Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Discussion Archives: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Former Proposals: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Useful Resources:

A website showing potential nuclear strikes within the US can be found here. A map showing likely fallout patterns across the USA.

=GENERAL DISCUSSION= The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve article proposals Structured into rough sections for easier navigation.

Countries/Regions/Politics
Archives: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4

The Unification of Binghamton and Ithaca
Arstar has suggested that Binghamton and Ithaca be united into a single nation. What I want to know is wether or not you people think that the two states should be united.

Yank has also suggested that the tentative Republic of New York than go on to annex the other nearest counties. However, I disagree, thinking its time we start building nations on natural boundaries like rivers and lakes rather than obsolete lines. What do you guys think? Arstar 19:22, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to have the Republic use old county lines because it is easier to use old county maps than to mark out territory on geographic maps of the area. How about we collaborate once again on this article Arstar? --Yank 21:43, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. But do you guys have any other name ideas in mind besides the Republic of New York? Arstar 04:26, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

While I do like Yanks idea involving the Finger Lakes, that only really would be applicable for Ithaca, not Binghamton (those lakes are nw/north of Ithaca), not matter what the general region may be called by the Department of Economic Development. What makes it worse is that they both are in separate geological regions (Ithaca area flows to the great lakes, Binghamton area flows to the ocean). If it helps, however I did find that some of the locals in Tompkins County (Ithaca, for all purposes) consider themselves as part of the "Southern Tier" of New York, which Binghamton is definitely part of. There's not even a mountain range to work with here, lol.

Lordganon 12:58, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I already know about the "Southern Tier", and I have already nixed it as a potential name for the new nation. No matter how many times I swish that name through my head it just doesn't sound right, it doesn't feel right. No, "Southern Tier" doesn't sound right to me. --Yank 03:19, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

How about we pick a small town that would be where the signing of the unification/new government took place, like Germany's Weimar Republic? Arstar 05:04, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Never said it was a good idea, Yank. And remember, Calm is good!

Maybe the name of the county between them, or even some sort of combination of Ithaca and Binghamton into one name? (ex: Ithton, etc. (I know that one is bad, but its an example!))

Lordganon 07:47, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Since it's effectively been decided to go ahead with uniting, what should the new nation be named? Any other suggestions (within reason) are welcomed.

What should we name the new nation ? Republic of New York Republic of Lisle Republic of Finger Lakes Republic of New Yorkshire

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

GSU Flag
Hi, i made this flag for the. What think? Can be the official flag? --Katholico 03:42, December 18, 2010 (UTC)



Interesting. Post it on Fxgentleman's talk page since he's the caretaker of the GSU article. He doesn't always keep up with this talk page. Caeruleus 19:14, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2

Jails
What would happen to the prisoners all across jails in the US on Doomsday? One example is Crescent City, the capital of the Municipal States, in which the local jail makes up about a third of the cities population. Most likely, there would be prison breaks all across the US, with criminals rising to take entire small towns hostage. What do you guys think? Arstar 19:25, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Escaped convicts and existing gangs (both prison and out-of-prison gangs) would form the basis of many of the post-Doomsday murders, gangs, and nomadic groups that appeared after governments collapsed. Caeruleus

I think this issue has been generally taken care of in most articles under the name of "general anarchy" or "roving gangs running a muck" --Zack 00:13, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

For one, you'd be surprised how many articles lack the mention of either of the things you said above. And secondly, what you said above can mean a much broader sense of things. General anarchy can be people looting things, suicide, fights, and about 999,999 other things besides escaped convicts. Roving gangs, well, is a different thing because gangs also exist outside of jail. Arstar 02:09, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I meant "roving gangs of criminals/convicts running a muck". I think the anarchy you see as missing from articles is more or less implied. Still when you take care of your other proposals feel free to write an article up on the subject. --Zack 02:16, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Many of the prisoners were likely left to die in their cells as well.Oerwinde 07:05, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Population Records
When I first started to list city populations, I found a site full of population numbers for provinces, countries, cities, etc. sorted by country. I figure that some of you guys may find it useful.

http://www.citypopulation.de/index.html

Lordganon 13:19, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Adoption Section
Any objection to adding a section to this page for articles that editor have put up for adoption? --Zack 18:31, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Long dead proposals
It seems to me that some of the proposals on this page have been here for months, yet nothing has been done with them. Is this a problem?--HAD 13:09, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you HAD. I've tried to get some of the worse offenders to finish up their articles before they make new ones but I've been ignored or scoffed at. A lot of proposals is a good thing as it shows that people are still interested in this timeline. The trouble is when editors create articles then leave them to rot on the proposal page. --Zack 21:46, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

There's many others which the editors have gone offline, or that disputes led to the caretaker to lose interest in the article. Than there's a lot of articles which nobody wants to adopt. No matter how much you tell people to stop making new articles Zack (It's pretty obvious you're referring to me but I have made maybe one or two new article in the last two months), there's going to be other editors who did not read the message and will make a new article regardless. Arstar 00:45, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Many of these articles that "nobody wants to adopt" were created by you Arstar. The only I've person advised to not make anymore articles until they've dealt with the many others they've neglected of many months is you. You are right there will be editors that will ignore me and there already has been one, you! Now then Artsar, I'm going to politely remind you to deal with your articles below. If you don't want them anymore open them for adopt or ask if there are any objections to marking them as obsolete. --Zack 01:26, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Zack, no offense but by turning this "personal" you essentially killed this topic. This is an important discussion and you can't only see through one eye, looking at one person because theres so many other people and articles involved. My comments applied to the greater majority of articles that aren't mine (Moakchott, KFC, Jay Leno, etc.) that nobody wants to adopt because otherwise they would be canon by now.

Whenever a neglected article comes around, people just say to mark it for adoption. But since most editors don't adopt these, they kind of just sit there, making the proposal list bigger. It appears, though, that since we ask for every page to be made ofa that we've becoming afraid of rejecting an idea, even if nobody is going to fill it in for a while.


 * Also, we're becoming more and more demanding to our canon guidelines. Before, articles would graduate as stubs and move up from there, but these days the stub template has seen little action. I don't know if its the current set of users that are doing to majority of the graduations,


 * But do you guys think we should instate a rule, and this is just an idea so don't heckle me for it, that if nobody works on an article for X amount of time, or if nobody adopts an article after X amount of time, that we should mark it obsolete? Arstar 16:10, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

No, we should not. These are decent articles, or shells of articles, and should be left available (i.e. NOT obsolete) for others to work on.

Maybe give them their own section, but definitely not made obsolete.

Lordganon 18:04, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, a section for pages that should be opened for adoption/need caretakers and writers. I know Zack had that idea too but he appears to have dropped it. So should we make the section now? (will b titled, Orphaned Pages). Arstar

Future of the world page
I've had the idea of creating a page where we editors, perhaps in the guise of 'independent analysts' or our WCRB correspondent alter-egos, give brief outlines of what we feel is the future of the world, say from now until January 1st, 2111. I feel it would work something like the Humour page, in that it's 'one of those things that will never be technically complete' and that everyone in the community would be able to add to it, regardless of caretaking responsibilities or similar. Not only would it be fairly plausible within the universe, it would also let us editors see properly what our opinions and predictions are. I know that we had a future of the world map a while back and we had some predictions there, but as this would be a proper page, rather than an element of discussion, it would have a more permanent feel to it. Would anyone else be interested in contributing to such a page? Fegaxeyl 15:05, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a page like that: 2010 WCRB report on the Future Geopolitical Outlook (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 17:12, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * That page looks like it's more based on community consensus... I was thinking more along each person's individual thoughts on the future. Fegaxeyl 17:26, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I'm having some complete writers block, doubled with a case of off-internet distractions,so I won't be coming on regularly for a while. I'm trusting my articles to people who have dealed with the region or the article istelf before if they're willing. Arstar 02:01, January 2, 2011 (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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've given up trying to change people's minds when they disagree but technically St. Augustine was the capital back in the day, of Spanish Florida, and it was one of the first colonial settlements on the East Coast. Arstar 00:10, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what prevents this article from being graduated? Does the capital just have to be changed?  Mitro 16:52, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that was the only issue left, though that may be wrong. Lordganon 22:35, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Have I satisfied the objections to the capital issue? If there aren't any objections to that I'm graduating the article a day from now. Arstar 21:44, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar, you still have St. Augustine as the capital, so the objections remain. More than half the population here is in South Florida, so the capital would be there more likely than not - besides, they are also the strongest and best connected by far.

