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 | 16 | 17

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

Siberian expansion idea
Ok so, I've recently started to tie up some loose ends with the USSR, as I left rather abruptly. One of them was that the Ural Territory is officially part of the RSFSR and the Kazakh SSR. The second was that the GLONASS network's third stage of launches commenced. But now comes the part I started today: A possible expansion of the USSR.

Now, I was thinking of it perhaps being towards Soviet Karelia, after their recent official decision to join the USSR, however, I thought I'd ask you guys what you think.

Furthermore, I'm considering two optional ways to go that aren't necessarily connected to Europe, the ADC and greater tensions with the global community: A complete annexation of Manchuria (smaller distance to said target, however, more hostility in the form of Imperial China and political fallout) or an annexation of a large part of the remaining Kazakh SSR towards Aralia and annexation of said region (larger distance than the former two, a lot of hostility in the area, not as much political fallout in the global community).--Vladivostok 18:14, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Some towards SK, given its desires, along with SK itself, would make sense.

I'd do the expansion in Kaz~ myself. Makes more sense in line with other recent developments.

Lordganon 10:05, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Celtic Alliance/Southern England - Ur Alba War
Now that there's been an official declaration of war by the Alliance and Southern England against Ur Alba, and there's been a naval battle between the Alliance and Ur Alba, should we add the war to the official 1983:DD list of Wars? MAINEiac4434 23:54, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

So long as no one objects to the war's plausibility. --Zack 00:03, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait a few days to see if ther are any objections before adding, then. MAINEiac4434 00:11, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Way I figure it, this is Smoggy's baby, so if anyone should do it - espcailly while it is still ongoing and we know nothing about when it is planned - she should. We can worry about adding it after it's done. Lordganon 10:28, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

If no one objects i'll added it to the wars page once its all done and dusted, which shouldn't be long--Smoggy80 11:05, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Wars all finished i've added it to the wars page and created a page The Ur Alba War for it.--Smoggy80 17:39, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

South Africa
I have to admit that I'm confused as to the exact relationship regarding the post-DD South Africa, RZA and New Britain. I think we need to review and clarify what their borders are, what they ARE (especially in the case of RZA) and how they relate to one another. There seems to be overlap and contradiction between the various articles. We need to clarify who controls Cape Town, what happened to Pretoria and Johannesburg, what exactly IS the RZA and what role did South America and the Commonwealth play in its creation. And, I'm sure, a number of other things.BrianD 21:12, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the "Republic of the Cape" stuff needs to be changed slightly to be a "defunct" nation, for sure. Past that, all we really need to do is make the maps show the same things, and decide on the fate of the two cities. My guess would be that they're just warlord territory now. My opinion on the RZA and New Britian are that they're more or less fine as they are.

Expanding these articles would go a long way too, as many are just stubs. Heck, there's even one that was made obsolete for some reason, despite it being mentioned as a state in several articles and maps for the region.

Lordganon 09:36, May 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * South Africa's been a mess for a while because there hasn't yet been a coherent history written for the region. The RZA represents some very early XiReney content that likely needs some polishing. Moreover it was written in 2008 and, since it's a transitional government, it may be out of date w.r.t. the 83-Doomsday world. Lots can change in 3 years. New Britain was largely written as a self-contained project; the supporting "characters" in its story have always been very hazy images just beyond its borders. The "New Union of South Africa" took shape very gradually, without a single author to give it coherence.


 * Central, northern, and western South Africa remain much more a mystery. KwaXhosa exists mostly as a shadowy foil for New Britain. KwaZulu has a page, but it's sketchy. Not even any mention of the IFP, for example.


 * There have been assumptions that some of the 1980s-era Bantustans persisted and expanded into neighboring territory. An old idea called the Azanian League was, I think, an alliance of bantustan governments and various interests in the Rand. I think it was to be the power that controlled the two cities. I wouldn't mind seeing that revived... but anything's possible at this point. Benkarnell 13:00, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I seem to recall that you're right there, Ben. Vegas actually just made a proposal for something in the region, though it is a touch..... implausible.

We really need a few people to have a look-see over these articles to make them match each other.

Lordganon 22:22, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

The original content was only a single phrase with Johannesburg being the remainder of the RZA backed up by a small SAC/ANZC military mission (likely the very first post/DD @peacekeeping mission). I dont rmember if it was even before me adopting or If I mentioned this in the very beginning (when I was putting things without real background research rather then simply inventing various things to "dot" the world map)... So this REALLY needs some deeper repolishing and update...Xi&#39;Reney 10:01, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Putting it up here for the purpose of changing the capital. The written capital was Macau, but that did not appear well-researched. As I continued to work more on figuring out the situation there, I found that being so near the coastline, there would be a high chance of contamination.

The fires and destruction in Guangzhou would have caused factories' chemicals to combust and flow into the river. This would include medical chemicals, industrial chemicals, gasoline, fertilizers, you name it. Considering at the time China was using a lot more hazardous chemicals than now, the dangers would be immense.

If the capital was along the ocean, and mostly surrounded by ocean, there is a high risk that government members would become contaminated from coming in contact with the beach, taking a bridge over the beach, breathing near the beach, etc. I mean, for Pete's sake this is an island attached to a tiny peninsula.

There is simply no way to avoid contact with water, nor vapors in the air caused by a slight temperature decrease, reducing solubility of gases and releasing the into the air. This is a definite health hazard, which could easily be solved by moving the capital inland, so the government isn't affected by toxicity on a daily basis.

There are ways to keep away from toxicity, locking up in a room, wearing gas masks, etc., but is it really worth the risk when it's easier just to move inland, where the water and air are clean, it's closer to the geographic centre, there are existing government buildings, and no damage from Doomsday? If there was a reason to keep Macau, I would keep it, but it's really not worth it. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 15:28, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Since no review tag was added, this is where it goes. Please use paragraphs like everyone else next time as well.

For starters, this is only being brought up because it oversteps his permission for editing the article, and I told him when he brought it up on the talk pages, that because of that, he cannot do it. He's just trying to redo an article that he has only slim permission to edit - which he is constantly trying to overstep - in his own image.

This "complaint" assumes a great deal, but that's not too shocking. Things such as the positioning of such factories in the city, how far the chemicals can flow in the water, and that they can even get into the water to start with. None of these assumptions are logical by any means.

"Combust" - as in fires. Fires = no chemicals to get into the water as they burn up. Nasty chemical fires, true enough, but that doesn't do anything even remotely like Kenny is claiming, or even contaminate Macau at all. Not only that, but in the impossible chance that the chemicals survive all of the reasons why they cannot exist, the flow of the river would carry any such contamination, ignoring that it cannot exist, out to sea. The entire area is thus fine, and as such, calls your research into question, once again.

Macau is the capital, and he just wants to change it so that it benefits him. He's biased in the area, by his own admission, and this reflects it. There is no need for the "review" that he has now attempted, or to question the capital, at all.

Lordganon 18:23, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm still learning about DD. I just want to get in a few good contributions for now.

First of all, I'm just going to state I have no bias that is relevant in this situation. I am not a recent Chinese immigrant, I have never been to China. My ancestors came to Peru in the early 20th century. We lost contact in the 1970s, way before I was born, because the last person died who could actually read Chinese. All I know is that they were from "Cantón," which by Peruvian standards, could be anywhere in Guangdong. I have studied in my own time Mandarin, not Cantonese. I can say basically hi, count to one, and a few other words, so I have no Cantonese nationalism. I wouldn't say Chinese nationalism exists much really in Peru, because they are nothing like their counterparts in China. In fact I'm not even full Chinese, I'm mestizo. If anything I'm pro-Macau and that's it. Stop the accusations without knowing the facts. I have never heard of Kaiping until yesterday, and I chose it because of its juxtaposition with the mountains, its former status as a county seat, distance inland, and connection with trade routes. Yes I am wasting space here to tell you to stop, because you keep wasting space trying to spread rumours about me.

As for the actual argument, the chemical spread is imminent. First of all, the position of chemicals in relation to rivers is irrelevant. This is a delta. If you will divert your attention to the map I uploaded on the Pearl River page, it accurately shows the hundreds of distributaties around Guangzhou. In China, a lot of factories are like normal apartment buildings. Regardless, chances are, all factories are within a small distance from a river, whether on the outskirts of Guangzhou, in the inner city, regardless.

Second, take into account the climate. With factories everywhere destroyed and chemicals leaking onto the ground, it would seep directly into the water table, or runoff and storm drains would carry it to the estuary. Even if all this were false, because of the rise of the water table due to increased rainfall in Southern China, factories would have a higher chance of collapsing directly into the river.

Combustion may only affect organic compounds, but it also separates bonds. Say a piece of plywood were burnt to ash, the glue and preservatives that aren't organic would quickly seep into water as toxic ash. Everyone knows not to burn plywood. That's just an example, look around any city and notice how many toxic paints, glues, plastics, or preservatives would be released by extreme heat.

You can't forget the possibility of acid rain. I am aware that the original fire would only have burnt for a few months, but if anything, anything at all, in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, or Hong Kong that survived the first set of fires, catching fire (arson very probable due to the crime rate and political situation), acid will release into the atmosphere, even and especially with organic chemicals like sulfur. In the event of acid entering the atmosphere, and the wind conditions are right, Macau is basically screwed. The concentration of the poisonous gases would be to the point that they would diffuse very quickly. You already admitted that materials that combust would go into the air.

Overall, there is no doubt chemicals would leak. According to gravity, they will definitely reach the ground. According to the water cycle, all water will travel downstream. The ground would probably too saturated to hold much aquiferous water, meaning the vast majority would travel in the delta's hundreds to thousands of small streams right into the delta, washing up upon beaches. Not to say the beaches aren't already polluted enough. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 23:16, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Hate to incite an argument, but there's no use in waiting. Are there any more objections to changing the capital of Macau to Kaiping/Hoiping? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:17, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you for reminding me to respond to this..... biased bin of assumptions.

