH.com, is that I like the way people treat each other here. Generally there is an atmosphere of cooperation, probably brought upon by the nature of "anyone can edit" idea that is inherit in any wiki. This cooperation has attractted people who are more likely to be polite and respectful of others when disagreements and dispute arise.
 * Recently I too have felt that this has not been the case. I hate to bring up my pet theory, but this probably is the result of the inevitable plausibilty singularity, especially in regards to North America. As more nations are entered into canon, arguments over implausibility/plausibility or the TL being a dystopia become more heated.
 * This brings me to my next point, which is that I feel that the TL has become to optimistic. Correct me if I am wrong Louis, but I think this fear was also present in your comments (especially in regards to your comment about Superior's military). Part of this may be that people are inadvertedly treating the TL as an RPG and want their pet nation to be as strong as possible, even if it means stepping over the limits of plausibility. I first noticed this when discussion of the Saguenay War was still popular. It seemed that everyone wanted their nation to be involved in it, without even considering whether it was plausible.
 * That probably is not the only reason, however, that has caused this problem. I think Ben put it best when he said that we are no longer looking at the TL as whole when we graduate individual articles. We spend so much time trying to make sure each individual article is perfect that we don't stop to think whether it fits into the general themes of the TL itself. We now have someone claiming to be the creator of this TL saying that it is to optimistic, and though the jury is still out on whether he/she really is the creator, a comparison of their writing styles makes me feel that he/she may be telling the truth.
 * I have no substantive suggestions to make to correct some of these issues. Since I am going to be gone most of the summer I realize I won't be much help. The only thing I can suggest is that we remember the cooperative nature of this TL and work as a group to discuss our issues. Since this project owes alot to its "parent" the Ill Bethisad project, I reccomend checking out the The June Revolt article, which shows that every issue that arises in a project can be solved by group discussion and consensus. Mitro 17:26, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at that June Revolt artical actualy shows me how things can go badly wrong in a colabarative project. The best thing about 1983 Doomsday is that anyone can come along and make an artical about somthing, Im my opinion the main problem is this obsesion with creating things neer where you live or in the same country. To me part of the chalange of writing an AltHist (Or Artical for one) is going out and researching what your writing about, I had only visited Ethiopia once and had never visited Eritrea, Somalia or Sudan and to me that makes an AltHist more fun.Vegas adict 18:43, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, all. I have more-or-less been on the sidelines the last two to three weeks, largely because I wanted to form my thoughts as this "crisis" began to brew. I told Louisianan via e-mail that I'd get involved in the Sierra Nevada dispute but never did, and I apoligize for that. It's pretty clear this project is at a major juncture, and there are a whole lot of factors pulling it in different directions. To wit:


 * Firstly, everyone should read MeatballWiki's short page "Crossing the Tipping Point", which describes a moment of crisis in a community in which oldtimers and newcomers are at odds over the future of the project. This happens to all communities that reach A Certain Size, both online and in Real Life. And note that while that page appears to be a decade old, nobody has been able to give a good solution to the problem. Ill Bethisad decided to go with "HardSecurity" - its Wiki has not been open to the public since the "Revolt". And clearly, it's less chaotic, less busy, and people are more able to take time to get things right, rather than try keeping up with constant growth. On the other hand, it's a lot less lively than it once was, and there are lots of areas that probably need work, but have lain untouched for several years.


 * Here, there is a clear "generational" conflict between (roughly) 2008-9ers and 2009-10ers. The 8-9ers, broadly, do not like seeing the formerly barren world of 83DD fill up with thriving, verdant states. As the third or fourth contributor to this project, and as somebody who still wishes Prussia and the new USSR were not so big, I'm clearly in that camp myself. The 9-10ers, meanwhile, are fine seeing new states in just about any place not actually inside a blast zone. We have different ideas on not only what is possible for 83DD, but also on what is desirable. It's a fundamental disagreement, and you can see it toward the bottom of, where SouthWriter razzes me a little for being so gloom-and-doom.


 * Both the 8-9ers and the 9-10ers have truly legitimate feelings and motivations. We who joined early had a completely blank slate with which to work. You who came later wanted the same creative freedom. In a sense it's not fair that a democratic republic in one random corner of the US (say, Upper Michigan) would be accepted easily, while a republic in another random corner (say, Nevada) would be slammed by the Establishment, simply because one of them came along first. And once a new page is created, it's very hard to say no to somebody who has put a lot of work into their creation. I have to admit that my first inclination upon seeing the Sierra Nevada page was to say, "No way, it's empty woods and deserts" - but seeing just how much time and energy FXG had put into it made me back away without saying anything.