The largest city, as I'm noticed, is also wrong. Cape Coral-Fort Myers (even taking them separately) is much larger than Gainesville would be.

Lordganon 21:57, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the largest city but what I don't get is that while South Florida might be more economically exposed buts its one of the least favorable places to put a seat of government. You have constant heat, hurricanes, and occasional flooding. If your going to have to call an emergency every month and move upstate you might as well stay there. Believe me, I live in South Florida, and you spend half the year with shutters on your windows or the governor is calling a state of emergency. Besides 2/3 of the nations are in North Florida.

Gainesville is basically "New Miami", as thousands of Miami college students who hate UM go up there to study at UF instead. Personally I wouldn't see anything wrong with this city being the capital but other than the University and immediate areas its pretty poor and boring.

Saint Augustine, however, has both the infrastructure and the cultural significance to be the capital. It is small, yes, (not counting tourists and Canadians and Northerners who fly south for the winter) but it is the oldest continuously inhabited settlement in the US, and it was the capital of Spanish Florida, so it does have some experience as capital. Plus an Atlantic port is pretty needed. Arstar 02:35, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

The population is centered in the south to a large degree - more than half of the population would live there, which should trump or equalize the number of northern states. You have the capital being put in the weakest one of the three, by far, which makes little sense, as others noted.

St. Augustine may have been the capital of Spanish Florida, but it hasnt been the capital in almost 200 years. And that was with the Spanish, not anyone speaking English. I sincerely doubt anyone there would have such an attachment.

I'm aware of the weather reasons for South Florida, but it's Florida. The other two would face similar problems, though maybe not so severe. As for an Atlantic port, South Florida is so close that it's irrelevant.

Quite frankly, even Gainsville would be better - the First Coast is quite frankly too small and impoverished for it even to be a thought.

Lordganon 12:20, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

And since you have South Florida subsidizing First coast with taxes after the union, they would insist on having the capital not there too, and likely in their territory. Lordganon 12:26, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LG I don't see why the future united Florida would give a rip about what the Spanish did many, many moons ago. It really should be Gainsville or the Cape Coral-Fort Myers region. Furthermore, does St. Augustine have the facilities necessary to be a capital? Considering what LG said above regarding poverty in the region that is doubtful. --Zack 00:45, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Can't stay away.. here are some buildings that could be used by the government, large Hotels usually have large ballrooms or parlors that could be converted into a meeting room for the senate or House of Reps.---Sunkist- 06:26, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Way I figure it, a lot of those are part of the College, and would likely be kept as such - education is important, after all. The one hotel would have had guests in it, and I kinda doubt they'd have left in the aftermath of DD. The other would probably have become home to refugees, given its restored condition, even if it was on the college campus.

Not to say they couldn't be used, but it's just kinda problematic, really. Both Gainesville and Cape Coral-Fort Myers would have more - and the university campus in Gainsville is much bigger and could in part be used for the purpose.

Lordganon 08:02, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

LG is right, my objections still stand. --Zack 02:13, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we take a vote to see what should be the capital?

What should be the capital? St. Augustine Cape Coral-Fort Myers area Gainesville Other

Arstar the problem with this poll is that it leaves people open to vote for what they want rather then what is plausible. The best way is still debate. These votes are anonymous and leaves a user open to voting multiple times for the option they desire. --Zack 18:16, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These things work for minor things, like flags, but the capital of a country must be determine by the consensus of the community after some healthy debate.  Mitro 20:16, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

With that the poll is null & void. --Zack 02:59, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Below is some discussion from Sunkist's talk page posted here for transparency

I'm rooting for St. Augustine to be capital, and after that Cape Coral, but Gainesville is total trash redneck world. The only thing worthwhile there is the University, and even thats pretty crappy. Arstar 21:00, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to break in here, guys, but that is a value judgment that is fully out of line! Just because you live and grew up in South Florida doesn't mean you can badmouth the good folk of North Florida. I grew up in North Florida, and indeed we are not as "high class" as the "blue-blood" rich. But we are not less able to run the state!

Gainesville is the logical choice. As it is the home of the state's main university, it has is organizationally set to run things professionally. The "rednecks" you are thinking of are mostly in the western half of the state anyway. So cut with the "trash talk," okay. St.Augustine, on the other hand, in this time line anyway, is an isolated city-state with bombed out cities all around it. Even its Atlantic coast port is inferior to that of Cape Coral's Gulf coast. Access to Mexico, Jamaica, and Cuba, trumps that to the Bahamas and Bermuda (and even the American East Coast as of 2010. My choice would be Gainsville, then Cape Coral. SouthWriter 21:25, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with South, those bigoted remarks do not belong in this wiki. Secondly I encourage the three of you to post your comments regarding the capital for a united Florida on the main 1983: Doomsday talk page so the debate can be open and transparent for all contributors to this timeline. --Zack 21:39, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm allowed to ask another user, who is the co-caretaker on what I thought the capital should be on his talk page if I want.

Also, the reason I wanted St. Augustine as capital is because it balances out the differences between North and South Florida. Even though Miami was destroyed, roughly somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of the Republic of South Florida's population is Hispanic. And I can tell you right now that growing up in South Florida its' like going to a different country once you go above Lake Ockeechobee. Hey, even in our timeline, there's been multiple grassroots movements for South Floridian statehood.

East Florida, or the First Coast if you may is kind of a balanced-out zone between the Southern North and the Northern South. It has a bit of each, or maybe neither, but you catch my point. Arstar 00:36, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, how about this, how about Gainesville will be a long-term, but temporary capital, until a sort of Federal District, which may or may not be centered around St. Augustine is created? 21:20, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Gainesville makes the most sense. Its pretty centralized between the three states, and has the facilities for a capital. If Lakeland is claimed, it would probably make a good location too, being central to all three.--Oerwinde 22:27, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

It really just seems like a waste of time and money to first place the capital in Gainesville then move it to St. Augustine a few year later. Plus as Oerw said above it just makes sense to put it in Gainesville and keep it there. --Zack 02:03, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said that it'll be in St. Augustine for sure, and nobody said it's going to be a few years from now. All I'm saying is that Gainesville isn't going to be the permanent capital forever. Once the situation pacifies completely in Florida a federal district will be created, sometime around 2025 maybe.