You have admitted elsewhere your bias for the region. Denying it now doesn't help you any. You openly admit your family came from areas north of Macau, and are trying to move the capital there for no logical reason, which is obvious bias. And, you make claims that would only be possible if you had been there, which, again, you openly admit is not true, making them incredibly foolish assumptions.

I have seen the map you posted - I don't ignore entire histories like you do. You assume, again, that these factories are near the water - you have no evidence for this, and are just basing this on your own personal belief. Thus, that cannot be trusted at all or used. It being a Delta actually hurts your cause, because that means the contamination - not that any can exist - would deposit long before the ocean, where Macau is. And that is completely ignoring the currents in the far side of the Delta itself, which would carry any such chemicals out to sea. Seriously Kenny, actually look at your map. It's pretty obvious where the current goes.

Again, an assumption on the weather. If you'd actually bothered to do more than glance at things, you'd have noticed that atl, increased rainfall and such is a recent phenomenon. And, you assume that it wouldn't negatively effect rainfall, but would increase it, which while there is a chance it might be accurate, is another foolish assumption, as odds are just as good that the opposite would happen.

You also make assumption on the water table. Macau is a fair ways away from these strikes, excepting Hong Kong, and HK has its own table. There is virtually no way that the water table can be contaminated in Macau from the strikes. And, once again, you base that assumption on your assumption about the factories, which is just foolishness.

Again, the factory assumption you erred in making rears its head into your fire analysis. Ignoring that, you completely fail to recognize the difference between a massive fire on this scale and lighting a piece of plywood on fire. On this scale, all of those things that do not normally burn go up too because of the greater hear and scale. Another assumption, totally unfounded, in what would happen to inorganic substances - you do realize that they burn too, right? Seriously, do you know anything about this at all? Sure doesn't seem like it.

True, the fires would likely release some acid rain. But I suggest that you actually look at the effects of acid rain and how long it takes, because it is obvious that you have not. Lakes that become contaminated from such rain have taken years to do so, not months, even of contamination like this. None of the non-existent chemicals would be present in anything remotely close to danger levels.

And, an assumption on the wind. There is a small chance that Macau would get a couple days worth of wind blowing the smoke to them, but more than that is impossible. The fires would largely be out within a month - fuel running out, and rain - with none last more than three. Winds in that area of the world in July go northeast, switching by January to southwest. September is two months after July, meaning that the winds are still largely going northeast, meaning the entire area escapes contamination. Winds going southwest, like January, miss Macau entirely, and in fact contaminate your extremely biased choice. Even with the winds starting to change they miss it. Another assumption, without any research, that is entirely unfounded.

And, even if despite there being no chance at all of it happening, any contamination in Macau, light as it would be, would be gone by the time they noticed it had happened. Why on earth would they move the capital then? answer is simple - they wouldn't, especially to an area that would have got it worse.

Thus, what little chemicals that might possibly escape the destroyed cities do not get anywhere near Macau. Few would leak, and each and every one of Kenny's "arguments" is based on a combination of more foolish assumptions on his part and no research. Even if, despite how impossible it is, that a large amount of chemicals got into the river system somewhere, it is a delta in which they would start, if not finish, being deposited long before Macau in the "hundreds to thousands of streams," or be carried out to sea by the incredibly obvious current.

In short, Macau itself is not contaminated. This is simply a very obvious, biased, based-on-unsubstantiated-assumptions, attempt for him to both have his way with an article, doing things with it that he has no permission whatsoever to do, and to move the capital to an area that would likely have been contaminated, in which he openly admits to have a familial bias, away from a un-contaminated area.

Lordganon 08:59, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you know what? Maybe you're right about me being biased. You see, I can tell you are making an honest attempt to tell the truth to the entire community that I am biased based on actual evidence. And as everyone knows, truth is only what people perceive to be true. We all know how quickly negative comments instantly become the truth, so if you were able to convince every one of the community members I am biased, maybe I would have to reconsider my own intuitions that I honestly don't care about Kaping vs. Macau, but I'm just a bit OCD about having a capital where politicians get sick and die. Maybe because you spread rumours about me, I might actually have actually born myself in Kaiping and not even know it! I appreciate your efforts to be truthful, but you know sometimes you have to avoid telling the truth to avoid harming the reputation of your fellow proletariat, yknowhatimean?

Of course, you see. Sometimes, I understand that you have to tell the truth in order to get your point across. Sometimes the difference between a short-term and long-term connection between a member of this site and a random Chinese town is very relevant to the situation. Perhaps Mr. Almeida y Costa, foreseeing a shortly-removed relative of someone in Kaiping ready to be born within the next few years, might decide not to move the capital there. Or maybe I have secret mind powers I gained from shortly-removed relatives in Kaiping where I can go into alternate histories and do stuff like release anthrax into the city! The opportunities are enormous. Which is exactly why I decide to side with you on the argument of my being biased, comrade.

Okay, and as for assumptions. You misunderstand assumptions without evidence. You see, I provide "assumptions" based on research and prior knowledge. However, I failed to cite it out of laziness. So I found a quote: "The Pearl River Delta has become the world's workshop and is a major manufacturing base for products such as electronic products (such as watches and clocks), toys, garments and textiles, plastic products, and a range of other goods. Much of this output is invested by foreign entities and is geared for the export market. The Pearl River Delta Economic Zone accounts for approximately one third of China's trade value." But of course, I know you don't take secondary sources for your truthfulness.

A simple Google Maps search of the word "plastic factory" revealed hundreds of plastic factories on the Pearl River Delta, and that only counts the plastic factories that actually have "plastic factory" in their name. Check this out: Pearl River Plastic Factory. Insanely close to the water and within the range of fire. Factories are close to water for several reasons I need not list. And we all know the effects of factory fires on the water supply. But I understand my argument is incomplete and maybe therefore you would not accept it. For I didn't include any other types of factories besides plastic. Not chemical, nor pharmaceutical, nor food production, nor gluing Apple computers together in a small apartment building.

Say they didn't have plastic, chemical, or pharmaceutical factories in 1983 at all in Guangzhou, I beg you. But unless you can prove that with external references, it is not only an assumption, but an unfounded assumption.

Yes, inorganic compounds can combust, but they don't just disappear. Hydrocarbons such as methane use CH4+2O2 --> CO2+2H20 and turn cleanly into water and carbon dioxide. Both are found in the air naturally. However, the only other compounds that can be created by combustion and found naturally in air are nitrogen dioxide (which will cause acid rain) and carbon dioxide. This means only carbohydrate compounds will burn into the air and disappear, although the fire is very unruly and will certainly result in the creation of carbon monoxide. The rest will runoff, making horrendous reactions. Of course I know chemicals aren't truthful…

Have you ever been in a city or suburb during a heavy rain? There are currents that carry water down streets into a storm drain or body of water. However, with the poor drainage system, floods will undoubtedly pick up and dissolve or otherwise carry foreign materials directly into the various streams. That are ubiquitous. But of course, if you've never been in a city during a heavy rain, I have nothing to argue.

Okay, so we have established that there is pollutants in the streams. From the streams, water is clearly carried downhill. You're right about it being deposited earlier on than Macau, but heck, the whole reason Macau exists is because silt deposited there thousands of years ago. See this map, which shows a dramatic increase in land area caused by deposition of sediment over 530 years. Observe the island directly south of Macau, how it merged from two islands into one island. No this is not a result of land reclamation, land reclamation did not exist in China at the time. This is from purely natural causes, not a huge climate change. Imagine the effects of such a great increase that would be caused by a rainier climate along the entire course of the Xi River, it would be catastrophic.

Also, have you heard of diffusion of water? In order to maintain equilibrium, the water with the toxic solute would diffuse, regardless of currents, diffusing random crap along with it.

Besides chemicals, you have to understand the effect of bacteria. In the San Francisco Bay, we already have tons of mutated algae ATL, and that's canon. With the added amount of chemicals and radiation, bacteria that is able to survive pose a potential health hazard, that will potentially bring Macau's beaches to a "below satisfactory" level. You are right about this, the effects aren't immediate obviously. The dangerous chemicals would take years to collect on Macau's shores, as much of it will get deposited up river and then recollected and deposited downriver. However, who knows what would be going on in Guangzhou? The government of Macau doesn't know whether any future bombings by the USSR or US or anyone might start another fire in a different part of the city. There's a ton of arson going on in Guangzhou because of the tribal conflict. They don't know much at all about the actual situation, so why take the risk? Move the capital until there's environmental stability. All it takes is to move a couple of Asians for a few years.


 * ".75 percent - 86 percent of the rainfall in Macau is　acidic. The pH values of the rainall are from 3.65-6.72."
 * "4. Acid rain in Macau is due to foreign effect."
 * "the acid rain in Macau is going to persist in the　near future."

If it makes you feel better, I'll have them move the capital back to Oumuhn on or before July 4th, 2010, so it doesn't interfere with canon at all and this argument is invalid. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:26, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Canada & Delmarva Contact
I have a question concerning Canada and diplomatic relations, but I am unsure as to who to address it to. I am in the process of writing my section for Delmarva regarding diplomatic relations. My intention has been for Delmarva to make contact with Brazil during their 1989 expedition along the US East Coast, thus opening up political and trade relations with them and South America.

This in turn influences an age of exploration as their vessels begin reaching out and making contact. I had hoped for contact with Canada by 1990, especially because of how close the two areas are. However, when reading through the Canada article I note they don't "find" Delmarva until 1995 after visiting everyone else in the world. You mean some small group from Canada, separate from the fleet doesn't get curious and visit the area earlier? That does not make much sense.

