Alternative History:Featured alternate history

Nominations for Featured Alternate Histories are the proper way of nominating the best alternate histories that we have here at the Alternate History Wiki. These alternate histories must meet the following criteria:
 * Well-written: the prose of the alternate history is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
 * Comprehensive: the alternate history neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; more then one article is used to convey the alternate history
 * Plausible: the POD and the altered events following the POD are logically what would happen if history was changed
 * Neutral: the alternate history does its best to give an objective view of the altered history without being overly influenced by politics, religion, nationalism, etc.; it is not a "wankfest"
 * Peaceful collaboration: the alternate history is not subject to ongoing edit wars.
 * Portal Page: the alternate history has a portal page that summarizes the work and prepares the reader for the detail in the connected articles;
 * Appropriate structure: the majority of articles in the alternate history have a system of hierarchical section headings, a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents and a lead section to describe the article
 * External sources: the alternate history provides OTL sources to support the events after the POD either on the portal page or a separate article
 * Supplements: the alternate history makes use of pictures, flags, maps, tables, videos, etc.

ANYONE can nominate a timeline (even its creator). You may nominate an article by yourself, or with other users. You will need to sign the nomination, so a confirmation can be completed.

If an alternate history receives a nomination, the  template will be placed on the portal page until a decision is reached.

If an alternate history becomes a featured timeline, the  template will be placed on the portal page and the alternate history will be added to the list. The nomination discussion will be moved to the archive.

Nomination Process

 * 1) First chose an alternate history, and explain why the alternate history would be a good candidate. Also, you can explain what needs to be improved on the article.
 * 2) Add the  template to the article.
 * 3) The alternate history should be adjusted if anyone opposes it.
 * 4) The alternate history will be added to the list if there is no more opposition and at least three (3) editors (other then the nominator) support its nomination.
 * 5) A timeline will be marked as featured over any objectors if there are 3 supporters plus a supporter for every objector.

Sample Nomination
Please copy and past this format for your own nomination. ===Portal Page of alternate history===

*Supporters

*Objectors

*Discussion

Note: Please put new nominations at the bottom of the page.

Basileus' Interference Timeline
It has been featured before. Mitro 13:41, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Louisiannan 22:58, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very detailed. And complex. And hard to understand. But I like it. Eastward Expansion 12:57, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just became a member of this wikia so that I could vote yes on this one!


