Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.
 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4

GENERAL DISCUSSION
The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve artiCle proposals.

WCRB TIMEKEEPERs COUNCIL - open for nominations
to all contributors, viewers, fans of thiis ATL:

As discussed recently, we are trying to further bring order into the 1983: Doomsday timeline and shorten the leash of this beast :)

I would therefore like to open nominations for the WCRB TIMEKEEPERs COUNCIL

I intend this to be the institution which has the right of the "last word" concerning contributions to this TL; especially regarding CANON. The TKC would NOT be a god-like council ruling in their will. It would be responsible for the established Editorial Guidelines to be followed and only decide after certain discussions being going on. So a Timekeeper would be the formal administrator of this Timeline

Further details could be described later, but do not have to be.--Xi&#39;Reney 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a fan of impair council numbers so no draw situations occur :) So i would favorize 3 or 5Timekeepers I repeat my earlier nominations:


 * Benkarnell,
 * Mitro
 * Xi'Reney, myself ;-).

And maybe Louisiannan in his sysop function as a kind of liason officer to the Ahwiki himself!

Open for nominations (remarks?).. to repeat:this might all sound very formal for a wikia creative site... but we are trying to maintain world order and a our world is really really large!!--Xi&#39;Reney 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Time limit on proposals
According to the Guidelines an article/change becomes canon if no one objects to it in a month (30 days). But what if one or more people do object to it, but their objections are satisfied by changes? Does the article have to wait 30 days to become canon or if enough people are ok with it can it become canon earlier? Mitro 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a month is like an eternity in Internet Time. The 30 day guideline is a holdover from Ill Bethisad (on which the policy is modeled).  It's mostly a courtesy to people who might not visit the site all the time.  Lately I've been very active, for example, but I can certainly imagine a time in the future when I'll be busy with other things for long stretches.  When that happens, I'll appreciate the long period to be able to say, "Hang on a minute" to proposals that are lying around.  It works well for IB, which has 75 contributors, most of whom are not entirely active.  I also like it because it fits with the informal one-month guideline we've used for keeping items on the "Recent Additions" and "Newshour" lists on this page.  There are definitely drawbacks, though: a cluttered proposal section, and a possible perception from newcomers that they have to jump through a series of hoops before participating fully.  So in the end, I'm not sure.  Benkarnell 15:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess my next question is, how many contributors does 1983: Doomsday have? Mitro 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And you know what, some of those proposals are clearly OK. Maybe a courtesy "Anyone mind if we graduate these pages" first?  Benkarnell 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, I'm confused. Is this about all those new proposals I added?  I did that because Xi listed them as proposals on the main page and I was just trying to follow the new proposal process.  Mitro 02:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong place. How did that happen?  Moved.  Benkarnell
 * Um...ok. Well my bad I was just trying to follow the proposal process since said new articles were listed on the main page as proposals, sorry to cause any problems.  A couple I think should be discussed IMO but I will add your courtesy question.  Mitro 03:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

World Country Profiles
I dont know if this is the right place toi say that, but, I think ours articles must/should be more close to List of sovereign states in 1983, in real world wikipedia, especialy when we talk about not nuked countries, they can not just disapier --Fero 03:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lots of them are there. Really, 99% of Africa remains totally "unexplored" for this TL.  Personally, I'd rather wait for someone who has real ideas develop them, than just put together lists of countries that might limit people later.  Benkarnell 03:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ben, its best to wait for someone to come along and work out their idea and then work it into the canon later then doing it half assed by someone who is not so knowledgeable. Mitro 03:40, 12 June 2009 (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.

Unity League (1983: Doomsday)
I have to say that I'm really struggling to think of the Greeks and Turks getting all chummy because of the nuclear exchange -- I mean the whole Cyprus debacle was barely 10 years old when things went south. And it's not like the anger and hatred between the Greeks and Turks was something of the 20th century -- it's a long-standing, centuries (millenia?) old hatred between the two. --Louisiannan 14:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But the governments have been coming together in the 20th century. Kemal Ataturk & Eleftherios Venizelos themselves strove for an alliance between the two nations. Things have changed since 1823, and a nuclear explosion showed the neccessity of working together.

Mr.Xeight 14:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Only since the late 90's, and more recently -- and Ataturk and Venizelos were prior to WWII -- and it seemed to me that things had soured since then. There has been a lot of international peer pressure for Turkey and Greece to "kiss and make up" -- peer pressure that wouldn't exist, IMHO*, with the world going up in flames.  Obviously this is my opinion, and should only be taken as such, but the sudden turn around of Greece and Turkey because of the nuclear war is a really tough stretch for my understanding of the situation -- it'd be like the Nazis turning around and saying to the Jews, "Oh, gosh.  Sorry!  Let us set you survivors up in palaces and make you cabinet ministers!" and Hitler marrying a jewess and raising jewish children -- it's just REALLY hard for me to accept.