So for now let's keep it at Gainesville. Are there any other objections to graduation? FYI the further details will come in when it actually becomes a nation. Arstar 04:49, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Actually changing it would be needed first, as would be a section on a possible federal district somewhere eventually. Lordganon 08:37, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Let also wait for what South thinks. Personally I wouldn't graduate anything on here until Boxing Day (Sunday) seeing as many of us we'll be celebrating Christmas or some incarnation of it. --Zack 15:52, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Mmhmm. And LG, what exactly do you mean? The federal district could likely be on the shores of Lake Okeechobee, near Arcadia where I went recently, or like I said Saint Augustine or Lakeland. 22:37, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Me & South's proposal for the American Shadow Government post-Doomsday. --GOPZACK 02:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is going on with this article? Little work has been done, are there plans to move it toward graduation? If not is someone willing to adopt it? Mitro 04:18, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat complete from what I can tell, but it's not really enough to warrant a graduation, should we mark it as a stub? If south and Zack would come back to it later, than they could finish it then. Arstar 16:27, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat complete from what I can tell, but it's not really enough to warrant a graduation, should we mark it as a stub? If south and Zack would come back to it later, than they could finish it then. Arstar 16:27, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to conference with South first. --Zack 17:13, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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

I would like ideas on what to do with this article. This is another article that Arstar has begun and then dropped. There are some good ideas here, but (like many of you) my time is limited and I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on the TL in general. I would argue that we need to nail down exactly what the Commonwealth is, and what Australia and New Zealand's roles are within that Commonwealth. The question regarding this article is do we label it as a proposal, or a stub? Deletion isn't really an option. I don't have a lot of ideas for Australia or New Zealand, and I think we should open this to someone who has the interest and the time to spend on it. --BrianD 16:11, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to mark this article as open for adoption. Mitro 16:53, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Article on Australia, State of the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand. Arstarpool 23:03, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know, why is this necessary? It will just repeat the info on the ANZC page. --GOPZACK 00:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm also of the opinion that both proposals, however well-intentioned, are redundant and unnecessary because they would already be covered under the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand article. Australia and New Zealand, as established in this timeline, are one country, not two. Also, FYI I'm a caretaker of the ANZC. BrianD 00:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify I agree that both are redundant, not just this one. Any objections to marking both as obsolete? --GOPZACK 00:17, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have none. Also, I'll get to work on updating the ANZC article this week. Surprisingly, it's one of those articles that is important to the timeline but no one after Xi'Reney really jumped on it. I went ahead and updated it a while back, and again recently with some minor edits. BrianD 00:22, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really Zack? This is just depicting the states of Australia and New Zealand within the Commonwealth, and depicting the former nations before they unified. Brian I know you are a caretaker of the ANZC. There are three pages on the US now, one depicting the former, the in-exile government, and the new, so why can't there just be two on the states Aussie and New Zealand? Arstarpool 02:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really Zack? This is just depicting the states of Australia and New Zealand within the Commonwealth, and depicting the former nations before they unified. Brian I know you are a caretaker of the ANZC. There are three pages on the US now, one depicting the former, the in-exile government, and the new, so why can't there just be two on the states Aussie and New Zealand? Arstarpool 02:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

If you want to work on both articles, here's one idea: Both articles would be good in regards to detailing the history of both Australia and New Zealand pre-Doomsday, and perhaps in clarifying differences between the two post-Doomsday. The differences would be primarily cultural, and also political. Australia and New Zealand are generally one country, as that is what Hawke and Muldoon were working towards after DD hit. Their militaries certainly are unified. But how much sovereignty does Australia have over itself, and New Zealand over itself? I'm wondering if the Australian and New Zealand governments are really a thin layer politically between the ANZC and the Australian states and New Zealand local municipalities. This would be good to explore, and could be touched on in the ANZC article and expanded on in Australia and New Zealand - by both of us, and anyone else who is interested in contributing to one of the most important countries in this timeline. BrianD 02:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar, to compare the US to the ANZC in terms of the number of articles is absurd, they are two very different nations with very different histories post-Doomsday. Now Brian raises a very interesting & good point regarding the government, but couldn't that just go in a sub article to the ANZC page called "Government of the ANZC" or something like that?
 * Finally Arstar your not helping things when your description is, "Do I really need to explain this?" GOPZACK 02:53, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because this page is about the blasted islands of Australia and New Zealand! If you made a couple of pages about the states of Kentucky would I fly off the wall? No! So just let me flesh this proposal out before you fly off the wall! Arstarpool 02:59, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Relax, why such anger? I'm just asking you some questions regarding the article and whether it is needed or not. --GOPZACK 03:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Zack, I thought it was redundant at first, but the more I think about it, the more I see the potential. If it doesn't rewrite canon and contradict what the ANZC has been established to be, then Arstar should have a chance to flesh out his proposals. He will have help, of course :) But there's nothing in principle that prevents anyone from writing an Australia article no more than one on Kootenai. The Australia article could be used to expand on concepts introduced in the ANZC article. This may be something that other editors, like Mitro, BenKarnell and Xi'Reney, who have previously worked on the ANZC, would want to help with as well. BrianD 03:08, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think it has merit Brian I don't mind taking a wait and see approach. I'm the caretaker of many of the islands chains affiliated with the ANZC so if you need any help in that regard let me know. --GOPZACK 03:14, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's one. Do you have any thoughts on how the islands relate to the central government, or to the nation itself, that need to be addressed in the main ANZC article? BrianD 03:18, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its not doubt that Australia is the main member of the Commonwealth, like England in the UK or Russia in the former Soviet Union. So it should be mentioned that Australia is the backbone and core of politics of the CANZ. Also, even though several of the islands may share the same political parties those political parties beliefs may differ from island to island. Arstarpool 03:28, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a graphic in the ANZC article addressing the main political parties for Australia, New Zealand and Samoa. It's never been expanded on, and how politics differ from region to region, and in regards to the Commonwealth in general, would be worth exploring. BrianD 03:32, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I thought of it, both Australia and New Zealand have ceased to exsist on a Federal level. The country is a Federatioon of States (Queensland as one of them for example). The regions of New Zealand have been be amalgamated to form larger States. HAD 08:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is something I've wondered about a lot, and I'm glad somebody has stepped forward to try this. Some important points to consider: (1) Australia is a federal country; New Zealand is not. (2) Both Australia and New Zealand have been around for a while. (3) While Australia may look like the powerhouse, it suffered nuclear attacks on three of its main cities. It's possible that Aukland is the ANZC's largest city.
 * In my own mind, I at first had thought that HAD's suggestion was the most likely: that the government of Australia had ceased to exist, though I figured that NZ as a unitary country would exist as a single state. Now though, I tend to lean toward both governments still existing, with Australia being "sub-federalized". Micronesia already has such a system.
 * Reasons I support such a system: (1) Culturally, Australians would want to maintain a separate political identity; (2) In terms of logistics, diszsolving an entire government would be difficult; (3) Dissolving New Zealand makes even less sense than Australia. If the ANZC were a union of nine states, most of which are Australian, it might give the Aussies undue political weight; (4) Keeping the Australian government emphasizes the ANZC as a union of equals; (5) Even in the ANZC, communication is not what it once was, and I like the idea of the ANZC as a rather loose federation that handles the military and the trade and leaves the four states to fend for themselves on most other issues.
 * Possible objections: The only one I can think of is that three levels of government might result in bureaucratic overlap. If you've got parliaments in Jervis Bay, Canberra, and Brisbane, the potential for waste is obvious.
 * Marc Pasquin, the only contributor AFAIK who actually is Australian, suggested long ago that Australia's state governments were dissolved. While the idea is interesting, I think that the postwar communication slowdown would make the state governments more important than ever. Benkarnell 12:05, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Ben, on communication not being what it once was. I think by now society in general has returned back to 1980s levels in the ANZC, South America, Mexico, and perhaps other places like the Phillippines, parts of Europe and Siberia, Singapore, and the most advanced states in North America. In fact, it's long been canon in this TL that just a couple of years ago that Paul Keating gave a speech that was seen worldwide on TV. It would be most correct to say that technologically TTL is at least a couple of decades behind OTL. I'm also working on the ANZC article now, and initially am being pretty vague as to the layers of government within the Commonwealth. But I expect that the details will get filled in as we continue the discussion of the ANZC government. --BrianD 22:48, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant more in the earlier days, around the time that the ANZC was formed. Its institutions would have been crafted to fit the world of 1995, and at that point we know that people Down Under still had basically no idea what was going on in most of the world. I mentioned communication to argue against the idea of dissolving Australia's state governments. Benkarnell 03:25, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said with New Zealand, Arstar started this but currently doesn't have the time to fully develop it. I'll start the article this week, and everyone is welcome to contribute as they have time. Arstar, as I understand, will write up sections regarding Australia's aboriginal people as he has time. BrianD 17:13, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like ANZ is being presented as a much looser organization than has been understood so far. I think that's fine (and it may be the only way to do this realistically) but I disagree with Australia being militarily independent. A combined military would definitely be one of the main reasons for creating the ANZC, and we've always talked about it having a united armed forces. Benkarnell 03:30, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I would like ideas on what to do with this article. This is another article that Arstar has begun and then dropped. There are some good ideas here, but (like many of you) my time is limited and I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on the TL in general. I would argue that we need to nail down exactly what the Commonwealth is, and what Australia and New Zealand's roles are within that Commonwealth. The question regarding this article is do we label it as a proposal, or a stub? Deletion isn't really an option. I don't have a lot of ideas for Australia or New Zealand, and I think we should open this to someone who has the interest and the time to spend on it. --BrianD 16:10, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to mark this article as open for adoption? Mitro 16:54, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * If nobody's going to come around and adopt this, I think it's stub time. Arstar 00:52, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I oppose that, either adoption or obsolete until someone adopts it. --Zack 02:13, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Right now I'm working on the New Zealand article so I donno if im not never going to come back to this one. Arstar 15:04, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