 * Objectors


 * Discussion

Day of Glory
Was featured once before. Mitro 17:10, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Louisiannan 20:20, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Objectors
 * Personally I don't really like it.Babylonanian Siberia 20:07, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * As the creator of that timeline, it would be helpful to me if you could say what it is that you don't you don't like about it. --Marcpasquin 23:38, June 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Chinese Meiji
Was featured once before. Mitro 14:55, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Objectors
 * Ecthelion83 18:14, April 6, 2010 (UTC/GMT) - my issues are 1) I think the point of divergence is too late (i.e. the Qing dynasty was already in great turmoil at least several decades prior to the noted point of divergence, to include the White Lotus Rebellion, which was an open revolt against the dynasty) - this would have had the notable effect of galvanizing anyone not sympathetic to the rebellion in favor of conservatism, not modernization, 2) Japan does not really modernize until after 1870 in real history, and thus, despite technically being an "empire," it does not expand or start growing until its modernization (this is implied to have begun in 1861 in the timeline by the topplers of the Tokugawa Shogunate), 3) the factors leading to the fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate are so far from accurate as to be ludicrous (for one thing, the daimyos said to have rebelled in the timeline were noted to be staunch conservatives in real life; in fact, they were among the ones who, having met with defeat at the hands of the Imperial armies, led the Satsuma Rebellion against modernization; in addition, the daimyos even in the late Tokugawa era were certainly not capable of ending the Shogunate, which in real life was achieved only through the actions of the Meiji Emperor - notably, both were in favor of modernization and thus would not have closed Japan to European influence after 1850), 4) Korea (Choseon/Joseon), while a tributary state of the Qing, would never have become a Chinese protectorate per se (nor would the Chinese ever have considered to make it so - successive Chinese dynasties were very much content, no matter how expansionist, to leave the China-Korea relationship as suzerain-tributary with little practical or even legal impact on Korean relations, except when Korea could be used as a buffer against foreign threats vis a vis Japan), as China never considered Korea at all "Chinese" - in addition, Japanese expansionist tendencies would have inevitably led to war with China regarding influence over Korea (if Korea is, in alternate history, unable to overcome the weaknesses of individual kings and factional in-fighting at court by 1860; if Korea does overcome this before then, it is actually more likely that it would have exercised more independence of China in the event of a Qing collapse, possibly countering or even overcoming Japanese influences/tendencies since Korea would have had time to modernize effectively before Japan instead of the other way around, as it happened in actual history), and lastly, 5) the northern Korean boundary with China was constantly in factual dispute (since before they became the Qing, the Manchurian tribes were frequently at war with Korea, even before the Choseon dynasty, and incursions by the Manchurians south of the Tumen/Yalu and by the Koreans north of those rivers were common); despite this border having been negotiated (with some discrepancies) in 1712, the Qing did not allow settlement or migration into Manchuria proper until the 1870s and the first Chinese to enter there already found Koreans occupying some of the territories they had been told to settle, which led to continued inconclusive negotiations into the 1880s - due to an ambiguity in naming some of the boundaries (Chinese characters were used in the official treaties, but the word "Tumen" is not Chinese and several different Chinese character versions were used to transliterate the name), those Koreans in the disputed territory claimed that they were in Korean territory (which developed into official Choseon policy in the 1880s), but after 1905, due to Japanese interference, these policies and claims could no longer be pursued or negotiated until 1945, but the occupation of Korea in halves prevented a united claim and thus prevented any real negotiation (though one was concluded between North Korea and China in 1962 recognizing the current borders). In an alternate history, all of this may have been turned on its head. - My primary objections would be 1) it's not comprehensive, and 2) it's not very plausible, for the major reasons I've pointed out in boldface.
 * Discussion
 * Wow you really point out some good reasons. Babylonanian Siberia 20:07, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ready for the Mother Country
Featured once before. Mitro 16:51, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Bill Potter 1:40, March 9, 2010 (EST)
 * Objectors
 * Just don't like it. VENEZUELA 00:33, March 28, 2010 (UTC).
 * Discussion
 * Is there a reason why you don't like the TL Ven? Mitro 22:10, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I decided I wouldn't vote on this one. Eastward Expansion 19:43, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Welsh History Post Glyndwr
An excellent timeline that details an independent Welsh state. Mitro 16:51, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Owen1983 23:47, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it! Even though that's basically what I say for all of these.Eastward Expansion 23:48, June 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Objectors


 * Discussion
 * there is a lot of info here I like itOwen1983 23:47, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Kornilovshina
Was featured once before. Mitro 13:00, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * yougo1000: I really liked the POD it was very good.
 * Objectors
 * Emperorjames 16:55, May 12, 2010 (GMT/UTC)
 * Discussion

Civil War on Third Reich
It's very imaginative and includes some additional info, (maps, photos, etc.). User:Unregistered contributor 195.77.128.223 19:47, April 5, 2010


 * Supporters
 * The pictures are impressive, the history is long and complicated, and the idea is good.I like it a lot. I'm willing to vote for it. Defender of the Fang 13:55, April 9, 2010 (UTC) PS. Anyone want to help with my althist, Defenders of the Fang?
 * Objectors
 * Too short. Currently its only one page. TL needs to be expanded before it can be marked as a featured TL. Mitro 18:47, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything that is only one article should never become a featured history. All these unregistered contributors are really annoying!!! Eastward Expansion 20:08, June 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion

2nd Punic Victory
Has a great portal page, and is covered with maps and other goodies Eastward Expansion 22:00, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Objectors
 * No offense against Oer, whose work I usually enjoy, but I have to object on a purely technical reason. The TL itself is just to short, it is only 4 articles long. If it were expanded more I would be willing to change my vote. -Mitro
 * I'm going to have to agree, and its my timeline :P I was all into it at first when I was going hardcore on althist, but it has petered out a lot as I got sucked into the mapgames.
 * Discussion