 * But it's my opinion, and I guess you can disregard it. --Louisiannan 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we need to keep this as realistic as possible. What if we make this one of the most recent nations; formed on in the last 2-5 years? The provisional government of the Aegean Islands and the Turkish equivalent can stay together until recently. At least this way there can be an international community to pressure the 2 into peace. Mr.Xeight 15:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned this elsewhere, but both Turkey and Greece were NATO members. It's a relevant fact, anyhow.  There would probably be some high-level support for partnership, but the ethnic angst of the masses could very well make such good intentions impossible to carry out.  Benkarnell

wikipedia quote:The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are two UK-administered areas on the island of Cyprus that comprise the Sovereign Base Areas military bases of the United Kingdom. The bases were retained by the UK following the granting of independence and the eventual transition of Cyprus from a crown colony to an independent sovereign state. The United Kingdom demanded and succeeded in continuing to occupy a portion of Cyprus in the form of military bases because of the strategic location of Cyprus in the Mediterranean Sea in pursuit of UK interests. end of wikipedia quote that british strategis base in mediterranean sea was not nuked? i do not think sow and whit that atack cyprus is close almost dead to start any "imperial league--Fero 12:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think as we consider this proposal we must also consider this article First Gulf War (1983: Doomsday) which predates the Unity League and may have a significant effect on the history of the region. Mitro 03:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Bermuda (1983: Doomsday) and List of Monarchs of Bermuda (1983: Doomsday)
I created this country and was wondering if it's all right? I've been following this TL for a while and I really like it, I just noticed no one made anything for Bermuda so I took my chance. Here's the page. --Gamb1993 10:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do like it, and it makes complete sense to make Bermuda a Kingdom - but am wary of the King and Queen. I'm starting to worry that we're getting close to a world where every British royal survived and headed for a different country.   Could there have been anyone locally to assume the throne?  Or a relatively obscure relative already in the area?   solved the monarch problem quite well without importing anyone from Holland.  Benkarnell 11:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did look into having say a member of the royal family who'd moved to Bermuda beforehand; that didn't work. Then I looked for any locals who are famous but didn't find any appropriate ones (A rock singer and 'Miss World'.) So, grudgingly, I made Sophie his wife as in OTL.


 * That seems a backward way of doing it. You basically said, "It has got to be a proper Kingdom... so I'll make up something implausible and go with it", instead of thinking about the most likely course of events.  Bermuda might very well adopt a monarchy, but how would it import a British royal?  What's he even doing on the island?  Benkarnell 20:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really, I just thought it'd be better for Bermuda to stay as a Kingdom rather than converting straight to a Republic. Anyway, the island was an overseas British Territory at the time, though not a large one it was still quite close to Britain; also the troops who left were more frightened than anything else, and so in the ensuing panic they with their friends and family escaped. It just happened that the Prince was in the area at the time - So in the ensuing panic he was bundled onto the ship. Bermuda didn't ask for the Monarch, it's just they were free from the majority of the nuclear fallout and so seemed a good place to take the Prince to. --Gamb1993 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What Ben is concerned about is the fact that there has been a lot of articles in the TL that involve a British royal becoing the king/qwueen of a new nation and its starting to border on implausibility. I'm personally not against the idea of Bermuda as a kingdom but we may need to look at the facts.  Where did these destroyers come from? Was the prince anywhere  near a port in OTL where he could have been picked up?  Was the prince actually in OTL in a city that was nuked thus making it likely he is nothing more then radiocative dust?  All of that needs to be answered to make the government of Bermuda plausible, while saying "just happened that the prince was in the area" is a weak argument.  As a whole though the article is pretty good and if this was solved I would have no problem adding to the canon.  Mitro 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