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

Are there any objections to passing this as a stub for now? Arstar 05:20, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * We should pass stubs only if the subject of the article is firmly encased in canon. Let it remain a proposal until you or South are ready to return to it again or put it up for adoption.  Mitro 16:36, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I have changed the page so the boundary between the two nations is at the 15th Parallel. I also wrote that contact was lost with Tripoli after Doomsday instead of a nuclear strike, as on the Egypt page it is written that contact was lost with Tripoli after Doomsday. CheesyCheese 20:13, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Much better, though it would likely make more sense for both the French and Libyans to stay put.

Lordganon 03:37, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The main reason Libya invaded Chad was to take control of of the Aouzou Strip. Because Libya was attacked, the Libyans retreated to the Aouzou Strip to make sure it was safe from attack.

The French did not want to help Chad retake the northern half in the real war, and the fact that GUNT and Chad were equal and could not take each other's land, the Libyans leaving, and the nuclear attacks would make them leave. CheesyCheese 15:56, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Libya wasn't attacked on Doomsday. There's no reason at for them to have been.

Thing is cheese, why would they leave with nowhere to go to? The most they could do is retreat to the Central African Republic, which would make very little difference.

Lordganon 16:24, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to having the French staying and the Libyans leaving for some time then returning. CheesyCheese 01:11, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation? CheesyCheese 23:11, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Well, Smoggy has made an article on Libya, and this doesn't really mesh with it. This does have priority, true enough, but I think before it can be graduated you should try to solve the differences with her first. Lordganon 05:58, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

I changed it again. CheesyCheese 22:22, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Originally created by Arstar, but I have put some work on it due to my knowledge of the area. Mitro 12:53, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am hoping to finish this article before my wedding. Mitro 16:57, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok nevermind, but I will try to get this done when I get back from my honeymoon. Mitro 22:11, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar on the state of California. Mitro 15:34, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objections to passing this article? Arstar 05:39, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do. Only 4 locations in California were struck? Really? California will probably have the most strikes of any single American state. Mitro 13:10, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I hadn't really finished the strike list, so I'll get around to that soon. Arstar 04:57, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty much finished now, any objections to graduation? Arstar 03:20, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty much finished now, any objections to graduation? Arstar 03:20, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty much finished now, any objections to graduation? Arstar 03:20, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Only eight targets? Really? There must be more somewhere. Also for the Santa Cruz section it says "Allows slavery! Avoid this "nation" at all costs." The info is technically correct but its written as though it was coming from someone running away from the city hollering at someone on the outskirts. --Zack 04:00, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't even all the targets from the Strike list, Arstar. I added those for you.

Other cities would have been hit too, no doubt. Off the top of my head, Stockton, Bakersfield, and Fresno would have been hit too. There's also an air base somewhere near Fresno that would have gotten a separate strike as well.

A lot of work to do before it can graduate.

Lordganon 11:46, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are so many more targets in this state than those listed. I'm pretty sure it contains the most targets than any state in the US according to the FEMA maps.  Arstar, what are you basing your research on when writing up the strike list?  Mitro 13:46, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

major cities, and the military bases near them. But my computer hasn't been letting me access the ki4u strike list for some weird reason so I've had to use Wikipedia. Arstar 16:20, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Owen but improved by others. Mitro 17:32, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Is this article ready for graduation, or do the authors want to fill in a tad bit more? Arstar 05:41, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I would like to do a little more work on the article itself. I realize I'm not the original creator of the idea of Elizabeth City, but I would like to do some work on its early history and then run it by Brian for review. Mitro 16:38, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you run it by Brian yet? I mean, it looks pretty finished, and it's kinda just sitting here. Arstar 07:56, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I need to complete the history, but Brian has already heard the outline and I believe he approves of it. Mitro 03:22, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete article resurrected by Arstar. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have a question concerning this article, who currently is the caretaker? I ask because amongst my other work I have been studying up on Iceland out of curiosity and feel I could flesh this out more so it would be realistic. However, I don't wish to intrude on someone else's project. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 15:43, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is Arstar. I think if you ask though he would be willing to let you takeover. I do believe he is trying to shorten his list of proposals. Mitro 19:32, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I spoke with him and he gave me the okay to move forward.--Fxgentleman 03:45, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

An obsolete article resurrected by myself. Its a brigand group made up of former fraternity guys who banded together shortly after Doomsday when chaos broke out across Central Illinois. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Defunct state, armed faction sans territory, something else? Benkarnell 23:06, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * More like what I am doing with the Chinks in Eureka. Just another group of survivors who became hard cases.  Mitro 04:20, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Caer. Mitro 13:43, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is going on with this article? Mitro 16:58, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Him and Fx have been planning it out, and making smallish edits. But they are definitely working on it. Lordganon 22:32, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 04:23, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 17:15, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Per a discussion I had with Arstar some weeks back, I am going to be taking over writing this article. Just thought I would let you know.--Fxgentleman 18:59, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Fx, I know your a busy person and all that, but do you have anything planned for the article? If not, than it may be time to make it obsolete. Arstar 21:26, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave it as a proposal until Fx or someone else wants to work on it. Considering that it is another former state article, there is no sense marking it as obsolete.  Mitro 22:12, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

I have not been online for some time given both the heavy demands of my job and the fact I am currently on vacation and logged in yesterday for the first time via my laptop. It is my intention to return to what I am working on, especially my work on Nevada, Iraq, Greenland, and Iceland among other areas. Per the question, I do have something I am working on for NV and need to finish it. I hope this helps. --Fxgentleman 18:34, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Caer, part of the Turkey set of articles. Just a stub at the moment. Mitro 18:24, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by SjorskingmaWikistad. Mitro 02:48, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Until someone decides to pick it up, should it be marked obsolete? Arstar 22:00, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is the case just put it up for adoption. Mitro 01:02, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's the best thing to do. Lordganon 07:53, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

I have added the adoption template. Lordganon 11:49, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by HAD. Mitro 14:33, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit this chaps. I am rather busy at the moment.HAD 20:25, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