An Independent in 2000
It's a very well thought out and written, their is a lot of good work going into making it. Ownerzmcown
 * Supporters
 * Riley.Konner 16:27, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes and yes. Fegaxeyl 16:00, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this isn't already a Featured TL! Eastward Expansion 20:18, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply an amazing Timeline. Mitro, maybe it is a little less plausible than some, but it explains it very well. This is the Utopian World that I wish was our own. Sigh. French Victory 20:21, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * I have to object. I find it very implausible that a different president in 2000 would lead to the US covering the entire continent of North America and building colonies on the moon. -Mitro
 * Despite the fact i like the timeline it's just to implausible for it to become a featured TLVegas adict 21:36, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree mostly with the above, although I have a more personal dislike towards it as it is one of those "What if...(US President)" ATLs. Especially though, its just far too implausible, and I'm usually really lenient on plausibility lol Red VS Blue 21:53, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Too unlikely for my taste. I listed some of my objections on the EU talk page. --Karsten vK (talk) 19:27, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Finland Superpower
Nomination by Iamtheggman.
 * Supporters
 * it has a nice portal page with good photos and a timeline and it has good links--Owen1983 22:59, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, is very unrealistic, but it still cool--Ed9306 03:56, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agee that it's a bit Alien Space Batty,,, but it's a little more plausible than some. I say, give it a chance. Defender of the Fang 13:50, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Implasible yes, but has a nice ring to it. I feel it can be made better, yet I give it my approval. LizardKing12 12:43, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * My biggest problem with this TL is the implausibility of it. How Finland expanded just seems so unrealistic. If Finland is so powerful, how come it never expanded into OTL Russian territory? Mitro 16:45, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. It shouldn't be nominated for being featured. It should be nominated to be deleted. Until the creator shows signs of improving it, and I have checked many many times and he/she shows no interest in doing so. Until it is given the needed changes to be more plausible there is in my opinion no chance for it to become featured. If we did make it a featured history, then this page would be flooded with nominations for wank timelines even less plausible than this one. Yankovic270 20:27, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very Implausible.VENEZUELA 00:29, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very creative but I see little reason other than that. If it were expanded on a little more than I'm completely ready to switch my vote. Red VS Blue 21:58, June 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Well it was expanded quite a bit since the last time I took a look at it, I am still not though whether to support or object. Riley.Konner 10:29, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * There are three supporters now for this TL, however when there are objectors general policy is to only mark it as a featured alternate history when the nomination has three supporters + a supporter for each objector. This TL needs 3 more supportors before it becomes featured (unless there are more objectors). Mitro 14:02, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatl's World
It has tones of stuff including lots of Pics, Maps, and more. Its very creative too.Eastward Expansion 23:55, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Most of the current stuff is in these articles, 1300-1350, 1350-1470, and 1470-1510
 * Supporters
 * It's okay, but it is way better than some of the other things that have been nominated. Or even been featured for that matter.French Victory 00:02, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * --Catherine 00:29, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * This one is pretty interesting! Babylonanian Siberia 20:07, June 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Objectors
 * It seems interesting, with a nice concept, but way too underdeveloped. I'd be happy to swing my vote the other way if I could see some flesh on this timeline. (Sorry if that sounded harsh. I just can't communicate well over wikis, for some reason...) Fegaxeyl 20:33, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Fegaxeyl. The TL only has 6 articles.  Way to underdeveloped to be featured.  69.47.104.219 23:38, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Featured Review Process
Sometimes timelines are elevated to featured status when they should not be. Also sometimes a good featured timeline is elevated, but later changes make it uworthy of being a featured timeline. If you think this has happened, you can put the timeline under review by following these steps:


 * 1) Use the nomination template above and explain why the timeline should no longer be featured.
 * 2) Add the  template to the article.
 * 3) If 3 editors support removing it's featured status, it will no longer be considered a featured TL.

IMPORTANT: By putting yourself down as a supporter, you are supporting the nomination to remove the timeline's featured status.

Soviet Defeat
No offense to the editors of Soviet Defeat, but I just don't feel that this TL should remain a featured TL anymore. Most of the articles are either stubs or unfinished articles. If more work was done I could drop my nomination, but as of now I think it should be removed from the featured TL list. -Mitro


 * Supporters


 * Objectors


 * Discussion