 * In the other direction, we early writers naturally feel upset when things we created are called into question. A month or so ago someone floated the idea of de-canonizing my Panama Canal page, and I admit I became positively pissy about it. But it's not just our words that we feel protective of - it's also our unwritten assumptions and ideas about the shape of the 83DD world. The self-identified creator above expressed dismay at the high populations of the US and Europe not necessarily becasue they contradict his/her original words exactly, but because they are so contrary to his/her underlying concept for the setting. The US was originally described as a wasteland, and we've had to add a whole lot of "except for"s to that description.


 * Showing my own bias, I'll echo Vegas's concern about a "hometown syndrome" affecting some of the newer pages: everyone wants his or her own backyard to be part of a happy, stable community. But I think our conflicts are much deeper than that, see above.


 * I think we, as a collective, have done our best to try and keep up with 83DD's growth. We started the system of formal proposals quite early as a way of putting up an additional gate before adding something to the project officially. But a look at our enormous backlog shows that even this system is no longer ideal. I mean, I haven't read most of the pages on that list. Have you?


 * So what now? We have put a number of possible solutions out there, none of them very pleasant. Louisianan has said he considered dropping from the project and taking his creations with him. Mitro's much-discussed postulation of a "plausibility singularity" was an attempt to slow down or stop growth... one that IMO would never succeed because we'd still have a proposal for a new American republic every two days, only this time we'd respond to each with "Plausibility Singularity, goodbye", making both the newcomers and ourselves rather upset. I don't think any of us joined up so we could slam newcomers with barrages of pentasyllabic words, all the while sitting on the proverbial front porches of our own creations ready to shoot anyone who comes too close.


 * Another solution often proposed would be to pick up and move to a different site where traffic would be lower and we could take time to sort through the TL a little better. I have a feeling that we would lose a large part of our contributors if that happened. I was part of an alt-history project that relocated (twice), and it died pretty fast after the relocation. Notice that nobody's done a thing since March, and even then we were down to maybe five users from an original group of a few dozen.


 * So I really don't know where we should go from here. 1983DD, as it is, is definitely not what anyone wants. "We" wish the newer re[publics would wither up and go back to being lawless wasteland, and "You" wish "We" would stop hampering your creativity with constant whining about refugees and bandits and infrastructure. I honestly can't think of how to resolve the impasse. I just hope we can come up with something better when we're done - and do it without getting emotional about it.


 * Sincerely, Benkarnell 16:33, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have observed this conversation, and several others, and have interacted (and been questioned by) members of both camps! This project is beginning to be frustrating, in regards to the two camps that Ben has so well defined beginning to conflict with one another, and trying to keep both in mind while creating articles.
 * It's also frustrating when you call for feedback, and one camp responds and you hear next-to-nothing from another camp. So when I create, say, the former CSA as a country that fell apart in the late '90s due to political squabbling, and the latter camp is enthusiastic, and I hear nothing from the veterans, I'm thinking 'when is the shoe going to drop' or 'hey, the vets don't really care, or this is fine with them'. Then the shoe drops, and you have people saying we've gone too far and been too optimistic. I probably went too far in the optimistic direction, rewriting Texas after SouthWriter said the two Texases should have reunited in the mid-90s...and now I've put Texas on pause because I'm not sure if that really fits the vision of the timeline or if it's gone too far. And while I would love to get feedback on the various Texases and the CSA and other articles I've created, I'm not sure if doing anything more is even worth it until all this is resolved. I might change my mind tomorrow and work on more articles, but my frustration will still be there.
 * This is something that may be served by having one person, or one group of people, clearly define the guidelines. Because if you go with group consensus, I'm afraid there never will be consensus. It's hard enough as is, especially since the originator nor the early editors ever laid specific guidelines beyond 'everything in Europe and the USSR and the US is desolate'. I'm not sure what the answer is...maybe we should split the timeline? With one timeline going back to the original vision, and another a less severe version of it? One with a balkanized North America with a militaristic Virginia on one side and an outlaw groups of city states overseen by the ANZC and SAC on another - and another timeline with 3,000 miles of dead cannibals and radioactive dead zones between the MSP and the Atlantic.--BrianD 17:23, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Forking and nominating "benevolent dictators" are other suggestions in the Meatball Wiki article, and I don't think either is very satisfactory. Forking the project would firstly be a very drastic move that can't but end in mutual resentment. And secondly, it would be horrendously artificial, since it would be quite clear that both forks diverged from the same world. Would people be allowed to participate in both? No, there are a lot of reasons why forking the project would not go well.
 * In theory, we appointed some leaders a long time ago. I'm one, and so is Mitro. But newcomers naturally question why certain people get official rights, and in the end there's either a return to consensus, or the imposition of harsher, most un-wiki-like leadership - something that runs counter to both me and Mitro's style, certainly.
 * The best thing might be a mandatory pause - no new ideas until we get some serious things sorted out. There must be a way to forge consensus on, for example, the population and industrial capacity of affected areas. If we can nail down some of those parameters, we can be much stricter in enforcing the rule of QSS - if it's written, abide by it. If we had followed that from the beginning there would be less talk about "Why did the explorers miss so much when they wrote their reports" and so on. Benkarnell 17:37, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