According to his wikipedia article, the prince was in New Zealnad for two terms of school starting September 1982 and then came back to Britain to study at Jesus College at Cambridge (I'm assuming that means that in either May or Juine 1983 he returned to Britiain, I don't know British school schedules). I didn't find any evidence that Cambridge was destroyed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't. I did find though that the Celtic Alliance does run a euthenasia center in (or near) the city. Still Cambridge is not a port city and its closeness to London (only 50 miles) makes me wonder if the Prince would have made it someplace where he could have escaped. Mitro 17:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this information. Due to this I wish to actually change the page, I believe it would actually be more plausible to have Prince Andrew move to Bermuda on the HMS Invincible which he served on until late 1983, if this is okay I will change my page as soon as I can as I actually like this idea more now. --Gamb1993 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I foresee a small problem with that idea. According to Timeline (1983: Doomsday) the HMS Invincible was with Australia until it went to join the Celtic Alliance. Mitro 18:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How annoying... I take it there's no way to change the timeline, how about on HMS Brazen? Or again is that a problem as Prince Andrew only transfered to RNAS Portland in late 1983? --Gamb1993 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The TL may be changed but only if there is a group consensus to do so. Still I'm surprised you just don't have John William Morrison, 2nd Viscount Dunrossil become king. Look at it this way: if he is successful in getting Bermuda through the worst of DD, then the people may be grateful enough to offer him the title when he retires as governor. Mitro 18:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, suppose I just really wanted an actual British Monarch to become the monarch there. So really unless if HMS Brazen is difficult to do then I'll place John as the King. --Gamb1993 18:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ben that there is way too many royals going off and starting their own country. I think its safe to assume that Edward died during the attack on Britain, or at least shortly thereafter.  Andrew probably survived and served longer on Invincible, but probably made his way to Rhodesia (1983: Doomsday) where the other royals were.  In fact I think it’s safe to assume that if any royals were still alive they would head to Rhodesia, Australia or South America instead of taking their chances in a small outpost in the devastated northern Hemisphere.  Mitro 18:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Even Rhodesia is an unlikely place for royals - or any group of Britons larger than a small boatload - to end up. If they're going to flee the island, why not just go to Ireland?  Bob and I have been talking on his Talk page about makign changes to those pages.  Probably The Rhodesia/Ralezia/New Brittania group should also be listed as Proposals.  Benkarnell 19:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That may need to happen, but to get back on topic would you agree that if John Morrison was made king Bermuda would be an acceptable article? Mitro 19:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He seems like the perfect choice, as his entire job was to represent the Monarch in absentia. The fact that he was a peer is gravy, in my opinion.  He died OTL in 2000.  I'd assume that his kids from his second marriage were on Bermuda with him?  [EDIT] According to his obituary, he had two daughters likely to be with him in Bermuda.  I'd assume that his 30-year-old heir would not be, nor would his other three children by his ex-wife.  Benkarnell 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you find the name of the oldest, I guess she would be the next Queen. Or we could give the title to his second wife: Diana Mary Cunliffe Vise. Mitro 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So the wife is now Queen Diana I, I think that solves all my problems with the article. I find it acceptable, does anyone else have a problem? Can we make this article the first graduate of the proposal process? Mitro 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Transylvania (1983: Doomsday)
Alright just to let everyone know this is how I plan on doing this page.


 * 1) Since Romania is a Warsaw Pact nation the capital at Bucharest is hit along with the navel port of Constanţa. The country is also badly effected by near by nuclear explosions at the foreign cities of Sofia, Budapest, and Chişinău. Radioactive fallout is generally blown east, making things worse for most of Romania.
 * 2) Transylvania, Oltenia, and Banat are the only functioning regions left. Here Yugoslavia to the west acts as a buffer zone to the fallout as well as the Carpathian Mountains. Once Yugoslavia closes their borders the people here try and fortify themselves in the central Carpathians (i.e. where Transylvania proper is) with whatever military equipment is left.
 * 3) After survival is secured the country is left with an Authoritarian/Communist provisional government. With nearby Hungry destroyed the Hungarian population doubles from refugees leading to a population that is 40% Hungarian, 50% Romanian (with 10% other). This causes a wide degree of ethnic conflict, and a near civil war breaks out.
 * 4) However before things get too bad everyone realizes that the government is actually inciting the conflict, trying  to keep people divided, homogeneous, and dependent on the government to keep themselves in power. This severely backfires and leads the people to unite to defeat the Communists.
 * 5) The ethnic problems are finally solved (for the most part) after it is decided to make Transylvania a federal republic. Since almost all of Romania if left in or just outside Transylvania it is decided to rename the country after it, using old Transylvanian symbols again as well as promoting a shared Transylvanian history to help unite the Hungarian/Romanian population.
 * 6) Finally Transylvania comes into contact with the outside world via the western border with Yugoslavia (or Serbia, or what ever country we decide to have left there). It allies itself with this country, giving it access to supplies it needs to become first world again. Transylvania eventually joins (or tries to join) the L.O.N.