Secondly, if I establish relations with S. America, Delmarvan representatives will be there in 1994 during the Canadian visit, so they couldn't just find Delmarva the following year anyway. I would like to suggest contact earlier between the two areas, so they already know and have contact. However, I would be okay with the "official fleet" not visiting until 1995. Who could I discuss this matter with. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 14:28, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

To start off, I'm the one who put that in the Canada article, and all things considered, am probably more or less its caretaker at this point. So, I suppose that it'd be me.

At any rate....

It's already been canon that Brazil didn't find anyone substantial for a very long time. Despite the Brazil article referring to "Canada," other articles indicate that none of their explorers made it even to the Outer Banks before outside contact was established by other means with these areas. The same goes for the "New York" line in the Brazil article, which actually violates a great deal of canon elsewhere..... guess I'll edit that part right now.

The Bermuda article refers to it establishing contact with Delmarva in 1990. At the same time, outside contact beyond that is only referred to as being really done in the 2000's. Thus, we need to assume that Delmarva itself only did so between those two dates.

Brazilian explorers only ran into the Outer Lands, Outer Banks, and Elizabeth City after 2000, in a few cases after others already had done so. To find Delmarva through exploration in 1989 but not these obvious ones is just not possible. Discussion about EC has indicated that the Outer Banks did indeed have some outside contact, despite their isolationism, between 1990 and 2000, but that it amounted to little. That's the "contact" the Canada article refers to.

The Canadian fleet simply went to the nearest source of contact, radio transmissions from the Azores, that they already had. From there, their path is logical. At that point in time, the Canadian government really only controlled the Maritime Islands and parts of the coastline, too, so they really weren't exploring too much. Remember, the main goal of the fleet was to re-open contact with the West Coast, not exploring, and along the way they reopened contact with others that they knew about due to contact with Portugal and the Celtic Alliance.

And, Canada establishes contact with the outside world, except the Celts, Nords, and Portuguese, in 1991. Everything north of southern North Carolina was unknown until this point, having been assumed destroyed, and it is only from there that anything is discovered about the North Atlantic. Going from that, Delmarva cannot be in contact with either Canada or anyone else at that time, since if that was the case, none of this would be true, and the Franklin would have went up the East Coast, which it did not do. The same goes for the Nimitz in 1993.

As to it not making sense, why on earth would Canadian vessels explore down a destroyed coastline, into what is another country, when they have the same type of thing at home that they need to deal with? And, knowing of other countries elsewhere, why would they go elsewhere, when they are of no use to them? Simply put, they wouldn't.

1995 is a very logical date, in light of what all other articles say. 1989 is not. Contact, by canon, is not possible with outside until at least 1994. I took all of this into account when I put the 1995 date in, and there is no reason at all for it not to stand.

Lordganon 02:06, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

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

Maps
Couple months back it was pointed out that with the amount of detail in NA and Europe now in the timeline, having a labeled world map in those areas is almost impossible. Now, I haven't got a world map done yet, though maybe in the next couple weeks, but here's a up-to-date map of North America. Europe will be forthcoming.



Let me know if I missed something somewhere.

Lordganon 15:09, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Amazing map LG! Mitro 15:18, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good map, though Pasco is a bit large and Hattiesburg is a bit small (its supposed to control down to the gulf. Also, unless International Falls/Ft. Frances has incorporated the counties/districts around them - "string of communities" - that looks a little large as well. Overall, though, with these adjustments are minor. SouthWriter 20:22, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! West Texas controls the El Paso region, and jointly administers the remainder of New Mexico with the Navajo Nation. Technically, all of the Texas republics (save Dos Laredos) jointly administer "unincorporated" Texas. By the way, Dos Laredos really only covers the OTL Laredo Texas and Laredo Mexico city borders; it doesn't go down to the Gulf.
 * Hattiesburg does go down officially to the Gulf. Louisiana covers the entire state.
 * There are a number of small yet-to-be-written-on communities in former North Carolina.
 * Isn't there another survivor state in Iowa? What about the northern Indiana survivor states?:
 * BrianD 20:35, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the size of Pasco is more or less correct given the cities and towns listed in the article as being under its control.

The Int. Falls article really isn't complete, but definitely makes in sound like it controls more than just those settlements.

I actually included everything on the latest version of the Texas maps I could find (as a side note, please make one of these besides that whole Texas map you have up right now that's easy to find, lol). Joint areas like that, which outside of the colored areas is largely in theory, aren't getting colored. I'll add the El Paso region, however.

I'm well aware of the communities mentioned in the NC article, but I did not include any of the unmade things anywhere, so they won't be either.

Hattiesburg will be edited.

Larado on the map actually doesn't go farther than the city. If you look smaller you'll find another state, your Rio Grande Republic, between it and the Gulf instead.

How on earth could Louisiana cover the whole state? That makes no sense given what the article says.

Nope, only Lincoln and the Quads in Iowa. And nothing in that area of Indiana. Those things, which the creator refused to make plausible, were obsoleted long ago, and I've no hope of Yank's Indiana thing going anywhere either.

Lordganon 11:38, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Updated for Hatt~ and Texas. Expanded Louisiana a bit as well. Lordganon 11:48, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just noticed an error. is missing from the map. Mitro 14:31, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, its there. Little Violet thing, west of the USA and southeast of Oregon. Lordganon 14:43, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent, I have gone insane. That is the only logical explanation for how I missed that, haha. Mitro 14:50, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, LG, regarding the Texas map. I will get to it no later than mid-week. As your map is covering areas that each nation controls in practice, Louisiana is accurate (it does claim the entire state, however). I didn't see Silver City, New Mexico on the map. --BrianD 20:51, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Like with the NC article communities, there's no article for it at this time, so it's not on the map. I may do those type of communities later, but way I figure it, it will just confuse people. Lordganon 01:39, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Texas, I've started a map like you suggested. Before I upload it I want to review it, including possibly designating where the various survivor states surrounding Texas are. It should be much preferable to the "red Texas" map I have on the West Texas page! BrianD 06:40, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

No doubt, lol.

Map of Europe:



Lordganon 10:03, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

LG, once again, excellent work! May I ask which tools, software, et al you're using to make these maps?

BTW, I've uploaded my Texas map....which is not nearly as nice as these two! :) BrianD 17:53, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

GIMP. Just as good as Photoshop, but doesn't cost a dime. I'll update the map as per the new Texas map you did. Lordganon 01:33, March 29, 2011 (UTC)



Voila. A world map. As noted before, the detail needed to read all of the tiny names just isn't there. All are marked in some fashion, mind, though not always readable. Obvious that we need some sort of caption with links to Europe and North America maps under it as well. Much better map, I think. What about you guys?

Lordganon 20:16, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Excellent map! Finally it's easier to tell what territory is taken. I was wondering if we wanted a blank map that we could use for maps showing statistics and international organizations, much like. It would greatly enhance the articles and provide quick reference for articles like the League of Nations. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:07, April 9, 2011 (UTC)



The map I used as the basis for this. Works perfectly for that type of thing, with the sub-boundaries and all.

About the only thing wrong with the map I made, to me, is that the areas considered uninhabitable for various reasons aren't marked except for the Dutch Wastelands and the Marianas. Meh.

Lordganon 04:30, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Think I will do one of the major uninhabitable zones, lol. Sounds interesting, I think.

Something that has long bothered me is the lack of an updated India map. Now, that changes, lol.



Modern map. I'll be adding it to the appropriate pages, to go along with the 2009 map already on the India page.

Lordganon 15:31, April 9, 2011 (UTC)



This is more what I had in mind. It's a little messy, so I'll be fixing it up later. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 20:00, April 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume this map shows the uninhabitable zones mentioned above. The problem is, the areas you show are just areas not yet dealt with. This is especially true with Africa, which has had no nuclear explosions. Maps that show "unihabitable zones" would have to be on a local level, marking places where bombs took out cities and surrounding dead areas. By now, very little land that received fallout blown in the winds is uninhabitable. SouthWriter 20:45, April 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * The grey part can be considered "uncontrolled," "lawless," "uninhabited," "unknown," or "unaddressed," according to the WCRB. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 20:53, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of that is simply "unaddressed" by us, not the WCRB. Nor unknown. No need for a map like that, as zones that have been looked into by various powers covers the vast majority of that area you mark erroneously as "unknown." Lordganon 16:53, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the constructive criticism… Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 18:02, April 10, 2011 (UTC)



Current Map of Africa.

Lordganon 14:24, April 26, 2011 (UTC)



Current Map of South America.

Lordganon 16:58, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3

Damanhur, Italy
I read about a small community that was founded in northern Italy in 1975. What do you think happened to it?

Yank 02:56, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Given how close it is to Turin, I'd say it is a safe bet it was overrun by refugees from that strike. Barring that, it would survive, in some form, inside the Alpine-policed zone of Northern Italy. Lordganon 03:38, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Lancastrian Trade
I'm thinking of expanding Lancaster's trade links since at the moment that side of things is pretty much restricted to other British sucessor states which seems like a bit of a waste of the Duchy's many ports (it's got three of them that are currently in use, which for such a small country is a lot). The problem is that I don't know which countries would be interested in doing business, which is why I'm posting this since it seemed like a better way of doing things then pestering people on their talk pages. Details of most of what Lancaster has to trade are on the trade and economy page although there are a couple of other things that I haven't added to that page yet since I'm still working out the finer details. So, anyone interested?Tessitore 20:58, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

G8
With it being the G8 summit (the eight richest countries on Earth) in France this week, I was wondering in the post DD world who would be the G8? Current real world members are France, Germany, UK, USA, Canada, Italy, Japan, and Russia, none of which survived DD very well.