How can we determine if a nations has nukes or not? It is pretty much a fact that the new United States must have at least one remaining nuke as there were many missile silos in Montana, some of which's existence were only revealed recently. Arstar 22:00, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Those silos were also targets on Doomsday. Even if a few missiles remained in the silos they were likely destroyed. Even if they did survive, it takes a lot of tech and experts to keep a nuke in good shape. It isn't the type of technology that will work like it is brand new after storing it underground for 100 years. I really doubt that the survivors in the area would give the time and energy necessary to keep them operational...if there were any left around of course. Mitro 22:04, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Most of the nuclear weapons floating around would be tactical nuclear weapons, such as nuclear artillery, short-range mobile launched solid-fuel missiles, and small aerial bombs, which were assigned to various front line units on both sides. Most of the larger missiles that required silos would either be destroyed during Doomsday or fallen into disrepair, though many nations would now be developing the capabilities to rearm any surviving missiles. Caeruleus 19:26, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Sunkist. Mitro 14:57, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Whats going on with this page? Should we mark it obsolete, stub, etc? Arstar 21:57, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Open it for adoption. Lordganon 12:00, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I added the adoption template. Lordganon 11:48, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 14:57, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Following advice from the talk page i have removed reference to a Nuke in Tripoli.--Smoggy80 19:40, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 15:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I plan on contributing to this page. Benkarnell 23:03, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take suggestions, and I know you asked me a while back to edit it but I'd rather see what your plans are before you edit it. Arstar 21:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take suggestions, and I know you asked me a while back to edit it but I'd rather see what your plans are before you edit it. Arstar 21:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Khanate of Khiva
An article about an extremely small nation that is located between Aralia and the Emirate of Bukhara. --Fedelede 18:26, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even close to finishing the article nor graduating it, but are there any objections currently going on? --Fedelede 15:03, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Seems fairly good so far. In my opinion I think it's ready for graduation but does anyone else have objections. Arstar 03:39, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think Fed should be the one to ask for objections and to tell us when he thinks that it is complete. Lordganon 14:14, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm done with it. Any objections for graduation? --Fedelede 15:54, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Some research will have to be done into locating where these places were. Information *is * a valuable resource. Jackiespeel 17:46, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Article by me. Arstar 05:30, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objections to graduating as a stub? Arstar 01:23, November 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Arstar, I didn't get a notification when you put the article up. It looks to me like this city-state would have been discovered and mentioned by the explorers from Superior on there way to Madison. It's not like they would be depending on hearsay from wondering clans. Their troops would have gone straight through the county. SouthWriter 19:11, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Meaning what? Arstar 23:27, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Need I remind you of the stink LG gave Sunkist over the interpretation of the reports out of Indiana. A mention of "others" was taken as gospel truth. The Superior article trumps all others written after it. No mention of Winneconne would be inexcusable since such a big deal was made of finding Madison. I don't have to draw a map -- explorers from Superior would definitely have contact with Winneconne. SouthWriter 01:48, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Need I remind you of the stink LG gave Sunkist over the interpretation of the reports out of Indiana. A mention of "others" was taken as gospel truth. The Superior article trumps all others written after it. No mention of Winneconne would be inexcusable since such a big deal was made of finding Madison. I don't have to draw a map -- explorers from Superior would definitely have contact with Winneconne. SouthWriter 01:48, November 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the history of Superior is that it specifically stated that Indiana had fallen another fate. Also remember how many other states were formed in the path of the Superior expedition that weren't mentioned in the report. Arstar 02:00, November 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * All the Superior article states is that nomads said they knew of other nomads in Indiana and other places in the Midwest. The article is very specific about the fate of many of the cities along the coast of Lake Michigan and about the liberation of Madison. To assume that they totally "missed" Winneconne is quite a stretch. Of course, you are currently overseeing Superior, so I suppose you could rectify this problem fairly easily. However, I think we need to leave the proposal up for further review before moving it to stub status. --SouthWriter 02:21, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Here's my solution and I want to run it by you. Since this way written at the same time as the Superior rewrite started, I am going to treat it as part of the rewrite, as it wouldn't be fair to just let Canadian states go by and not anyone else, right? Arstar 00:38, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, any objections to graduating to stub? Arstar 01:01, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar, just because you are the "caretaker" does not give you the right to rape and pillage canon for your own benefit. The rewrite concerning the survivors in Southern Ontario was a rare, rare exception that was only done due to a great implausibility. This does not happen often, nor should it take precedent. If the article says what South says it does (and I have no reason not to believe him) then this article will not work. --Zack 03:08, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

So basically, we're going to have to make it obsolete because it's not mentioned? I mean seriously there's been alot of nations that have arisen in the path of the expedition that weren't mentioned, or were even mentioned as being in lawless areas. Arstar 21:20, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Basically. --Zack 02:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Article by a guy named Cali Boy 1990 who hasn't come on the site since early October. Arstar 05:30, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * His inactivity shouldn't be held against him. We should judge the article on the merits. --Zack 22:23, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys we have like 5 nations in California right now, though, whats your opinions on the plausibility of this article? Arstar 22:56, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys we have like 5 nations in California right now, though, whats your opinions on the plausibility of this article? Arstar 22:56, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

It's in a non-nuked area of the state, away from other survivor nations, and the region is very agriculturally productive, as well as having a lot of wooden areas.

A good spot for a survivor state, actually.

Though, given everything, I'd move we open it for adoption.

Lordganon 01:30, November 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, LG. Looks like it IS open to adoption.  You want to expand your California state down that way, Arstar? SouthWriter 20:14, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll mention it in the article. Arstar 04:35, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

The California Republic is really too far for it to be at all plausible to expand to this area. Besides, the nuclear remains of Fresno would be in the way. Lordganon 12:02, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Dude...he means the article on the state of California, not the CR, lol. Arstar 05:11, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar, you meant the state article. He did mean your nation - quote: "your California state" - not the state. You misinterpretation. No matter, mind - you got what I meant. Lordganon 06:00, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:42, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Provisional Indiana
Article created by Sunkist. Mitro 21:05, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wayne Townships
 * Terre Haute

Article created by Bob. Mitro 14:21, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by a new user, but edited by several editors. I believe Vlad is trying to adopt it. Mitro 17:44, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I am.--Vladivostok 18:28, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Early canon article that was marked as a proposal again after expansion began on it. Mitro 23:03, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

An article about largest cities atl me and south have been working on.

Lordganon 21:28, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I swear I was about to make a page on this...would you mind if I wrote some on the Great Lakes Cities? Arstar 01:09, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

So long as it fits the context, I suppose.

Lordganon 01:59, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Are we counting metropolitan areas or just cities? Because I see some cities are counting metro areas (Midland-Odessa) while others like Niagara Falls and St. Catherines are considered separate. If we're allowed to list metro areas than I'm going to merge St. Catherines and Niagara Falls. Arstar 17:15, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

A couple of the cities have listings like that simply because they are so close together and as centers of government (or quoted populations) they will have expanded so that there's only a short distance between the two. Think of it like the LA area otl - LA itself is fairly small by comparison, but going through the area if you didn't know better you'd never notice (ignoring signs, etc of course) that it wasn't all a single city. These are essentially a single city now.

With Niagara Falls and St. Catherines, you do have the Canadian side pretty close. However, most of the population of the Falls is on the other side. I just don't see it expanding far enough to warrant them being the same city.

Overall, the populations I've used, while not the "city" populations, are not really the "metro" ones either. On some pages you'll see "urban" population, and its more like that.

I've also removed the Wisconsin city you added, and adjusting Florence. The Florence population, when added to "North" Tuscany, is more than the entire Tuscan population, despite it being fought over once, and by the same figures, is larger than in otl, by a large margin (as is your 1981 figure, by around 100,000). Madison as you list has more people than the republic of Wisconsin, of which it is the capital - when you adjust that population in relation, its not even close to the list.