So do you think that is good/realistic enough?--ShutUpNavi 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't see Yugolsavia survivng as a functional government that long after the DD. Add the healthy does of radiaition its getting from the west, the mass of refugees from its neighbors and the ethnic conflicts already in place and it just equals doom for that nation.  Mitro 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Yugoslavia could have survived more easily than you said. First I know that the refugees would be the biggest problem at first, but if a puny country like Switzerland could survive by expelling/killing refugees I'm sure Yugoslavia could do the same. Again the Swiss survived the fallout as well, and Yugoslavia would probably receive even less thanks to it's position in the Balkans/East Europe.

Secondly nationalisms didn't really become a problem until the late 1980s. In fact Yugoslavia was quite unified until after the 1984 Olympics. Perhaps because of the disaster they never really rise up (after all it's a bad idea to try and secede or start an ethnic conflict with all those refugees and raiders around). Also perhaps the change causes Yugoslavia to remain communist and get better leadership. Anyways do you have any problem with my idea for Transylvania itself, or is it just Yugoslavia? If so we could always start a new Proposal page to argue about what happened to the Yugoslavs.--ShutUpNavi 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I’d have to disagree with your assessment of the stability of Yugoslavia. I think there is evidence to show that cracks were already beginning to appear by 1980.  The environmental, economic, and political ramifications of DD will only speed up the process.  You are right though that refugees might not be a problem once Yugoslavia closes their border, but I’m not sure if Yugoslavia’s geographic position would put it in a safer place then Switzerland.  Almost all of its neighbors were hit by blasts, plus the weather would carry fallout from Italy, Southern France, Portugal, and Spain.


 * As for Transylvania, I actually have no problem with the article outside mentions of Yugoslavia. I think I will start a discussion about the fate of the country since there are conflicting histories about the country (see the Unity League (1983: Doomsday).  Mitro 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Republic Of San Juan (1983: Doomsday)
I generally approve of this article; my only real concern is the flag. It just looks weird. Is it native to the islands or is it an original creation? Mitro 13:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Climate (1983: Doomsday)
The following proposal actually appears on the article:

It is proposed the following for the Climate of 1983: Doomsday -- subject to review and ratification, at which point this article will be edited/modified to reflect consensus and otherwise encapsulate the atmosphere of the time.


 * 1) Nuclear Winter, though feared, did not occur.
 * 2) A restructuring of the atmospheric cells because of the war, causes monsoon type weather up to the horse latitudes -- the Polar cells and Ferrell Cells merging, and the Equatorial Hadley cells merging together, eliminating the doldrums.
 * 3) Increased rainfall in the affected regions result in the filling of endorheic basins, producing a new version of Lakes Lahontan, Bonneville, and other lakes throughout the world.
 * 4) The Caspian and Aral Seas are gradually restored due to the increasing wet weather.
 * 5) Changes in regions that would otherwise be deserts or lush.
 * 6) Examples: Deserts of Utah, Nevada, Arizona, etc. The Sahara and a resurgence of Lake Chad.
 * 7) Increasing glaciation in the mountains would offset the proposed rise in temperature, somewhat.
 * 8) Increasing glaciation and freshwater bodies (Lakes Eyre, Lahontan, Bonneville, etc.) would likely result in a lowering of the sea level (minimal) and possibly an increase in salinity (minimal).

French Foreign Legion (1983: Doomsday)
This article is very confusing. I'm not sure if even the nation's mentioned are a part of this TL. Still the article may be rewritten to better fit what info is known about France. Mitro 02:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Friesland (1983: Doomsday)
I like this page. Nothing unrealistic about it. I say keep the page like it is; only expand upon it a little and make it canon.--ShutUpNavi 21:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Canada (1983: Doomsday)
Since I've been doing some work on this article I want to submit it to the proposal process. Also I'm recommending some changes from the established canon. First off since on a few pages it appears that Halifax was hit, I don't think Nova Scotia could survive as one of the Canada Remainder Provinces. I think the surviving provinces/territories out east would be Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Baffin Island. I haven't made said changes yet because I wanted to run it past the group. Take a look and tell me what you think. Mitro 02:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * i think in the article of every nation, there we must write the legal list of cities or towns or military bases nuked, Canada (1983: Doomsday) is the best place to tell the word what was nuked in northernorther america, and there is where i see when i wan know that, not in the incomplete timeline our the incomplete nuked map (but i was added nuked cities of japan in that map! and you?--Fero 12:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the list of targets and made some other small changes. No map though since I’m not that good with them but if anyone else would like to try and tackle it I’d appreciate it. So is the article acceptable? Mitro 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Most particularly, I would like commentary on this map:

My idea is that with the recent arrival of a LoN envoy in Monaco, France might be more inclined to move toward setting up a new capital, etc, in cooperation with the G.I.E. that currently resides in the South Pacific. What say ye? --Louisiannan 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the various shades for some nations stand for actually administered and claimed territory? Mitro 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * wikipedia quote British Isles:There are about 136 permanently inhabited islands in the group, the largest two being Great Britain and Ireland.