I was thinking the new G8 would probably include the ANZC and the SAC, but who else? --Smoggy80 15:52, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering the post-DD world, I have to start off by saying that the G8, or some sort of version of it, happening here is pretty unlikely.

That said? Canada, Celtic Alliance, ANZC, SAC, Nordic Union, Siberia, WAU, and Mexico, in my opinion.

Lordganon 10:34, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends on whether you count the SAC as a single "nation." It isn't, for it is patterned after the EU of OTL. Having not been bombed, though, the SAC nations pack the top of the G8 as economic powerhouses. It seems to me that, according to the info on this wiki, the list of G8 members would be: Colombia, UAR, Venezuela, ANZC, Celtic Alliance, Mexico, Canada, and Siberia. SouthWriter 15:01, May 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * In the case of members of SAC, what about Brazil? --Katholico 02:54, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Brazil would surely be in the G8, since it's the most powerful economy in the world. Fed (talk) 03:00, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

That's also forgetting about Nigeria, which surely would be a contender.

That being said, if you do the WAU and the SAC separately, which seems silly to me since those are economic unions that go further in that regard than even the EU does, I figure:

Columbia, UAR, Venezuela, ANZC, Mexico, Nigeria, and Siberia, though not necessarily in that order.

Lordganon 09:39, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Owen Strikes Again
In case you guys don't know our old friend Owen is up to his usual bag of bullshit: (link removed. ~LG)

Not sure if it would help but I would go and raise a stink with the admins there and get them to remove the pages he is creating. -Mitro

Thanks for the pointer, Mitro.

Heh. I'm not even going to bother with those insane admins on that wiki. Already have a complaint about him copying our work and articles to another wiki put in with wikia, may as well make it two. Lordganon 00:56, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

He left a comment on my talk page taking credit for copying the Doomsday page, it was unsigned and LG blocked the IP address shortly after. It was such a crap post on my talk page i just deleted it--Smoggy80 17:44, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Admins came through. All the offending work has been deleted. I've removed the link. Lordganon 08:25, June 7, 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).

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)

Thought I'd leave this note here - that I left on its talk page quite some time ago - but the strike list on this article isn't plausible. Lordganon 07:56, May 18, 2011 (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 by Caer, part of the Turkey set of articles. Just a stub at the moment. Mitro 18:24, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

This article is done. If there are no objections, it is ready to graduate. Caeruleus 12:46, June 14, 2011 (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)


 * I've posted my general idea to . Benkarnell 17:54, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

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

Is this going anywhere? Lordganon 14:59, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to allow someone to work the kinks out of it. I just have one request. I request that it is not to be annexed by another nation.

Yank 15:05, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose in light of that, and time passed, would there be objections to putting it up for adoption? Lordganon 05:13, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Put up for adoption. Lordganon 11:44, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

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

This article is complete and ready for graduation if there are no objections. Caeruleus 17:41, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, there is has been absolutely NO discussion on this article. However, aside from what I consider to be an exaggerated claim of death by 'radiation poisoning' (rapid death by massive dose of irradiated material, usually), I see no reason why this article should not be graduated. It represents an area that was absorbed by a subsequent regime that took over most of Turkey. As a defunct government, it is of little consequence to the bigger picture. SouthWriter 19:02, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Until the last few hours, there wasn't anything in the article to discuss, lol.

That being said, there seems to be no internal disputes, or nearly so, over this government joining the Sultanate. And, following the merger, everyone seems to have went along with it without dispute. Neither makes much sense.

Lordganon 05:53, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

There are internal disputes, but they're all political. None are violent. And the purpose of the IGA from the beginning was to merge with whatever new Turkish state that arose and the Sultanate was that new Turkish state. The only dispute was that it was a monarchy, which was addressed by giving the IGA internal autonomy and the right to vote in national elections. Caeruleus 19:14, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

You only hint at such "disputes" once. They don't need to be violent - note the lack of any violent terms in what I said? - but this article reads like they simply rolled over and accepted it, despite, in light of Turkish history and the nature of the Republic in general, how unlikely that is.

And, as I said, everyone went along with this? And there is no movements against it or the like? That doesn't make sense, at all.

Lordganon 21:10, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I understand what you mean now. I wasn't going to elaborate since its a defunct nation, but if you really want me to, I can. Caeruleus 22:52, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Defunct doesn't mean nothing is going on - just that the nation does not currently exist. ;) That being said, given the nature of the Turkish Republic, I'd go with there being an underground movement of former Army officers in the area.

And, as I said, and both me and Oer said when this was first discussed on the Turkey talk page so long ago, it just sounds like they accepted it, and there wasn't any problems, or the like. You say there was internal disputes, and hint at them - but you don't go into any detail on them, why there would be opposition, and why they would agree to it.

I fully realize that giving them "autonomy" and the like is what they get from it, but why would they accept it? Why would they recognize the Sultanate as the Turkish government? Like I said, it's like they met each other, and after a little talking, the Authority just agreed to join a government whose principles are pretty much the exact opposite of theirs in exchange for some fairly minor concessions, more or less at random. As I said, just "rolled over" and accepted it.

I suppose what I'm saying is just give it more details, as it really just sounds like there wasn't any disputes, yet even you admit that there would be many.

Lordganon 01:13, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Is that better? Caeruleus 05:42, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Much. Lordganon 08:48, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

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

My feelings on putting an article up for adoption before it becomes canon is that whoever adopts it can do whatever they want with it.Oerwinde 01:53, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 03:34, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Armachedes.

Lordganon 05:26, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Seoul
It is a city proposal by me, PitaKang. PitaKang 01:24, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's ready. Any objections? PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 21:51, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Same one as I've told you several times now with regards to the terrorists. Lordganon 05:08, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

So.... no more objections? PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 22:30, March 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * What does LG have to say? Mitro 03:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * He's fixed it, though sloppily. Lordganon 11:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you guys have any suggestions to make it better? PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 19:29, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

There's now a whole series of objections to this on its talk page. Lordganon 13:13, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed those objections, so are there any more? PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 19:20, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

You have fixed one of those objectives, and smoggy just gave you a couple more. The article is still somewhat unrealistic in its wording and what it seems to say. You also still neglect to mention that the entire region is under military control, and that your presented view of the area is thus too... pleasant, I suppose, is a good word. 

Also, Desert was indeed correct about much of the article being things that should be on the Korea article. They should be removed to that location.

Lordganon 02:25, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

The_Former_Beatles_(1983:Doomsday)
I started an article on the actives of the Former Beatles(Paul, Ringo,George) following the 1983 Doomsday Event. I hope to finish it soon. Is this an acceptable topic to write about? If not please let me know. (Jer1818)


 * I've moved this section from the archive page to this one. Let's see where the page goes, since for now it's just a recap of the OTL biographies up to 1983. Benkarnell 04:56, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome, Jer! I've made a few comments on the article's talk page. BrianD 06:49, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated Paul's and Ringo's Postdoomsday activities...read them and let me know what you think Jer1818 22:16, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Issaquah-Snoqualmie
I made an article stub for a survivor community in the Cascades near where I live. The geography of the area forms a pretty protected valley in Issaquah (It's located between two mountains and home construction on those mountains had yet to begin in earnest in 1983 - they arrived as a result of the Microsoft boom. This also means that the population would be smaller than in OTL, since Issaquah's growth spurt didn't happen until this past decade.) There are a lot of highlands and whatnot in Issaquah proper to protect the city from the shockwaves 25 miles away in Seattle, although some radiation would probably occur there too.

Snoqualmie itself is located further up the mountains, near the town of North Bend. Don't worry, I'm not trying to turn North Bend into a massive empire like *cough* certain people did, but its protected up in the mountains and is far enough away from Seattle to suggest that it would have survived almost completely intact. I propose Issaquah-Snoqualmie as a minor conurbation of small communities stretching through the Snoqualmie pass from up in the mountains to the foothills. Pasco is pretty far from this area but likely enjoys healthy trade with Issaquah-Snoqualmie thanks to their outposts in central Washington (Ellensburg), as is established in canon. Again, to reiterate, I'm not trying to transform the Issaquah-North Bend corridor into a mighty Cascade empire - it would be a self-sufficient, hectic and maybe even wild-west style survivor town in most of the 1980's saddled with refugees from the Seattle/Bellevue area.

On the note of Victoria, I doubt that at least until the mid-2000's or even now, they would have bothered crossing an irradiated wasteland to get to Issaquah, even though the communities between Issaquah and Snoqualmie technically fall within their claimed territory.

Issaquah, culturally, was much more of a rural and exoburban city in the 1980's, even though today it's full of rich assholes (My personal bias. Fuck those guys.)