If I may clarify my pet theory, the “plausibility singularity” was never meant to be a solution to some of the issues affecting the community, though it appears to have evolved that way. Originally it was just a prediction of an upcoming event where more articles would be marked as obsolete instead of being graduated due to conflicts with canon and plausibility. Now the term is used, and I am partially at fault, as an excuse to mark an article as obsolete because some people feel it contradicts the assumptions of the TL. Again that was never my intention, but it has happened and I apologize.

Brian, if I may address your comments, I do not thinking splitting the TL is the right thing to do. For one thing it will hurt both communities and would no doubt lead to bad blood between everyone. IMO, we need to be uniting the factions, not separating them if we want to keep this TL alive. I also want to say that the veterans don’t feel that the former US should be empty. We always assumed that there were nations and communities that might have formed out of the old US (and Canada for that matter), but no one had written about them yet. I think our greatest concern is there just too many of them now, especially ones that are highly advanced, to be plausible.

In the spirit of brainstorming, where any wild idea can be heard, I do have a suggestion that might solve the issues between the factions. I think every canon article should be considered “under review” by the community. With a process that might take months, the members of the community will review each and every canon article and revise and update them. Though canon will be respected, it will be viewed as being more flexible in the spirit of cooperation. This will allow the 8-9ers to prune or remove elements of the TL they find to be too optimistic, while allowing 09-10ers the chance to prune or remove elements they find to be overly pessimistic. As the discussion continues, the Timeline itself will be rebuilt from the ground up and be the main point of canon. Through discussion both sides can build and revise the themes of the TL (such as the status of the infrastructure in targeted states, affect of EMPs, population levels, etc.), making them acceptable to everyone. Meanwhile the Editorial Guidelines will be revised during this when issues come up. Of course during this time all current and new proposals will remain proposals until the majority of the canon articles have been removed.

A major problem I forsee with this suggestion is that no ones wants to see their hard work torn to pieces by others. During the reviews, people may become upset by how their work is being treated and leave, or get revenge by being unnecessarily judgmental when someone else’s article is being reviewed.

Also the most important element of this TL that keeps us here and attracts new people is that it is fun. Reviewing each and every article and arguing with other editors instead of creating new content might quickly turn into work and cause people to leave, or repulse new contributors.

Anyway, this is just a suggestion. Mitro 18:00, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Typical. I go on holiday for a weekend and civil war looms :p. More seriously, i agree with Mitros proposals on reveiwing all are articles and bringing those that are not up to our standards and/or inplausible in for editting.HAD 18:20, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ben & Mitro, splitting the TL is not the way to go at least for now. As for this review I'm not sure whether such a thing is a good idea. We are already fractured as it is and to go through each article in such a fashion would only create more fighting and bad blood. I know Mitro you mentioned this already but I just want to echo your concerns. So far none of these options so far are desierable. Such a review would lead to as HAD put it, a civil war. GOPZACK 18:42, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a a 09-10er this discussion seems to be getting a bit too heavy for something that was meant to be fun Verence71 18:47, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly didn't mean to create rigid categories within our community, only to try and define the problems that have been lurking here and there. I think that most people aren't totally happy with where we're at, and what we need is a way to get back on track, so to speak. Benkarnell 19:04, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that and I realise that my article on Woodbridge could be percieved as a bit optimistic and I'd have no objection to having it put under review. It wouldn't take that long as as it is fairly basic compared to some of the detail on other articles. I think your idea of a moratorium on new articles is probably the best way to go for now. Verence71 19:15, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to do anything to divide or bring more bad blood into the community. The dividing idea was one thought to please both sides, to give them opportunities to create. Collaboration and discussion would be beneficial, as would remembering that no one here is an evil ogre bent on destroying your hard work. We're all human beings, who have different ideas. We won't agree on everything but together, perhaps, we can come up with some really great concepts. BrianD 19:22, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may, I'd just like to give my two cents on this issue. I am the creator of much of what is being written about Siberia and of course I am not going to pretend that there hasn't been some disagreement on the entire article and maybe that is my fault. I'm pretty certain that there will come a day when there will be some sort of revision of the country, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
 * However, I do feel the main source of arguments has been North America. FYI, I have been on this wiki for quite some time, but mostly in the form of a reader and I have enjoyed all of the work done to it before I arrived. But just around the time I started contributing there has been a tidal wave of new articles, mostly in America, which I haven't hade a chance to read, even though I'd really like to. It's only natural that with 90% of the contributors of this TL being from either the US or the UK that this trend would arise. Thus, I believe that it would be best if some sort of project to revise some aspects of the TL started in North America. I admire everyones work and mean to disrespect no one, but since most work that could possibly conflict with the TL is in America, it is only logical to start there. Then we can move on to Europe and Asia and anywhere else that the nukes would have fallen.--Vladivostok 19:23, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest a qualifier: No new nations until futher notice.We should, until such a time as is deemed appropriate, focus on more specific issues, such as updating maps and images, Creating pages on things like the "Soviet Armed Forces" for example, updating pages like "Science and Technology" and on finally deciding on a plausible and sensible conclusion to the 2nd Scilly War and the Sangueny War. I also believe we should NOT split the timeline from the wiki, or in any shape or form. And their are still Nations from the very beginnings of this timeline that need updating, finishing or even beginning, the Alpine Confederation being a prime example, Transylvania being anotherHAD 19:30, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think instead we should say no new proposals for nations and try to finish looking at all of the curent proposals carefully. Also Ben i don't think the Backyard Syndrome (As i call it) is a new thing. People will allways try to make things neer where they live before looking further afieldVegas adict 20:32, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the most recent posts, I have come up with a new proposal that I think includes the suggestions that have been made:


 * All proposals on new nations carved out of the former United States or new article proposals dealing specifically with a current former US survivor states are to be put on hold. This will allow people to continue to create new articles that do not have anything to do with the former United States. Also we should still be able to move to make articles obsolete, even ones dealing with the US, because we should not allow unacceptable articles to remain with the other proposals for long periods of time.


 * All current national profiles for nations carved out of the former US, and any article(s) specifically related to them (i.e. List of Presidents of…) should be considered under review as per the Editorial Guidelines. They will be welcomed back into canon or removed from canon once the members of the community have a chance to weigh in on them.


 * While no other national profiles will be under review, editors are highly encouraged to bring up any other nations for review to resolve any lingering disputes that might still be simmering under the surface.

I also would like to make two new proposals that might be somewhat controversial:


 * The creation of a Nation Guidelines (1983: Doomsday) article. This article will supplement the current Editorial Guidelines and will act as a general checklist for graduating any new nation. It will be built by the community after discussion of various elements that usually cause contention among members (such as territorial size, population size, surviving infrastructure, energy concerns, etc.). Since the world is varied these guidelines would need to be general, but hopefully it could be used to preserve the overriding themes of the timeline.


 * A new rule to the Editorial Guidelines that bars editors from creating nations that encompass their hometown. This will hopefully prevent the “Backyard Syndrome” which might cause some editors to create nations that are not plausible because they tend to have everything go right for their nation. This does not prevent, however, these editors from working on articles that encompass their hometown that were created by others or teaming up with another editor in creating a nation that encompasses their hometown. Thus their expertise in the area can still be used while the other editor(s) will provide a safeguard for over-optimistic articles.

Thoughts, concerns, comments? Mitro 21:04, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything except for the view of all American survivor nations and their associate articles. That would just further divide and disillusion contributors, present and future.


 * As for the "Nation Guidelines" I need to see that in more detail before I decide whether I'm for or against it. I love the idea of a ban on the so called "Backyard Syndrome" and I believe Mitro (If it was someone else I apologize), you had an idea that the WCRB would issue a report stating something to the extent of "No new North American survivor nations are expected to be found" thus closing the gate on large survivor nations while at the same tim keeping the dorr open to small city states and farm communities. I agree we have to cap the growing number of large establish survivor nations (hence why I now oppose the Indiana article). GOPZACK 23:54, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

When I chose to become a contributor, the last thing I envisioned was ending up in heated arguments with anyone. As I believe I stated to Louisianan, I am by nature analytical, which basically means I research, contemplate, and research some more long before I chose to write to see if my idea has merit or feasibility. I work in an atmosphere where this is an intricate part of how my colleagues and I perform our jobs. We debate our thoughts on a given assignment and make changes accordingly as a result of this interaction. I guess I tend to forget not everyone is like that. Even though I enjoy althistory, I have been disappointed at many of the stories I have seen on both the web and in print which included some fairly farfetched divergences and stories. I decided to join here after reading the site for 6 months because of what I saw as a genuine effort by writers and managers to ground these articles in reality.

I try my best to make sure what I write makes sense. I have never thought my articles were upbeat, such as saying 60% of a state died. I think Mitro made an excellent point sometime ago in that it becomes overwhelming at times when you stop and realize you are mapping out how people, albeit fictional, perished. It tends to get to me, especially since I was living outside of Washington in 1983. I have noted with some surprise though over the past months how some articles have become a walk on the far side of reality. There are just some parts of the world I would not have logically seen the war as leaving survivors, let alone being able to sustain a nation. Yet, I have continued to see nations pop up in these areas regularly. Another subject which I have found fascinating, has been the restoration of factories, electricity, telephones, TV stations, and even cinema in some regions at what struck me was an amazing pace. Heck, I am still trying to figure out how the loss of electricity would affect water and sewage treatment and if the telegraph would be better replacement for phones. I realize these are just my thoughts, so I am not saying I am right or wrong. I have made it a personal policy of mine to not change other writers article's, but to offer suggestions.