Lordganon 00:02, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

As a South Floridian I have to say there's a pretty big difference between Cape Coral and Fort Myers. ~Arstar

There is 8 miles between the two otl - as far as I'm concerned, with an expanded population, and it being a capital, it is now essentially one city atl. Lordganon 12:05, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

What are your plans? Do you have any more work to do, or should we graduate this now? Arstar 16:17, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Even though South America will not really change much from otl, and Antarctica has no cities, I'll be doing those sections first. I'll ask for objections, etc. first, lol. Lordganon 17:32, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that'll do it. Objections? Lordganon 13:49, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

New article on a defense organization in the Eastern Mediterranean by Ownerzmcown and myself. A work in progress currently. Caeruleus 04:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm copying you but I'm intending to make a similar organization exclusively for the democratic (and communist) successors to Warsaw Pact nations to oppose the Siberians. I wouldn't have a problem with them being on good terms with the Mediterranean Association though. Arstar 05:18, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Any opposition to graduation? Caeruleus 19:27, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Caeruleus 05:41, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we go. I've had this idea probably for a lot longer than you have, Caer. So I aint copying, wait...actually it wouldn't be copying at all since the only thing they'd share in common is they don't like the Siberians. So nevermind then. Arstar 06:00, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we go. I've had this idea probably for a lot longer than you have, Caer. So I aint copying, wait...actually it wouldn't be copying at all since the only thing they'd share in common is they don't like the Siberians. So nevermind then. Arstar 06:00, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... not to the idea, but a lot of it still seems incomplete. I'd prefer to see more of that done before graduation. Lordganon 21:31, December 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * The naming of various officials are the only thing that haven't been done. The international relations section will remain blank until someone chooses to formulate their article's position to the MDL, since it is a new organization. Caeruleus 21:39, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

That will do then. Lordganon 22:05, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, can someone please graduate this? Caeruleus 01:54, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Not to rain on your parade but I'd like to see the international relations section filled in. After that I'll be more than happy to graduate it should no other objections occur. Arstar 03:37, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

As Caer said, it's kinda hard to fill that in when no one else has an opinion yet because it is not canon/not established yet. Believe you me, after both happen there will be reactions ;)

Far as I'm concerned that's good enough.

Lordganon 14:18, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Albania
Basically the country described by Macedonia near the end of the history section. It's a parliamentary republic and is now a protectorate of Macedonia. Ownerzmcown 22:52, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Fx. Mitro 01:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Caer. Mitro 01:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Lukesams. Mitro 01:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

This article is highly implausible, stating all of the restaurants were back to normal by 2005. It's kinda just sat here for the past 21 days or so. I'd move it for adoption, but seeing how few articles people adopt these days, are there any objections to making it obsolete? Arstar 16:08, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article itself is very plausible. Some of the lines are merely not.

This chain had its headquarters in Kentucky, and most of its locations were in that region. It's survival makes sense, as a matter of fact.

And you do forget that I have been doing these adoption articles a bit as of late. Push comes to shove I'll get to it eventually.

But, considering how old this one is, it should remain as it is right now. Heck, its not even a month old yet.

Lordganon 17:36, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Arstar. Mitro 01:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Any plans on doing anything with this article Arstar, or should I mark it for adoption? --Zack 20:04, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Open for adoption. Arstar 21:06, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Caer. Mitro 01:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

The time has finally come to write this thing. Me, Arstar, Oer, and Xeight have agreed on a timeline and results for it, and I'll be writing it up over the next couple days.