KingSweden 19:53, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, looking at the much more zoomed in map on the Victoria History article itself I think it could work in some form. Issaquah is on the border line, and the other community is definitely outside of it. Though, that map is a little old, so.... Definitely could have lived through the blasts, etc. mind - radiation would have went to sea. Oer, thoughts? Lordganon 22:33, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I've got no problems. Victoria is too busy with the Olympia and Aberdeen areas and bringing the newly aquired south into the fold, along with establishing a border with Astoria to worry about some small mountain towns.Oerwinde 09:54, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Superior Election Articles

 * 1994 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)

Though created by an anon, they allegedly follow canon and were originally red linked. Mitro 17:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

The first two have no basis in canon at all - virtually no reference to numbers and political positions of the two parties or the like with the congress of Superior exist for that era that actually indicate things one way or the other like this. The independent numbers are.... not possible, either. The 1994 one is the only one with some actual accuracy as it currently stands, though even it has to be massively re-written. Lordganon 20:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I think we should mark the first two obsolete and put the last up for adoption. Any objections? Mitro 18:31, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Detectivekenny. Mitro 17:24, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Just so the community knows, I've renamed this to Pearl River Delta, which is going to be a general article for all the cities and towns in the area. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:22, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Crimson. Mitro 17:25, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Yank. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Article by an anon. Current content does not make sense, but it could be a peice on the rulers of Sicily. Putting up for adoption. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Apply for adoption!77.7.65.145 07:12, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Sunkist. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Vegas. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC) Anyone have any problems with me graduating this article? Possibly as a stub article?--Smoggy80 15:41, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Article by South. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Zoot. Mitro 13:40, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

So what is going on with this one? Lordganon 08:09, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

This is an article by an ambitious and energetic young man going by the user name "God Bless the United States of America." We call him GB for short. He is very young and just learning the ropes, so let's all try to help him in this first attempt at a full article in 1983DD. This is a small isolated community on the coast of North Carolina. It needs help so as not to run all over what we know about Elizabeth City and the Outer Banks (OB being primarily "mine" so far). SouthWriter 14:07, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks South for getting the word out, well anyone can edit the article, I see it as a chance to be another collabertive article for the senior editors to join in to, and allow us young bloods to help. God Bless the United States of America 03:18, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

An article by Kenny. Essentially, this is a Peruvian colony that he is trying to establish in Spain, which quite frankly violates canon as shown with regards to the SAC nations. Would there be any objections to marking it obsolete, Kenny aside? Lordganon 09:28, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal has JUST been put up, and has ONLY been discussed by LG and Kenny within the last 24 hours. It would not be appropriate to mark it as obsolete so soon. That is, "quite frankly," a powerplay on the part of an administrator to "win" an argument. Sorry, LG, but this article needs to be discussed openly, giving the WHOLE community a chance to weigh the evidence. Having read both Kenny and LG's arguments, I can say its nearly a draw. There needs to be more discussion - and time - before marking this "Obsolete." SouthWriter 14:44, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

More like me trying to get it out in the open, because the thing violates canon and no one else can be bothered to actually say so on the talk page of the article without it being posted here, lol. Fault kenny for not posting it here. Proposal's about a week old, now. Lordganon 00:49, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, LG, the proposal template DOES say it was to be discussed here. Since you had to post the notice here, he didn't read that part either. Even so, it appears he was making a valiant effort at the discussion page of the article -- an obvious place to discuss the particulars. So, people, go on over to the article -- and the discussion page -- and check it out. Kenny's research is impressive, but LG's points have a lot of merit as well. SouthWriter 01:40, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh, sorry about that. The argument was posted on Castellón's talk page and I responded it there. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:02, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * As the argument continues, does anyone dispute on the fact that Castelló de la Plana would have famine to the point that only 10% to 40% of the population would remain, but it would not be completely wiped out? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 06:15, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

As I have pointed out repeatedly on the talk page of this attempt at an article, there are perfectly valid reasons for 0% to 30% to remain. Not that you'll ever get that. Lordganon 17:07, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll make it from 10% to 30%. Can we drop the famine argument now? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 18:02, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

This has essentially been harmonized into a Free Trade Zone of the. See full discussion. At least User:SouthWriter has voiced approval. Any objections? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:45, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

No comments in a while. Can this be checked off the list? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:47, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

You have only covered one of the three recent objections I brought up on the talk page. So no, it can't. Lordganon 08:34, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

This article is created to flesh out what happened in Missouri to allow for an accurate picture of the present day. It stems from discussions elsewhere. It assumes the governor of Missouri escapes north beyond the Missouri River and cut off from both Joplin and Cape Girardeaux. SouthWriter 05:20, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Also added to flesh out Missouri. In this article I attempt to explain the fall of the third largest city in Missouri into the hands of criminals without their being a conflict with Joplin. This city is mentioned in the Missouri article as being the place where Lt. Gov. Rothman attempted a provisional government. SouthWriter 05:20, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Godzilla
An article on the Godzilla franchise by GB. Lordganon 14:10, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Lithuania
A Lithuanian survivor-state by Yank and myself. Lordganon 14:10, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Northern Alliance
Article by Vlad, long mentioned in the Afghanistan article. Lordganon 12:31, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

ASEAN
Article by Vlad for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Lordganon 12:31, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

The Ipswich Incident
Ongoing article. Semi-collaboration between Verence and I. Fegaxeyl 21:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

A Proposal by vegas that is attempting to fill in the "gap" mentioned by Brian earlier. Given all the work he already did in Botswana, and the current info on South Africa, it is really something I can't consider plausible in its current form. Lordganon 22:32, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

In the New Britain talk page we discussed that the Azanian League is centered around Johannesburg, and while nothing has been written on it, the AL's existence is pretty much considered Canon. So this could possibly be altered to be a constituent state of the AL, but currently doesn't fit.Oerwinde 08:09, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

An idea I've had since long ago for an ex-Soviet survivor state. Fed (talk) 01:41, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by GB not previously put here. It's got..... major issues, but is indeed a start. Lordganon 11:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal, more or less the successor to East Britain, by Mumby, not previously added to the list. Lordganon 11:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Given what this is, would there be any objections to just graduating it as a stub for now? Lordganon 15:04, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

As it is effectivly 'East Britain' by a different name I can see no problems with graduating it--Smoggy80 15:59, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by Smoggy, not previously added to the list. Lordganon 11:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Kenny, not previously listed, that deals with the "Andean Conflict" that he already removed/changed for the most part from the Peru article because it violated canon. Lordganon 11:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

More or less finished. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:47, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

A proposal article by Detectivekenny and me, about this post-DD organization in South America, predecessor of the SAC. --Katholico 22:22, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Survivor state in former Slovakia, by Jnjaycpa. Here's hoping that it doesn't end up like all of his other proposals and he actually works on it. Lordganon 08:00, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

New article to augment the article. I began where I "live" - with Presbyterianism. Additions are welcome and greatly desired. SouthWriter 22:38, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Article pertaining to my adopted proposal which was by Xi'Reney. Basically done, but for now I'm not going to put it up for graduation until I have the details about Ecuador straightened out. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:32, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Ecuador article is ready. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:27, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Article I created on a nation I created in part of Myanmar.

Yank 20:49, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article I created. I'm a sort of a history buff, but I need help developing the article. Please. 02:27, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Just no. You're making this article, which goes against both canon, the nature of the region post-DD, and the region in general, because that is where you are from and you want it independent as its own little nation.

It is not capable of any of it. The strike on Fairchild Air Force Base, the fighting afterwards, the Utah/NAU moving in to oust the bandits, etc. easily speak to that.

As I've stated a few times, this shows ignorance of the direction the timeline is headed in, and especially the history we have established as well.

And, why on earth would they want this, or be listened to by anyone? Seriously. There is no reason at all for either.

Lordganon 06:21, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really show an ignorance of the timeline. The US only recently took out Spokane, because as of last year it was still independent and struggling with Pasco for dominance of eastern Washington.Oerwinde 20:11, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is not said anywhere that it was "recent" - in fact, the Spokane bandits and other assorted scum were removed from power by Utah and the Navajo in 1993, not last year. They've been part of the new USA since, and there's only a few small lines in Pasco that hint at contradicting that, and they make no sense at all given what that article itself says earlier on and what history put in place long before in other nation histories say.

So yes, ignorance. Why on earth would they abandon the United States, to resurrect a "state" - not that that word describes it at all - like that? Really.

Lordganon 22:12, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on Pasco assumed that Spokane remained as a severely weakened city state and states that it was still dealing with Spokane patrols and such. This was long before the territory was added to the new USA. I was actually confused when the American Spring article mentioned Spokane being in US territory because they had been fighting Pasco. Spokane being absorbed by the US is totally fine though, but there would likely be some rogue elements, probably remnants of the former government wishing for the glory days of Spokane, which is where this fringe group could come in. Think of them like the BC separatist party, only more extreme. Probably classified as a terrorist group by the US government, and considered such by the majority of Spokane as well, who would rather not see a return to the warmongering ways of past.Oerwinde 23:33, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say more like the FLQ, myself. And it'd be warmongering and the destruction in general, given that it was a warlord state.

The Pasco discussion really doesn't mention anything, and there's only a pair of small lines in Pasco the make reference to it - but at the same time, everywhere else says that it doesn't happen. The Utah article says that they were destroyed and occupied, and the new USA article has included Spokane within its boundaries since you put up its first map on Jan 1st, 2010, and that particular state was made part of the "Union" in 1995, which naturally means that it would have been in that nation for a period beforehand, leading it to be since 1993 more likely than not - and the first Pasco references to Spokane were added by Mitro 11 days later.

Lordganon 09:42, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

USA didn't have Spokane in its boundaries until May 2010. The map I posted didn't have any territory within Washington State because at the time they didn't have any territory in Washington State. The Pasco references were added in February. Spokane territories in Idaho joined the union as the state of the same name. Utah broke the Spokanian forces then left. Those working on the Pasco article assumed Spokane had continued to exist but was reduced to the city and surrounding area, but they were rebuilding, hence skirmishes around Ellensburg and such. Again, I'm not against the USA taking it over, and with the USA, Pasco, and Victoria not really wanting a hostile state in the area, this is likely, but until May 2010 when South changed the map and references in the US article, Spokane was still independent.Oerwinde 10:11, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Beg my pardon there, Oer, the history seems to be screwed up and showing the new maps instead of the old ones like it has in the past and should still be doing. Apologies.

Either way though, the discussion about Pasco assumed its survival, despite it being occupied by Utah, even though they left eventually, after aiding the locals in establishes militias. It does not say when they left the area, only that they continued to fight with holdouts periodically afterwards, though without an indication of exactly where that happened. Makes no sense to have assumed it survived in any form, at all.