 * Great Britain is to the east and covers 216,777 km2 (83,698 square miles), over half of the total landmass of the group.


 * Ireland is to the west and covers 84,406 km2 (32,589 square miles).

end of wikipedia quote and many people survival in that island and nation up in there, I think somebod, most that 1 million people must survival in the nuked France, not counting Monaco--Fero 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that a lot more than 1 million people will survive in France. While the population centers of Paris, Lyon and Marseille were hit, that would still leave approximately 25-30 million French to survive and fight it out from 1983 to today.  I'm betting the population would be in the 10-15 million range after all's said and done. --Louisiannan 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10-15 million seems a lot. First are we sure those are the only cities/military bases likely to be hit? Second how urban is France, would it be urbanized enough that the indirect effects of a nuclear war would lead to even more deaths?  Not trying to rain on your parade, just concerned about the number of survivors.  Mitro 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * France has 30 million communes for its 60 million inhabitants, right now -- and I don't think the number of communes has changed since 1983 -- just the population. While much of France is urbanized, I know that the big centralizing of cities and agriculture saw an uptick in the late 20th century. If we based the nuclear strikes on the initial map proposed by whomever it was, then I think that an initial survivorship of 20 million is acceptable -- it would definitely wane, and the current population may just be reaching into the 10-15 million range after dipping lower.  That's my take on it. Louisiannan 14:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sports: International Olympic Committee (1983: Doomsday), Football/Soccer Clubs (1983: Doomsday), 2010 FIFA World Cup (1983: Doomsday)
With the World Cup articles somewhat popular, I've been thinking about other sports in the TL and came upon too barely formed ideas.

The first I found while scrolling through the News page. Apparently some editor suggested the first Olympic games since DD would happen in 2010 at Auckland. Now whether that it would take so long for that to happen I will leave to you, but I did create a International Olympic Committee (1983: Doomsday), which was at the time a red link on the news page.

Second is this article: Football/Soccer Clubs (1983: Doomsday). This was made by whoever made that incredibly implausible Mancunia nation, but I think it might still be salvaged. It could be a list of football/soccer clubs from across the world.

As for the 2010 World Cup, I guess the main question is would it be held in the Celtic Alliance and who is playing?Mitro 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Britain, Rhodesia (1983: Doomsday), Raleizia (1983: Doomsday), New Britannia (1983: Doomsday)
How about a successor state to the UK, set up as a British homeland underground.
 * Underground? Underground from what?  The Celtic Alliance?  Mitro 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Literally underground? A semi-discussion started up at .  I'm not sure which is a higher priority for Mumby: an Anglo state in Africa or a UK survivors' state (since a UK survivors' state in Africa - at least, one on the scale that he wants - seems to be ixnayed).  Either way, I think that, , and  should be considered provisional pages/proposals for now.  Benkarnell 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree. --Louisiannan 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, also if it meant literally underground how would this technology come about? I mean the thought of moving 98% of the population by boat was mildly out there but this is bigger. Unless if you mean sort of underground bunkers around the country that somehow keep in contact, but even this is still a stretch to me, just my opinion though. --Gamb1993 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I added to South Africa articles into this discussion because they seem to be linked. Actually there were (are) plans to get the Royal Family out of Britain in case of a nuclear war. I have not read them myself, but I have seem vague mentions of them in other works. So the idea of some of the Royal Family surviving and making it to a new refuge is probably plausible. Still the large amount of people who apparently went with them seems highly implausible and seems eerily similar to SM Stirling's The Peshawar Lancers. No matter what all three of these articles need to be consolidated. I realize that to some it appears that African nations have a habit of changing their names but the current setup seems unlikely. Mitro 01:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Navajo Nation (1983: Doomsday)
Any objection to graduating this article quickly? Mitro 03:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles (1983: Doomsday)
Any objection to graduating this article quickly? Mitro 03:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

History of Utah (1983: Doomsday) and Utah (1983: Doomsday)
Any objection to graduating these articles quickly? Mitro 03:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)