All of us, whether old or new contributors, have spent a great deal of time and effort in trying to write our articles and flesh out this ATL. Even though I am having a disagreement with Louisianan at the moment, I still think his article on Utah is pretty good. It would be a shame and a disservice to everyone's hard efforts if some kind of consensus could not be reached. Even though I put a lot of effort into my articles, I have no problem with someone's honest thoughts on what I have written. All I ask is if they feel there is a genuine concern over what I have written, they show me the civility of explaining what they feel the problem is and allow me to present my thoughts in rebuttal. If need be, I am not adverse to making changes if someone can show me my error logically. Hey, lets face it, none of us are perfect.--Fxgentleman 02:33, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

In principle I agree with trying to deal with the Backyard Syndrome even if it would cause me some problems. My home village is now part of Woodbridge so if I were to ret-con things so a plane crashed on the village on Doomsday causing massive damage and forcing the village to be evacuated would that be acceptable?? Verence71 09:08, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two reasons people write Backyard Syndrome articles. One is that they would like to see their hometown surviving and preferably doing well. But there is another reason for creating 'hometown states' - you have a far better idea at how people will react. I could write an article about some central African survivor nation if I wished, but I have no idea how they would have reacted to Doomsday, and if I don't know that I can't be as realistic as I would like. I wrote about Essex mostly because I know pretty well how people would have reacted and coped, even if it did turn out fairly optimistic.

By the sound of some of the arguments here we want the entire world outside of a precious few nations to be doom, gloom and cannibals. That's cool, but not very realistic: OTL Africa isn't all poverty and poachers; there are pockets of wealth, and liberty, and happiness, despite what all the charity adverts might tell you. If we're taking the approach of 'everything north of the equator is glow-in-the-dark wasteland' then I think we're being less realistic than we should be. People will survive, and people will build nations, some good and some bad. If I have any opposition at all to the number of survivor states we have it's only that we have a lot of 'Republic of...' countries. Fegaxeyl 09:30, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying "doom, gloom and cannibals" is over simplifying the other side's argument. Myself and others have never claimed that the entire world would be a scene from Road Warrior. I think Fx summed it up best that there are contributors on this site who feel that recent creations are on the "far side of reality." Nations are gaining abilities and tech with no explanation of how it is possible. We are not trying to turn the whole world into a post-apocalyptoic wasteland, I don't think anyone has ever assumed that Africa is nothing but "poverty and poachers," but we do believe however that places that were hit hardest on doomsday would not [EDIT] always be [EDIT] places of wealth, liberty and happiness. I really am starting to feel that this is the major issue between the two sides. Everyone is making assumptions about what everyone else wants and no one has asked them personally what their opinion is. It really is frustrating to have to constantly say "No, I never said that." Mitro 13:16, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * My main point, I guess, would be that liberty and happiness can certainly exist without wealth and technology. When you nuke a country "back to the stone age", the "cavemen" left behind might well be capable of governing themselves. But the loss of the modern infrastructure means they'll be doing it very differently than before. That's the basis of my Yukon contribution, anyhow. It's stable, free, and functional, but also very empty, primitive, and mostly wilderness. Population, a constant sticking point, should be based on the carrying capacity of the land itself - which, in our often-synthetic world, often has little to do with the current population *here*. Benkarnell 19:45, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point Ben. Mitro 19:50, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * The oversimplifying is deliberate, I should point out, though it was implied somewhere further up that at one point there were 'three thousand miles of dead cannibals between the MSP and the West Coast', which I picked up on. But this debate has made me feel a bit guilty about what I've already written... I'll go and shave off some optimism. (And I should stress I mean nothing with the "poverty and poachers" statement. I know it's not true, everyone else knows it's not true, but it was the snappiest statement I could think of to sum up what I thought was the 08/09ers' black-and-white view of the 1983:DD world.) Fegaxeyl 20:11, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is the problem I was just talking about. You are assuming some editors have a black and white view of the world without any evidence to back it up. Assumptions like those aren't helpful when it comes to discussing these issues, That "three thousand miles of dead cannibals between the MSP and the West Coast" never existed and I do not believe there is a single person campaigning for it now. When I originally joined this TL, yes the MSP was the only nation that existed in the former US, but that was because NO ONE had written anything yet. Here is one of the earliest discussion of American survivor states besides the MSP, dated April 2009. If this does not convince you the older members do not have a black and white view of the TL, than I do not know what will. Mitro 21:01, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, upon reading over some of the new comments, here is my updated proposal:
 * All proposals on new nations carved out of the former United States are to be presumed to be implausible, unless creating editors makes an exceptionally good argument and gets strong support from the community. Rule will probably be stated in the Editorial Guidelines.
 * Editors are highly encouraged to bring up any nation articles for review to resolve any lingering disputes that might still be simmering under the surface. A call to do so will go out eventually.
 * The creation of a Nation Guidelines (1983: Doomsday) article. This article will supplement the current Editorial Guidelines and will act as a general checklist for graduating any new nation. It will be built by the community after discussion of various elements that usually cause contention among members (such as territorial size, population size, surviving infrastructure, energy concerns, etc.). Since the world is varied these guidelines would need to be general, but hopefully it could be used to preserve the overriding themes of the timeline.
 * A new rule to the Editorial Guidelines that bars editors from creating nations that encompass their hometown. This will hopefully prevent the “Backyard Syndrome” which might cause some editors to create nations that are not plausible because they tend to have everything go right for their nation. This does not prevent, however, these editors from working on articles that encompass their hometown that were created by others or teaming up with another editor in creating a nation that encompasses their hometown. Thus their expertise in the area can still be used while the other editor(s) will provide a safeguard for over-optimistic articles. Editors who have already created nations encompassing their hometowns will not be affected by this new rule.