And, the Lincoln state article actually says that the four/five easternmost counties of former Washington State joined that provisional government in 1994/1995, just before it joined the new USA.

The Pasco article would be more so referring to the previously-mentioned holdouts, not any state - and it's not possible for that scum to still be around today. I'll edit the Utah History and the Pasco article a touch to... clarify this.

Lordganon 09:30, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

And, on their ignorance..... the person who attempted this, Oer, has no idea at all as to what the "Spokane" state was, and it's pretty obvious. At best, it's a bunch of feudal militia and white supremacists, and there is no way on earth that they'd garner any realistic support of any kind - that's why this isn't at all possible. And any left from the old scum groups after the war itself would either be dead, or hiding so far under the mountains that dwarfs couldn't find them. Like I said, it's just someone else trying to make their hometown into the center of a survivor nation, no matter how little sense it makes. Lordganon 09:54, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Just to nitpick again, the Lincoln article was created after the Pasco stuff as well. So the Pasco mention of a rivalry with Spokane predates all mention of the area being part of the US.Oerwinde 06:23, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, but even the Pasco article didn't actually say that it was still there, just that their patrols and influence was, which can mean a number of things, and only one of those is their continued existence - and that is really impossible, given the Utah stuff, which definitely predates it. It's pretty obvious to me that this person that tried this just saw the USA article and went from there, without reading anything else. Lordganon 07:53, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Former Nations - Scotland (1983:Doomsday)
Article created by me to effectively archive a large section of my Scotland page--Smoggy80 11:02, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't making a "History of Scotland" page be a better idea? Lordganon 10:59, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose? however it mostly focuses on the former nations that existed in Scotland rather than a general history of the area.--Smoggy80 14:13, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

That describes a "History of Scotland" page exactly. The nation-article is called "Scotland," so the "History of Scotland" would be the history of that nation, not of the area. Lordganon 19:34, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

renamed it History of Scotland--Smoggy80 17:21, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

The third, long destroyed, Bulgarian nation I've hinted at in the Rhodope and Vidin histories. Will explain the Soviet forces encountered by both in much greater depth. Lordganon 10:59, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Professional wrestling
Article on 'rasslin in the post-Doomsday world, by me. Ideas and proposals are welcomed, but remember the cut-off date is 1983, before the WWF went national. BrianD 05:45, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Scotland News: 2011 (1983: Doomsday)
Archiving scottish news--Smoggy80 17:22, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Leavenworth Bavarian Republic
A future/proposed article about what Leavenworth, a mock-Bavarian themed town on the eastern foothills of the Cascades near Wenatchee, famous for it's apples, would be like if mankind was almost destroyed by nukes.

~Istoria

Well, for starters, you don't add newsbits about articles that are proposals, especially ones that aren't even made yet, to the front page.

That being said, if this were a survivor state in any form, it would have been known to both Pasco and Victoria for quite some time, not discovered recently.

It's not a bad idea, mind. Plausible location, and the right type of settlement to survive.

Lordganon 06:05, June 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * The 'recent discovery' phenomenon has been dealt with elsewhere. The problem is, earlier writers make claims about an area that then is accepted by everyone else. The fact that some place is not included as being known to locals then presents a roadblock to later writers as they try to integrate a new settlement into the larger picture. Most of the time, writers just assume a self-sufficiency and isolationism in the community and leave it at that. Unless a previous writer has written an area out as 'wasteland' by observation, though, any settlement is possible. I am not sure about the "Republic" idea, though. A tourist town would not have the resources to be an independent 'nation.' However, the whole of Chelan County might relocate its government there for some reason, thus creating a unique 'republic' based on the 'Bavarian' theme. SouthWriter 12:55, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. Simply calling it "Leavenworth," in a manner like the other articles for small city-states would be the right path. Lordganon 16:22, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

I've created the page for this country. Here's what I did so far: []

=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.

Vatican
I am putting this article under review to settle the issue of who the pope is. The whole idea of 27 years without a pope was ludicrous, but somehow past muster in the original proposal stage. I will bring the discussion from above down here after a few hours unless some one else does. SouthWriter 21:08, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

(Discussion moved)

I've been asking on the Vatican page for over a year now a simple question, if a new pope was elected on the 9th of April 2010 who is he?

Would anyone mind if I add the name as Pope Clement XV born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the former Archbishop of Buenos Aires?

~smoggy


 * Well, i agree with the idea of that an latinamerican bishop should be elect as new Pope. And about Bergoglio, according the rumors he was the main challenger of Ratzinger in OTL, i think could be a good option. Another good name for me could be the brazilian cardinal Cláudio Hummes, former archbishop of São Paulo. Regards! --Katholico 18:42, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, much better. People will actually notice this.

My main issue with this is that we've always had issues with the Vatican article. It's really.... not that great at this point. Assumptions have been made about Cardinals, etc, that really should not have been made. The Archbishop of Rio, for instance, as listed in the article, is the otl one, but there is no body to actually make that happen. Same goes for the proposed candidates. While none of the archbishops surviving would be eligible, they'd still be the ones in charge.

Of the ones from the last conclave atl prior to this, Cardinals Luis Aponte Martínez of Puerto Rico, Eugênio Sales of Rio (the one who would actually have governed the conclave and been the camel~), Michael Michai Kitbunchu of Bangkok, Alexandre do Nascimento of Angola, Thomas Stafford Williams of New Zealand, and Paulo Evaristo Arns of Sao Paulo, are the survivors/ones age did not kill. They'd be the ones governing it the proceedings, though not eligible to be elected. José Freire Falcão of Brazillia, also not eligible by age and a former otl cardinal but not in 1983, would aid them.

Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga of Honduras, Jorge Bergoglio of Buenos Aries, Cláudio Hummes of Sao Paulo, and Norberto Rivera Carrera of Mexico, considered slightly papabile in 2005, are all possibilities. So are Nicolás de Jesús López Rodríguez of Santo Domingo, Rodolfo Quezada Toruño of Guatemala, Juan Sandoval Íñiguez of Mexico, Geraldo Majella Agnelo of Brazil, Pedro Rubiano Sáenz of Columbia, and Julio Terrazas Sandoval of Bolivia, all participants in 2005 but not considered to have been likely to made pope. All are possibilities.

As for who would be voting? Got me there, to be honest. We've never actually decided.

Also, why would the electors from the rest of the world agree to an SAC pope? It's the same issues as otl with the USA, or throughout history with world powers. A Latin pope, from the Caribbean, or Central America, is more likely.

I agree a South or Latin American is the most likely. But we're not declaring a pope unilaterally.

Lordganon 19:22, April 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG, I was wondering which page to put this. So here it is -- Why NOT declare a pope - a living person in OTL who is eligible? And where else but on the talk page of the Vatican article - since the article is NOT a proposal? Changes made to canonized articles (interesting term, being we're talking Vatican) should be vetted on the talk page of that article, not on the "main talk page." Otherwise, the main talk page gets crowded with all kinds of stuff!


 * Personally, LG, I think you are overstepping your bounds as a lieutenant. But then, it may just be a difference in management style. Lighten up, if you can. This is not an issue worth alienating editors over. I propose that the Catholic and/or Hispanic editors form the "conclave" and decide this. Elsewhere I vented my wonderment that the choice of a new pope would have taken 27 years. I wasn't satisfied with the answer then, but it seemed to be the accepted way to go, so I went with it. SouthWriter 21:23, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

The Pope is something that we all should have input on, especially our Catholic and Hispanic Editors, who have a better idea, though by far not only them. On a side article like the Vatican, there's a good chance of it being missed, which is why no one noticed it - heck, I don't even think I noticed it. Debate is always a good thing, and we've never simply "declared" things around here on this level.

There is really one little change I mentioned in all of that, and a technicality at best. The position of Pope is something that could very well impact the entire timeline, given the number of Catholics, meaning it should be discussed here. We've tried to get it done before, and it's high time we actually did it.

As for your issue with me, as we have discussed in the past, please take up such things on my talk page. Not here.

Lordganon 00:54, April 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, you sort of agree with me -- Catholics have a better idea of how this might work. It seems that the credentials of the creator of the article are suspect, though the article seems to have been well researched. If this were Wikipedia, there would be references so we non-Catholics might have a better idea about where the editor is coming from. As far as where the debate should be -- there seems to have been a LOT of debate on the Vatican page as it was being written -- and even as it was still a proposal. It was almost decided WHO the pope was going to be, though there were some opposing views so it was not written in. And then, there was discussion as to what he was to be called, but no consensus (though Mjdoch seemed to like John XXIV). It was there that Smoggy first went last August:


 * Will the name of the new pope be put on the main article or is there still some debate over the name?--Smoggy80 19:24, August 19, 2010 (UTC) 


 * She patiently waited six months (Feb 13) before bringing it up again, and then another two after that. Getting no answer, it was then three weeks and she made the change. This not being a Proposal, and the discussion having been vented fully eight months ago . For his part Mjdoch mysteriously had put it off preferring to see what was happening to the Church around the world first, and then finally making his final post on April 9, 2010, never getting back to the name, or the person. His answer was to pronounce the thing in Latin!


 * Having seen a seemingly good article abandoned by its creator, it probably seemed logical to assume that no one was interested. Most any of us would have gone to the article itself to consider a change. The person of the pope does not usually matter in the Church unless he begins making contrary proclamations that go against canon (literally), and that is not likely to happen when the Vatican goes 27 years before chosing a new pope!