 * War began on October 11th, 2009, with the non-response to the Greek ultimatum after the attack on the Greek freighter the day before
 * They consider it a good investment risk because of the start of the Saguenay War the month previously.
 * Emergency session of the ADC has all members declare war, and send forces as available.
 * In practice, this does not mean the Celts in full force, or Canada at all at this time. All forces but the rif/Corsica/Spain/Portugal navies and the Celtic/Nordic jets that start flying to Corsica from Celtic France will take a couple of months to begin to arrive.
 * Headquarters established at Greek military headquarters and in the Balearic Islands
 * First real naval engagement off Cape Matapan, Morea, on Oct 21 and Greeks destroy four(it says at least) or five Sicilian ships.
 * Greek troops began to arrive at Corfu after the 10th, reinforcing those already there, and gearing for a potential invasion.
 * Intelligence from the 13th indicates that the Sicilians will invade Libya soon by sea and land.
 * The invasion launches on the 15th or so, with Sicilian troops landing around the city of Zitlan, near the edge of Greek-controlled territory(just behind front defense lines), and marching through the Tripoli region
 * The Sicilian fleet turns around and heads back to Sicily, where they will arrive sometime between the 18th and 25th.
 * Using the troops on hand, the Greek forces launch an assault on the Italian mainland near the city of Lecce.
 * While initially successful, Sicilian reserves are able to force them back to their ships by the end of the month.
 * Whole goal of this is to distract Sicily
 * The Sicilian fleet arrives back at Sicily - the harbor at Catania - on the 22nd or so, having went the long way around in order to avoid the ANZC fleet near Malta.
 * The ANZC have declared "armed neutrality" in the affair - essentially, they will not intervene, but in light of the original attack, they will not let Sicilian forces anywhere near their fleet.
 * In order to remove the threat posed by the Greeks in the Ionians, and to claim "their territory" the Sicilians load their fleet back up with another force, which they send to said islands.
 * Arrival sometime Oct 30th-nov5th
 * Corsica invasion impractical by this time because of air force and naval movements.
 * Targets on the peninsula and Sardinia begin to be bombed
 * Fairly secure from being shot down (jets v.s. props)
 * In Libya, Sicilian forces manage to advance to surt amid Greek and local resistance by mid-November.
 * No supply shortage as of yet, but having to go around Malta and the ANC fleet is meaning that delays have begun to occur.
 * In Greece, new troops are being trained, and elements of the navy and air force are being shifted to the west.
 * Muslims in Egypt are joining in larger numbers for fighting in Libya/Tunisia - call it something about Muslim brotherhood
 * Assumption that the Sicilians are cracking down on Muslims somewhat, as seen in other articles
 * Naval forces from the western med begin to disrupt Sicilian shipping - surface ships under air cover, and subs all over
 * Greek naval elements continue to duel with Sicilian vessels, and have begun to secure the Libyan coast
 * This weakens them somewhat further north, but slows the advance in Libya more
 * Sicilians begin to bombard the southern Ionians on the 3rd of November
 * Air cover from the "boot"
 * They land on Kefalonia and Zakynthos on the 5th and start to take them over
 * They manage to secure Keflonia, but fail to secure Zakynthos, by the 10th.
 * Morean support keeps the more populated of the two in the game
 * Greek naval forces move back northwards, and as the Sicilian fleet moves to the "boot" for reinforcements - the initial wave not near enough - the Greeks are able to gain superiority over the skies of the islands again
 * Sicily cannot get air back here totally, as units are drawn westwards to fight with arriving aircraft
 * Despite the air war over the islands, the Sicilians land another wave from the units from the peninsula at Corfu, which fares the same as Zakynthos
 * This situation remains in play over the next couple of months, going back and forth as fresh units from either side arrive
 * Smaller islands change hands a couple of times
 * Sicily reinforces by night due to distance, and Greece does in in smaller numbers, almost continuously
 * About the same numbers but slight Sicily advantage
 * Defenses elsewhere stay roughly the same
 * In Libya the Sicilian advance stalls roughly 50 miles east of Surt by Christmas, as Greek reinforcements arrive and Sicilian ones begin to shrink
 * ADC subs beginning to raise havoc with supply lines, making them always late
 * Limited number of ports to both leave and arrive from
 * Sicilian subs are going after ADC shipping too, but they have more ports near the front-lines available than the Sicilians
 * Greek ones
 * Celtic, North German, and Nordic troops begin to arrive in mid January, reinforcing Spanish and Corsican positions
 * Their fleets arrive in December (mostly Nordic)
 * Rif and Portuguese forces have already arrived
 * The combination of fleets now outnumber the Sicilians badly, and they begin to pull back naval forces towards safer areas near the peninsula and Sicily
 * Offensive actions in west can now begin
 * Using Corsica and Balearic Islands as bases, Sicilian position on Sardinia begin to be attacked heavily
 * Mainland Tuscan areas begin to be bombed too
 * By mid-February, Greek forces in Libya, reinforced by recruits from Egypt, begin to push back the Sicilians.
 * Sicilians only being supplied through Tunisia now
 * Will take a couple months
 * In the Ionians, Sicily manages to finally secure Zakynthos by mid-January
 * Has cost them a lot of troops from the mainland
 * IPA troops, heavily reinforced by volunteers from the Alpines and Northern Italy, and armed by the Alpine Confederation, begin to launch attacks against Sicily around Elba, San Marino, and southern Tuscany in February
 * Genoa lands on Elba, the Tuscans backed by volunteers assault weakened positions in Tuscany, and the San Marinos, with most of the volunteers and Venetian naval support, attack towards Urbino
 * Northern volunteers, reinforced by Venetians and under their command, move forward between San Marino and Tuscany
 * The IPA makes advances, but very slowly, as they are attacking into areas where Sicily has supporters
 * By the end of February, surt has been retaken by the Greek Federation
 * Sicilian recruits are now mostly being sent towards the peninsula, to reinforce positions there against the IPA and continue the assault in the Ionians
 * Corsica sends forces to aid Genoan Marines around Elba, in the Tuscan Archipelago, which they have secured by this time (mid-march), and they are landing on the peninsula opposite the island to aid the Tuscans
 * In the Ionians, Greece lands troops on Kefalonia again in late march, securing it again by April.
 * Sicily is putting its effort into trying to capture Corfu, which is holding out
 * After the initial bombardments, Heptanesa evacuated civilians on the islands to the mainland
 * In the west, the combined fleet is working on strangling off Sardinia from Sicily itself, with some success, though supplies are still being delivered at night and under air cover in the southeast
 * Preparations are being made to invade the island
 * Sicilian forces in Libya are still being pushed backwards - by april they are about 75 miles northwest of surt
 * Resistance in Tunisia is getting worse, as the lack of trade and slowing of supplies have meant less rations for the locals
 * The end of the Saguenay war in April, and the signing of peace in may, causes concern for Sicily
 * Elements begin to question "profit" in the war
 * Forces from North America will not arrive in number until august
 * Sicilian reinforcements to the Ionians begin to dry up
 * Zakynthos is retaken, as well as couple of smaller islands, by mid-June
 * Fighting continues on Corfu
 * By early June, the forces in the west have finally gotten a force together to land on Sardinia
 * They invade on June 14th or so
 * Surprise the Sicilian garrison by landing in the northeast, rather than north or northwest, as had been expected
 * Surprise because of it being closer to Sicilian bases on the mainland than the northwest
 * By this time, the Sicilians on Corfu are still doing well
 * In Libya, Greco-Libyan-Egyptian forces have liberated misratah by late June
 * They are experiencing some resistance behind their lines, but it is minimal in nature.
 * The IPA in Italy has managed to advance to a rough line from coast to coast running along a line from roughly Grosseto-Arezzo-Senigallia
 * Advances are getting very difficult
 * Middle section going slowest due to terrain
 * Naval elements, along with some marines, begin to arrive from NA in early July
 * Rest of Celtic fleet, plus a small number of Canadian ships
 * With air cover from Corsica, and new airfields in north Sardinia providing air cover too, advances in Sardinia going well by mid-July
 * Northern half under their control, with the center of the island stalling and advances being made on the coasts
 * Resistance will continue in areas of the center and the port at Carbonia for almost all of the remainder of the war
 * Celtic armored troops from NA arrive in early august
 * Used to take rest of the island over the rest of august, except areas as noted already
 * Greek forces manage to finally expel the last Sicilian troops from the Ionians in early September
 * Reinforcements had shrunk drastically to the Sicilians with the Sardinia attack and a new concentration of troops near the Italian front
 * Italian front-lines by September shifted slightly to a line running Scansano-Corciano-Ancona
 * Early September shows the Greek forces in Libya retaking Al-Khums, just east of the limits of Greek-controlled territory
 * Rif and Spanish infantry, with Celtic and some Nordic armored forces land in northwest Tunisia, near the town of Tabaka, around September 20th, and fan out from there
 * Algerian nations lend some form of aid for this, as per their dislike of the Sicilians
 * As they receive news of the landing, Muslims in several areas of Tunisia begin to revolt, causing great headaches for the Sicilians, who are close in number to the invaders
 * Sicilian troops from in Libya pull back to Tunisia
 * Sicilian units establish defensive positions in the center and northeast of Tunisia (no point defending the deserts)
 * Greeks do not chase from Libya
 * Need r+r time, etc.
 * Secondary landings occur around the town of Gabes in late September
 * Civilians move back to Ionians, troops there recuperate, and the invasion plans for Lecce province are changed, with experiences from the first time, etc. added
 * By mid-October, the combination of ADC troops and rebels has forced the Sicilians into an area running roughly from Bizerte-Kairouan-Agarab
 * In late October, IPA forces reached the southernmost limits of their advance, a line running roughly Montalto di Castro-Orvieto-Perugia-Fanriano-Loreto
 * In November, intel that Sicily had been prepping a counter-attack in Italy is proven correct
 * By the end of the war, the IPA has been forced back somewhat, to a line running roughly Montalto di Castro-Corciano-Fabriano-Osimo
 * Sicily definitely has a lot of power left in its main territories
 * IPA forces to mange to free New Rome as well
 * On Sardinia, Sicilian forces in the center of the island surrender in late October
 * The port still holds out
 * It will hold out until near the end of the war
 * Assault by besiegers and marines secures it early December
 * During November, Armored attacks in Tunisia, aided by rebels force the Sicilians back to A half-circle going from roughly Bizerte-Nabeul
 * By the end of the war, they are left with the city of Tunis itself - under siege
 * As part of the ceasefire agreement these forces are allowed to return to Sicily
 * Maybe half of Sicilian forces survive to retreat back to Sicily
 * In Greece, with the completion of fighting in Bulgaria, Rhodope forces can finally fulfill their end of the Thrace security agreement by mid-November
 * This frees up a few thousand Greek troops, who are moved to the Ionians
 * Early December (~12th or so) sees the Greeks launch another invasion of the boot
 * This time, it is landed at Tricase, not near Lecce like before
 * Proves slightly more successful this time, advancing to just north of Lecce by the end of the war
 * Despite their relative strength, Sicily views the war as no longer worth it after Lecce is lost.
 * Basically, they are beginning to counter the IPA in Italy (and would in time push them back, I assume)
 * Sicily itself is too strong to capture without significant casualties
 * With Nordic pressure, the ADC accepts the ceasefire with Sicily, despite the desire of others (Spain and Greece) to keep going and get rid of Sicily
 * ADC makes sure that the IPA is included in this
 * Only Nordic condition
 * Nordic Union is more concerned with affairs to their east and want the matter settled as soon as possible
 * Ceasefire ends fighting, but does not solve much of anything
 * Enforced by ANZC fleet
 * i.e. neutrality will not happen next time, more likely than not
 * Sicily is still pretty strong
 * Maybe half their navy is gone, but the Greeks have also lost ~1/3rd of theirs
 * Air forces are still fairly intact on Sicily and on the mainland, though a good portion has been destroyed by more advanced planes
 * Their army is still pretty intact too
 * Simply put, the losses now outweigh the potential gains, leading to the cease-fire though they will profit in the end from not having to deal with as many resistance groups
 * The Greek federation members of Cyrenica and Heptanesa suffer a fair amount of damage
 * The IPA is now exhausted by fighting.
 * Out of action for quite some time after this
 * Squabbles over what to do with territory recaptured from Sicily, outside of the borders of Tuscany
 * Genoan interests in the Tuscan islands (Elba, etc.)
 * Joint admin by IPA over captured territories, divided into occupation zones with a new Alpine line between the two sides, based at New Rome, at the center of a neutral zone.
 * Zones will either be added to the IPA members or made into independent states
 * Sardinia, Lecce, and Tunisia, as well as Italy, greatly harmed by fighting
 * Effectively a status quo on the ground that remains, aside from Tunis
 * Tunisia will be given independence, after a short period as a joint Spanish-Rif mandate under the LoN in which things will be repaired and the former resistance leaders will be aided in setting up a government
 * To last no longer than a year
 * Sardinia will be put under a IPA mandate for the time being, with secondary support from Corsica.
 * Eventually, a two-stage referendum on independence or joining another nation-state (in the IPA, most likely) will be held (top two choices from first round going to second)
 * No later than two years from now
 * Lecce Province will be made a mandate under the Greeks
 * A similar referendum to Sardinia was also occur here eventually
 * Issues that started the war remain.
 * ADC agrees to officially recognize southern Italy, outside of Lecce, as being a Sicilian territory "de jure" rather than "de facto" as had been previously
 * Sicily does not drop any of their claims, however... setting the stage for a future third war.
 * While Sicily loses territory, and some resources, they also have a lot less territory to defend now, with the same rough amount of loyal troops
 * Relative position of strength - any wars to actually remove the regime will be long and hard