As you can see I removed my original suggestion of putting all American nations under review. Though I know some people fear this could lead to bad blood, I feel that unless we do some sort of review over the articles that are causing the most issues than we will be back to this point very soon. That being said people could just use the current review process already stated in the Editorial Guidelines, but I thought that most people would be hesitant to do so because of the fear of angering creators. That is why I originally suggested every article so all the editors who created an American survivor state (including myself) would be affected by the same rule.

One more thing. This discussion began not just due to the optimism vs. pessimism debate, but also because one editor felt that people are not as respectful to each other as they used to be. I have no suggestions on how to change that, other than to request that people make a greater effort to be respectful to each other when discussing our creations. Mitro 21:31, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * That archive's kind of funny in that almost all of those ideas have come to be in one form or another. Except for Quincy... may need to get on that ... ;). An "Avoid Your Hometown" rule is incredibly harsh. As FXG points out, it actually makes some sense to work on an area you are familiar with. And that need not result in implausible "wanking", as Marc's Saugenay might help illustrate. (Marc, or at least his family, comes from that area originally, though I know he doesn't live there anymore.) Carlos' early work on Colombia also shows that a local resident can bring a unique voice to an area. Maybe just a guideline saying, "The purpose of 1983DD is not to transform your hometown into the bright center of civilization. Chances are that the place you live is no better or worse off than its immediate neighbors. Keep that in mind as you develop it." Something like that. Benkarnell 21:52, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I support Ben's idea for the "Avoid Your Hometown". As for the rest of what Mitro said I generally support it. I would just like to clarify one element to the ban on new American survivor "nations". When you say "nations" does that include small farming communities and minor city states or just large nations like the PUSA, Kentucky, Virginia, etc?


 * As for respect the best I think we can do is to issue a resolution calling on all contributors regardless of how long they have been contributing to be treated equally,fairly and with respect. This keeps new contributors from bullying the older ons and visa versa. GOPZACK 22:26, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's disrespect in that sense. Louisianan meant (I think) that he felt his work was not being respected - that newer members were either disregarding older material, or pushing for it to be changed. 69.246.210.209 23:22, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ben: Yeah it is kind of funny how so many of my original suggestions were turned into articles at some point. Two were created by me, two were team ups with another editor and three were created completely by someone else. As for your suggestion of the hometown rule, yeah that might be the better option, especially in the tips section of the guidelines.
 * @Zack: Yes I include small communities as well for two reasons: 1) there might acctually still be room for one or two more "large" states and we just can't see it yet and it would be unfair to arbitarily deny it and 2) we should not asume the size of the survivor state always affects its plausibility. I went to college in Peoria, IL. It was a mid-cized city in the middle of rural central IL. It had two large hospitals that pretty much served the entire region. Both had helicopters that would fly out to distant rural communities and bring back patients. Consider what would happen to similar areas like this after Doomsday. Cut off from modern medicine and having to deal with fallout, radiation and refugees, we are looking at places where deadly diseases could easily spread and wipe out whole towns. That being said their is no total ban. When I write up my next proposal I am going to borrow the procedure we use when picking featured TLs.
 * @anon: Yes that is true, however, Loius also metioned the discussion on the Socialist States of Georgia page and I just got the impression that he is also bothered as much by the tone of recent discussions as he is by the subject. Of course, I could be wrong. Mitro 00:50, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm bothered by is this: People aren't collaborating. They're not saying, "Oh - I see you've created this - well, let's find a happy medium." They're saying, "Well tough biscuits, buddy, it's my way or the highway - you can change because I'm NOT BUDGING!" It's not a team spirit. I'm fine with people "discovering" cities and such. I'm fine with people doing stuff on their own back yard. What I'm not fine is the attitude, mostly.
 * I think that we've hit a point of saturation in North America and Northern/Western Europe, and I don't know that we should have any more functional states, beyond that in those areas.
 * What it really comes down to is the new people to the timeline don't accept or maybe don't understand QSS and QAA - and for a project of this nature and size, it's absolutely critical that they do. If you'd like me to furnish examples from my experience with Ill Bethisad, I'd be happy to. Louisiannan 15:10, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think respect is definitely very important. For example when I have Woodbridge do something that could possibly affect another state I always ask the creator/editor of the said article if they are OK with it.