 * My suggestion for a quick solution is to go with Mudoch's choice of John XXIV and create a character who grew up into prominence since Doomsday. We could even use a real person picked from the bishops, or even pastors, of the Church in the 1980's. For ease of transition, I'd go with a generic Hispanic Catholic priest from Brasil (since most of the popes have come from the nation where the Vatican is) and have him choose the name John XXIV. SouthWriter 03:22, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Whether we discuss this issue on the Vatican page or here, it needs to be discussed, and is one of those issues that should have been dealt with long ago but for whatever reason wasn't. So here we are. I'll give my opinion, bear in mind that I'm Protestant and not Roman Catholic (and therefore generally defer to other editors familiar with Catholicism).

I agree with LG: it's high time we addressed this issue.

When I think of a post-DD Pope, I am thinking that he would have been established long ago, that church officials in Brazil would not have waited 28 years to get around to it. It's highly probable to me that the first post-DD Pope would have been South American, Mexican or Caribbean. Remember the state of the world in the 1980s. If that era is when you have the election of the new Pope, then they're not going to get any further than Mexico and the Caribbean, and possibly Oceania.

The further you move the election in the timeline, the more you open up other nations and their candidates to have a say. IMO, however, I can't see the officials in Rio de Janeiro leaving the Papal seat vacant for too long. In fact in the timeline, not only would the first post-DD Pope be known, but there possibly may be a second or even third post-DD Pope. BrianD 03:00, April 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Brian, I had been working on the response above for a while and got the conflict when I hit "Publish." In principle, I agree with you. I pointed it out in discussion somewhere and got some answer about the seriousness of the decision. Above, LG seems to think the choice of the pope might make a difference in the time line. For all his scholarship, Mjdoch is/was an admitted atheist writing about religion. The discussion was not joined by many Catholics that I could tell. Anyway, I agree in principle, that there would be some sort of move on the part of the Catholic community quite soon. John Paul II was one of the longest serving popes, so you might be right about the 2nd or 3rd pope by now. And that being said, my suggestion about creating a generic pope might just be a good idea. SouthWriter 03:22, April 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * The first time that I saw the article of the Vatican, also i asked me why there was still not solved the matter of the new Pope. Just now that I have familiarized myself with the wikia and the timeline, I begin to be interested in the article. Now that I read his comments and proposals, I must say that I coincide with the idea of 27 years for choose a Pope is a lot of time, and the Vatican in Brazil already would have chosen very much before a new Pope of between the bishops of Latin America (Mexico, Caribbean, South America) and probably Oceania. And the idea of SouthWriter about a "generic pope" (or use real bishop from brazil in those years) seems to me a good, rapid solution. This Pope could be elect between 1986 and 1989, and reign a couple of years, and then will succeeded by another Pope, but chosen with the participation of catholic authorities from more nations in the post-DD world. Well, this think by moment. Regards! --Katholico 04:22, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that it's kind of silly that it would take so long. I do think that it could make a difference who it is, as different people do act differently.

Thing is, Brazil, for a pope in the 1980s, may work. But, after that, you run into problems - no pope has ever been chosen from the strongest powers, which hurts the SAC countries, especially Brazil. The stronger the SAC gets - and this applies to the ANZC too - the less likely they are to come from those areas. The thing that got all the popes from Italy had more to do with fears over movement, which by this time had become unfounded.

What I think that we should do is put the article under review, and fix it. We all agree that the time notion is out of whack. Two popes, first one likely Brazilian, and the Second likely someone else Latin outside the SAC. We should be able to find real people easily enough. Heck, I made a list here of possibles, lol.

Lordganon 07:16, April 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Katholico. I agree with LG, the confusion over this should have put this in review long ago. However, the reasoning as to why the pope was usually from the Italian peninsula is dubious. The reason that the pope was chosen in pre-modern times had everything to do with "strongest powers." The pope would only be chosen from among active Catholic communities anyway, which in modern times were NOT the strongest powers. I liked your list, though, LG. SouthWriter 16:08, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

So can we say that there have been three Popes since DD? Maybe 1st one elected in '86 to '98, one from '98 to 2010 and then the current one 2010 onwards.

Then you've got the whole argument of names of Popes, real people behind the names, where they've come from, I agree with everyone that South American Pope would be more likely (that's why I recommended an Argentinian) but there are many Catholic countries around the world, the Philippines, many Caribbean Islands nations (like Cuba) are mostly Catholic and also there are a substantial population of Catholics in Central Africa so a Pope could come from many places--Smoggy80 18:57, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

At the same time South, while you're right, you're also missing that they haven't even been considered. For instance, in 2005, two Americans were considered "papabili" in theory, but not a soul thought they had any chance, the odds given for their election being obscene in size.

In the Middle ages, following the Avingon debacle, all Popes until John Paul were from Italy, so as to not risking that happening again. The French thing happened because the French King was strong enough, and the French Pope biased. The fear of it happening again, should someone from a state strong enough to actually do it become pope, was all too real, netting Italians the job for centuries.

Today, this is still present, just not to the same extent. The Americans wouldn't get it otl, and while it may be easier for SAC countries to get it, I sincerely doubt that the Cardinals would vote like that.

With it being in Rome, Italy does have tons of influence over the Pope, though most forget that and the Italians don't use it. Atl, with it being Rio, the same thing applies to Brazil, to a certain extent - but, Brazil atl is much stronger than Italy has ever been, which hurts their odds.

Central Africa, given the chaos still reigning there today atl, is highly unlikely. Most likely, if there was three, one would be SAC, in retrospect not Brazilian, another from Central America/Caribbean/Mexico, and the third from someplace else, though not likely the SAC in my mind.

But, given how long popes can live - JP did live a touch long, but not by all that much - in the modern era especially, I think two is an option too, and more likely to me. It just depends on who we pick.

Would there be objections to the Vatican Article being put up for review? It seems like we are all talking about changing parts of it now, lol, so it sounds reasonable to do.

Lordganon 20:52, April 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm moving the discussion to the Review section and putting the DDReview template up. We can continue the discussion there. My suggestion, though, is to have two popes, having elected one around 1987 (I'm thinking Brazil, but note LG's point) and another around 2000 (perhaps from the Philippines) who would be the present pope. In my opinion, neither Africa nor Cuba would work due to ongoing communism and other unstable governments. John Paul II only worked because of the fall of communism in Poland. SouthWriter 20:44, April 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * 1987 is a good year, due to the time that would need the church to reorganize and to try to contact some surviving catholic communities to proceed to choose a new Pope. A Philippine Pope is interesting option, in special because the Asian continent is a place dominated by other religions. But also I consider as an option, a Pope of Mexico (a very catholic country). Anyway, the discussion about the matter must give an option in which all us we will agree with. :) Regards! --Katholico 21:57, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

All right, surviving cardinals for 1987, by my best guess of survival from DD and being in contact to be part of this:


 * José Salazar López, Archbishop of Guadalajara (dies 1991)
 * Eugênio de Araújo Sales, Archbishop of São Sebastião de Rio de Janeiro (alive)
 * Paulo Evaristo Arns, OFM, Archbishop of São Paulo (alive)
 * Aloísio Lorscheider, OFM, Archbishop of Fortaleza (dies 2007)
 * Alfredo Scherer, Archbishop of Porto Alegre (non-voting, 80 in 1983 and dies 1996)
 * Juan Carlos Aramburu, Archbishop of Buenos Aires (dies 2004)
 * Raúl Francisco Primatesta, Archbishop of Córdoba (dies 2006)
 * Raúl Silva Henríquez, SDB, Archbishop of Santiago (dies 1999, non-voting after DD anni 1987)
 * Pablo Muñoz Vega, SJ, Archbishop of Quito (dies 1994, 80 in 1984, non-voting)
 * Juan Landázuri Ricketts, OFM, Archbishop of Lima (dies 1997)
 * Octavio Beras Rojas, Archbishop of Santo Domingo (dies 1990, 80 in 1986, no-voting)
 * Luis Aponte Martínez, Archbishop of San Juan (alive)
 * Thomas Stafford Williams of Wellington (alive)
 * Pio Taofinu'u, SM, Bishop of Samoa and Tokelau (dies 2006)
 * Justinus Darmojuwono, Archbishop of Semarang (dies 1994)
 * Thomas Cooray, OMI, Archbishop of Colombo (dies 1988)
 * Lawrence Picachy, SJ, Archbishop of Calcutta (dies 1992)
 * Owen McCann, Archbishop of Cape Town (dies 1994, if atl does not manage before)
 * Ernesto Corripio y Ahumada of Mexico City (dies 2008)
 * José Lebrún Moratinos of Caracas (dies 2001)
 * Alfonso López Trujillo of Medellin (dies 2008)
 * Alexandre do Nascimento of Luanda (alive it not killed by post-DD chaos)
 * Mario Revollo Bravo of Bogota (dies 1995)
 * Bernard Yago of Ivory Coast (dies 1997 if not killed by post-DD stuff)
 * Dominic Ekandem of Nigeria (dies 1995 if not killed by post-Dd stuff)

I've included death years, and age data where it would matter for the proceedings.

South's Dates are good, in my opinion. Going by that, either Raúl Silva Henríquez, SDB, Archbishop of Santiago, or José Lebrún Moratinos of Caracas would be very good for in 1987. Myself, I'd do Raul, simply because in such a time, experience would be something that is definitely in demand, and it fits the dates roughly. Something more Hispanic, or tribute in some way to JP II, would be best as a name, in my opinion.

Alfredo Scherer, Archbishop of Porto Alegre, being the eldest, or Pablo Muñoz Vega, SJ, Archbishop of Quito, next oldest, would have most likely have been in charge.

I think that with Cardinals past 1987, we just go with the idea that otl ones, if possible, become such here too. Past that, we have the structure to make up, and will need to find a few more to fill in gaps, maybe.