And there you have it.

Lordganon 11:21, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking eventually we're going to have Cyprus situation on our hands with Sardinia. The Sicilians were the first real government to take control post-doomsday, and likely settled the island while they were rebuilding the infrastructure when they took over almost 7 years ago, so there's likely a large % of the population thats loyal to Sicily and would like to rejoin them after the war. I also think a referendum for Lecce would be a mistake on the ADC's part, as it would likely just vote to rejoin Sicily, removing the entire point of holding the territory.Oerwinde 21:58, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Never said that any of them would have that particular option - rejoining Sicily, that is - at all, Oer ;)

Sardinia may well have had some sort of government - its just never been established one way or the other. As I said, aside from not going to Sicily, their ultimate fate is to be decided later.

Lordganon 22:10, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah I probably should have mentioned this but way back in November of '09 when it was all of Apulia was to be taken, Greece was going to flood Southern Italy with Greeks and try to get as many Griko-speakers into their mandate as possible. Now with the region being a lot smaller the Gov't'll probably just try to get as many Griko-speakers into Lecce as possible, followed by Orthodox-Christian Albanians, followed by a small cadre of Greeks from the mainland. I was also planning on the Republic of the Holy Mountain sending missionaries to convert the Catholic-Sicilians to Orthodoxy and the Uniates of Sicily as well. Perhaps, they might be taken into their own Sicilian-Rite or for the new Latin-Sicilians a "Western Rite" Orthodoxy. Also, I wanted to see a a few Norman and E. Roman chapels in Southern Italy become Orthodox-Christian. Mr.Xeight 22:55, December 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * That would never work or be permitted by the Nordic Union, the other Italian states, and several other members of the ADC. Neither would want to see Sicilian imperialism be replaced by Greek imperialism.


 * Also, Oer is correct. Sardinia would remain pro-Sicily. Imo, the most plausible scenario for Sicily and Lecce is that both are forcibly demilitarize for a period of 5-10 years, but revert back to Sicilian control within 12 months. The ADC may keep garrisons in each territory for up to 5 years, but after which they must withdraw.


 * But if you have a referendum, the option to rejoin Sicily would be on the referendum. You couldn't leave it out, nor would any democratically minded nation allow it to be left out, especially the Nordics or Celts. While yes those territories would revert to Sicily, the ADC would have achieved its goal which is preventing Sicilian expansion and liberating part of Italy. They're a defensive organization that seeks to protect their members, not an offensive one interested in deposing governments. Caeruleus 00:31, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I don't think the greeks should get all of Lecce province, maybe just a single area that would be home to an ADC military base but under Greek administration. Maybe Otranto or something like that. The greeks can still flood the city with people and such, but other than the city itself and possibly some cultural trickle in the area around. It would also avoid the need for a referendum in an area that would be overwhelmingly pro-sicily.
 * I think the situation in Sardinia would be you'd either demilitarize it and revert control after a period, or hold a referendum. Independence isn't really feasable at this time so it would be more likely they would want to join an established state. Choices likely being Tuscany, Genoa, or Sicily. Sicily brought them out of whatever slump they were in, rebuilt roads and industry, then were forced out. Sicily is the largest of the Italian states, and the rest are propped up by the Alpine Confederation, so Sicily would look like the most likely successor to Italy gaining it a lot of support from that as well. If the referendum doesn't show support for joining sicily in the majority, those in favor would likely rise up under a call of like "One Italy" or "No Swiss Puppet" or something. Eventually we'd have either Sicily regaining it, or the island split between Sicily and an IPA nation.
 * With Turkey feeling out Sicily as an ally, the ADC wouldn't likely want to start another war too soon, so returning Sardinia and keeping its holdings in Lecce to a smaller territory would likely stave off such a war for a while. Enough for the IPA to rebuild now that Tuscany has been liberated and San Marino is in full control of its territories as well.
 * 3rd Sicily war isn't going to be the 3rd Sicily war, its going to be a full on Mediterranean War, as by then Croatia and Slovenia will be ADC members, Macedonia will join in with Turkey, and Serbia would take advantage to try to retake the lands stolen by Macedonia. The Spanish Republic will likely have expanded, Algeria will likely have joined the ADC by then with their Greek ties, and with a Tunisian government established by the ADC, it will likely be ADC as well. Only part of the Mediterranean not involved will be Monaco.Oerwinde 03:34, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to Oer's comments and the two rants on the talk page for the article, where they should have left in the first place. Lordganon 12:28, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 15:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Could someone rename the file "Gettysburg"? I'm having trouble renaming files at the moment. Arstar 22:26, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Done.

Lordganon 22:30, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If someone is interested in adopting this page, let me know. My only guidelines is that its going to be based in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and is a recently reestablished city-state. Arstar 22:57, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking into making a state here for a while - but those conditions dont fly with my plans. A shame.

Irregardless, my research into the area shows that the radiation from strikes in Maryland and DC would have passed to either side, for the most part. The area would have been lightly irradiated, but by no means rendered uninhabitable by it.

Lordganon 23:21, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

...Which is why its recently resettled, but recently can mean a lot of things. Any reinhabitation happening after 1999 is my only request. Arstar 01:43, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

I more-so meant that there'd be no need to resettle it, as no one would have left originally.

No matter.

Lordganon 01:51, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in adopting this article? --Zack 03:11, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I know LG has shown interest in it, but I don't think he's gotten around to working on it so far. Arstar 22:30, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, my idea for this nation doesn't fit with your requirements/guidelines. Without those I'd gladly take a crack at it when I have time. Lordganon 13:58, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to make a note that this had been fixed from its original state by South and Mitro. Just needs to be finished now, if someone is willing.

Lordganon 11:35, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article to deal with the results of the Second Sicily War. Will be filled out in the next bit.

Lordganon 12:50, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Article to deal with the results of the Second Sicily War. Will be filled out in the next bit.

Lordganon 12:50, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Article to deal with the results of the Second Sicily War. Will be filled out in the next bit.

Lordganon 12:50, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

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

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1, Archive 2

''This subsection is for decisive and vital issues concerning the 1983: Doomsday Timeline. Due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now, each of these issues might have world-spanning consequences that affect dozens of articles. Please treat this section with the necessary respect and do not place discussions that do not belong here.''