One question on the plans to deal with the Backyard Syndrome.... will it be retrospective?? Verence71 08:58, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think thats a bad idea. Mostly because I've put an assload of work into Victoria, and to bar me from being able to develop it further would not be cool, and I'm sure Smoggy, SouthWriter, and others who have nations incorporating their hometowns wouldn't be too cool with it either. I personally don't see why a hometown ban is necessary as long as we're more vigilant on the graduation process. Some things are getting graduated with little to no discussion within a couple days of being written.Oerwinde 09:05, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd think it would be a bad idea as well as my village is now a part of Woodbridge. It's not a major part but it is there :) Verence71 09:17, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd think it would be a bad idea as well as my village is now a part of Woodbridge. It's not a major part but it is there :) Verence71 09:17, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * The only problem that i have with the whole backyard syndrome and therefore hometown ban is that people know the most about the area that they live in, as in history, politics, etc. plus i back oerwinde's comment on the whole assload of work statement (however i would reword it as arseload as i'm a Brit :) ) --Smoggy80 18:28, May 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the exact quote, which I realise I misinterpreted: "One with a balkanized North America with a militaristic Virginia on one side and an outlaw groups of city states overseen by the ANZC and SAC on another - and another timeline with 3,000 miles of dead cannibals and radioactive dead zones between the MSP and the Atlantic.--BrianD 17:23, May 16, 2010 (UTC)". Also, thanks for bringing the archived discussion up; I'm now aware what you're on about. I'd just like to say with Backyard Syndrome - could it be justified? We're saying that the community will from now on only allow US survivor nations if it's absolutely plausible; shouldn't a similar rule apply to Backyard Syndrome nations, for fairness? Fegaxeyl 09:49, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * If a "Backyard Syndrome" ban is enacted it must be amended to exempt canonized articles made by folks who happen to reside somewhere in their nation.GOPZACK 14:13, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fegaxeyl's suggestion's on futher US survivor nations, as well as GOPZACK's ammended "Backyard Syndrome" Idea. HAD 15:02, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am strongly against any rule that bans people from contributing to any part of the TL. We should write a warning and a guideline, but not a ban. IMO. Benkarnell 15:23, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Howes this for a plan: on the mainpage headline thingy, someone posts a WCRB message about it being unlikely that any futher US Surviror states will be found. We will elaborate on this and the Plausibilty Singularty and the Backyard Syndrome on the Editorial Guidelines page and see how things go from there. HAD 15:27, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think small city-states like my article are still likely to be found but I agree that larger ones being found are unlikely. --GOPZACK 15:38, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the sugestions made by HAD are good ideas and i'm fine with them, Just as a point I to am partialy guilty of the "Backyard Syndrome" having included my own county in Southern England and to start with i wanted to have my own town of Crawley as the capital but i soon realised that there was no way the inhabitants could have survived the falloutVegas adict 16:01, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I acknoledge that my articles can seem overly cheery, but I think there would naturally be areas that would recover faster than others. These areas were mostly unscathed, and so would economically develop quicker than other North American states. While its true that I used my hometown of Niverville in Manitoba as the capitol city for Assiniboia, but that was because of proximity to the first Prime Minister (my grandfather). With most cars down because of EMP it wouldn't be very plausible to try to get him to Brandon when a perfectly good community is just a few miles from his farm. I don't think I suffer from "Hometown syndrome" after all I don't live anywhere near West Virginia, but my favorite nation is still Virginia. And I created article for many of the nations in Indochina.


 * Yankovic270 16:16, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * So who wants to post the headline, then?HAD 16:45, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys I don't think a backyard ban is justifiable, I think we all just need to be a little more susceptible about them. I think Ben's original suggestions of just one line in the tips section of the guidelines warning people about this is all that is needed. As for graduating states of any size in North America, no I don't think a ban on large states is justified because they are just as likely to be plausible still as small states are just as likely to be implasuible. I think simply requiring to gain at least three supporters without any objectors before graduation, just like what happens at the featured TL page, will provide another safety net to catch implausible articles.
 * Also, though my suggestion of putting all North American states under review was shot down, I still think some sort of review needs to happen to solve any lingering disputes that people are afraid to bring out in the open. I suggest that all editors who have been active on the TL in the lasd 30 days be contacted and encouraged to bring up any article (not just ones in North America) that they feel are contradictory or implausible per the Editorial Guidelines. No one might do it, but at least we gave them the chance to do so. Who knows it could become an annual thing, a way to look back at what we have done in a yeart and whether we have gotten off track.
 * On another note, I think discussions like this are a good thing. I was part of an organization back in college that would have discussions like this when things were very stressful. Everyone would gather in one place and get a chance to speak for as long as they wanted without any interruption or question. Anything said in the meeting never left the meeting and there would be no consequences for what was said. It helped clear the air and get everyone working together cooperatively. Mitro 16:50, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree Mitro. Perhaps this should be preserved somewhere away from the archives on it's own page.HAD 17:02, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm. Even that plan has its dangers. We're a consensus-based community, and that means things will happen all the time that I, personally, would rather happen differently. The Rule of QSS is, I believe, the best guide: if it's been written and accepted, you're obligated to accept it without complaining. New work ought to be judged based on its conformance with already-accepted material. We have done a poor job, overall, of following that; hence the contradictions between the Timeline and some of the newer pages. But now they're written and accepted, and what we should do, I think, is harmonize them if we can. The Timeline gives very low literacy rates for "the Wilderness", for example, and this has been called into question - we need to abide by it. Meanwhile, certain survivor communities are described in rosy terms - maybe we can clarify that these descriptions apply to, say, the capital but not the periphery.
 * I know I've been guilty of stirring up discord by whining about pages that I disapproved of, but the community accepted. It was a bad thing for me to do, and I don't think would be healthy to do it en masse. Benkarnell 19:22, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro I like your idea of asking people who have been active in the last 30 days on their talk pages if they have an objections to certain articles. Who shall begin to contact folks regarding this idea? I agree also that the "backyard syndrome" ban idea is extreme and unnecessary.I do agree with ben we must reach a consensus as to how we go forward.GOPZACK 19:36, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at all that has been posted this is my sugestion on what we do: Vegas adict 16:07, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The creation of a Nation Guidelines (1983: Doomsday) article. This article will supplement the current Editorial Guidelines and will act as a general checklist for graduating any new nation. It will be built by the community after discussion of various elements that usually cause contention among members (such as territorial size, population size, surviving infrastructure, energy concerns, etc.). Since the world is varied these guidelines would need to be general, but hopefully it could be used to preserve the overriding themes of the timeline.
 * Place a message on the main talk page that reminds editors to keep to QSS and that US Surviver states are unlikely to be found.
 * Remind authors that if they and a set number of other people agree that an artical is not apropriate to the timeline they can ask for it to be reviewed.
 * Place a warning on the Editorial Guidelines stating that the purpose of the timeline is not to make your hometown all powerfull.

I think that is a very sensible and well thought out plan, Vegas.HAD 17:08, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben, I think the review process can be used to "harmonize" articles better than attempts now. Like what happened Prussia, it brings to the attention of the community articles that are extremely out of sync with the TL but were approved by the community anyway. By placing it in the hands of individual editors and following already established procedure, we can do said harmonizing and attract a larger group of editors while doing it. Mitro 23:06, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * One clarification on my comment on splitting the timeline - it was just one idea, as fallible as any other, and one attempt to allow for everyone's vision of this timeline to coexist. Thankfully, there are a multitude of editors with their own very good ideas to consider! Seems to me consensus has to play a key role in the wiki going forward, and strong guidelines will also be helpful. BrianD 05:04, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironicly this discusion came about because someone raised issues about us not co-operating with each other. I think what we'v done here shows that there is still a strong spirit of co-operation and a desire to work together in the 1983:Doomsday timelineVegas adict 08:31, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironicly this discusion came about because someone raised issues about us not co-operating with each other. I think what we'v done here shows that there is still a strong spirit of co-operation and a desire to work together in the 1983:Doomsday timelineVegas adict 08:31, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents
the reason why this occured is a dispute between fx and louis i think this matter needs to be resolved on user talk pages rather the discussion pages the reason being disputes like these dont do 1983dd any favors but I am not in favor of ignoring them becuse 1983DD is a callab and attitudes like this is mine and screw you are damaging to the ATLOwen1983 13:20, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Dude, use better English. I am problably younger than you and I have better language skills than you, and I am not some loner geek sitting at a computer all day. You can still be a bad-ass and use proper English, Owen. Arstarpool 02:52, May 23, 2010 (UTC)