Lordganon 23:36, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

I have made a preliminary update to the article, with the net result being to update the dates as has been discussed, remove inconsistencies, and to re-organize it somewhat. Need a choice on the 1987 Pope now, lol. Lordganon 09:42, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: While Mjoch was correct about the idea of the sede vacante and the transfer, he seems to have assumed a lot more than that. The decree, according to my research, only applies to how power, etc. is transferred, not a location which it would be transferred to. Thus, the references to Rio have been switched for a kind of "overall" cardinal message. Lordganon 10:52, April 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * The list is very good LG. About the options, i agree with you about Monseñior Silva Henriquez and your experience, becuase he was part of the Vatican II Council, but this is a preliminary opinion. Maybe I need read more about the others cardinals. By thw way, Mario Revollo only was Cardinal in 1988. Regards! :) --Katholico 19:32, April 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * I take it, then, that the rebuilding (or re-establishment) of Vatican City is still up for consideration. What are the chances of it being established in northern Italy, perhaps even within the Alpine Confederation? Being in Europe would be a continuation of the historical roots, even if it weren't in Rome. Personally, I think than the new Vatican might be well-placed near, or within, the city of Venice. Near would work better, I guess, as to keep it safe from attack and disruption via the canals in the city. Just some thoughts. --SouthWriter 20:05, April 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * This hipotetic reestablishment of the Vatican on Europe will be took place after the reorganization and the post-DD Conclave in Brasil, South? Regards! --Katholico 00:30, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, hypothetically, Vatican City could bebuilt in northern Italy under the protection of the Alpine Confederation. It would be sometime in the 1990's after stability had been reached in the area. Perhaps the first pope to live there will be the successor to John XXIV in 2000. SouthWriter 01:29, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to establish then when South America discovered that the Alpine Confederation existed, and how the situation with Venice and Sicily would have affected the South American RCC's thought process on building the new Vatican. Perhaps that is still under discussion, with the European Catholics in favor and the South American Catholics preferring the perceived safer Rio?--BrianD 01:37, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Undertood South, thanks. I agree with Brian, this matter would generate a lot of debate on the post-DD Catholic Church, but obviously the safety of Rio is an good point for the rebuilding of the Vatican there. Still, the return to Europe, seems to me interesting, but there must be enough support. --Katholico 03:11, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Katholico, the safety of Rio is exactly what I had in mind. Even if the Alpines were known by the Brazilians in 1987, I doubt that the officials there would sign off on relocating to what they understood to be an uncertain, potentially hostile situation in Italy. I also think the rebuilding of Vatican City would be a very long term project. The 1990s would be way too soon (sorry South).
 * The way I see it: the Catholic church splinters for a time into numerous factions, due largely to the fact that WW III (Doomsday) fractured communications across the planet. The largest faction, of course, is in South America/Central America/Mexico/Caribbean, and the church would be centered in Rio. Smaller factions would exist in the various surviving nations around the world; see here for my attempt to explain how that would work in North America. Some, like the Celtic Church, would break from Rome completely.
 * As the various nations became aware of South America, their RCCs would have to choose whether to accept Rio as authoritative or go another direction; starting with the Commonwealth and the Phillippines, and West Texas, Catholic archdioceses and dioceses would gradually rejoin the greater church.
 * As the situation in Europe calmed down, and the area around Rome was reclaimed and made safe, the RCC may follow up on long-discussed plans to rebuild Vatican City. Or not. Rome has historical significance, obviously, but no one's going to be able to live there for decades.
 * BrianD 03:32, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * BrianD 03:32, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, i see you point and i agree. The opition to return Europe is interesting, but obviously would have problems. Your appreciation of the situation of the Church to global level, seems to me to be guessed right. And the reconstruction of the Vatican City itself is certainly something that will take a long time. --Katholico 04:05, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Raúl Silva Henríquez works for me as the first post-Doomsday pope, as does the designation of John XXIV. Katholico's suggestion of a Mexican pope is an excellent idea as well. --BrianD 00:39, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with Cardinal Henríquez. I'll have to go over the choices as to the 1999 election, though. SouthWriter 01:29, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

All right, glad to see that we can decide on that. John XXIV sounds like a good name.

Kath, no idea why that one came up as pre-1983 in what I was looking at - not that I remember that, lol - but you are correct, as wiki lists 1988. Heh.

Given the political situation in Italy, and even more so in the area of former Rome, I doubt that any kind of movement is possible anytime in the near future. It's just not safe, nor could they honestly decide where to put it. The Alpine territory is a no-go, given the large number of Protestants there - I just don't see Catholics going for it. Anything else is just not secure enough. Rome itself, given its position more or less at the border between everyone and the Sicilians, is out. Rio, in my opinion, is probably going to be permanent.

I'd forgotten about your list, Brian, and it really..... ignores quite a bit on its list. You've got these things covering many countries each, which isn't something that is really done by the Church, and it kinda ignores the number of them that actually exist in North America otl. Should be up for review as well, or at least edited to be more accurate. For example, Canada atl, even ignoring Kingston and Thunder Bay, has 4 E. Provinces, which wouldn't change. I do agree with the sentiment about them operating on their own, mind.

I've been working on a list of Cardinals from otl who would be alive and in contact atl, should be done soon. Big list. Very big list.

Lordganon 08:41, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG, just for to clarify, i forget to correct a point about Raul Silva: He was Archbishop of Santiago until May 3, 1983, and then it was succeeded by Juan Francisco Fresno. (He remain as Cardinal, Not to confuse). --Katholico 16:41, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG, I respect your skill as a historian, but there seems to be some flaw in some of your logic. The fact that the Alpine Confederation controls northern Italy does not mean that the predominant church there is Protestant. In our time line, Switzerland is with the southern cantons being in the south next to northern Italy which would indeed be Catholic. My suggestion was for Venice or Genoa, and that only AFTER the Sicilian situation had been stabilized. The point was that the Church would probably want to establish the Vatican "back home" with ancient roots. Catholicism in the western hemisphere is younger than the Reformation and is riddled with synchronization far beyond what it was in Europe. If the Catholic Church is to remain true to its canon, then it will likely seek to rebuild in Italy (or maybe Israel). SouthWriter 17:45, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG, no problem on revising the lists for North America.--BrianD 17:49, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

My bad, Kath. These sources are not all kosher, if you catch my drift, lol.

Not what I said, South. I was referring to why it couldn't be in the Confederation itself. Italy itself is different.

It makes sense historically, and traditionally, to have it move back to Italy, but the situation there isn't going to correct itself anytime soon. A movement back to Italy, eventually, may be possible, but by that point, the Church, in my own opinion, will be too established in Rio, and it won't move from there.

Go over the NA list, guys - still fiddling with it, but it seems better now, I think.

Lordganon 10:25, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Good lord, this took a while. Complied this list from otl Cardinal lists, a ton of news articles, as well as a few deductions on my part, and promotions based on surviving areas, archbishoprics, etc. Death reasons for not being elected, and other notes, are attached as well. So, for a vote in April of 1999 those eligible, roughly grouped, to vote are:


 * José Freire Falcão, of Brasilia
 * Eusébio Scheid, of Florianópolis, Brazil
 * Paulo Evaristo Arns, of Sao Paulo(voted in 1987 conclave)
 * Eugênio de Araújo Sales of Rio (voted in 1987 conclave)
 * Aloísio Lorscheider, Emeritus of Fortaleza (just a voter, dies 2007) (considered papabile in 1978 by some) (voted in 1987 conclave)
 * Serafim Fernandes de Araújo, of Belo Horizonte
 * Jorge María Mejía, Emeritus of Buenos Aires
 * Carlos José Ñáñez, of Córdoba
 * Estanislao Esteban Karlic, of Paraná, Argentina
 * Luis Sánchez-Moreno Lira, of Arequipa, Peru (dies 2009, no elect)
 * Alfonso López Trujillo of Medellín, Columbia (dies 2008, so no elect) (Papabile otl 2005)
 * Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, of Santiago, Chile
 * Manuel Gerardo Donoso Donoso, of La Serena, Chile
 * Antonio Moreno Casamitjana, of Concepción, Chile
 * Pedro Rubiano Sáenz, of Bogotá, Columbia
 * Antonio Ignacio Velasco Garcia, of Caracas, Venezuela (dies 2003, just a voter)
 * Ramón Ovidio Pérez Morales, of Maracaibo, Venezuela
 * Julio Terrazas Sandoval, of Santa Cruz, Bolivia
 * Edmundo Luis Flavio Abastoflor, of La Paz, Bolivia
 * Antonio José González Zumárraga, of Quito (just a voter, dies 2009)
 * José Gottardi Cristelli, of Montevideo, Uruguay (dies 2005, no elect)
 * Felipe Santiago Benítez Ávalos, of Asunción, Paraguay (dies 2002, no elect)


 * Javier Lozano Barragán of Zacatecas, Mexico
 * Adolfo Antonio Suárez Rivera, of Monterrey, Mexico (dies 2008, no elect)
 * Ernesto Corripio y Ahumada, Emeritus of Mexico City (dies 2008, no elect)
 * Miguel Obando y Bravo, of Managua, Nicaragua
 * Próspero Penados del Barrio, of Guatemala City (dies 2005, no elect)
 * Luis Aponte Martínez, of San Juan (voted in 1987 conclave)
 * Adolfo Rodríguez Herrera, of Camagüey, Cuba (dies 2003, no elect)


 * Alphonsus Liguori Penney, of St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada
 * Remi De Roo, of Victoria, Victoria
 * Patrick Zurek, of Midland in Texas
 * Robert Edward Mulvee, of Manchester in Vermont
 * John J. Snyder, of St. Augustine, Florida


 * John Alexius Bathersby, of Brisbane, Australia
 * Leonard Anthony Faulkner, of Adelaide, Australia
 * Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, of Dili, Timor
 * Brian James Barnes, of Port Morseby, New Guinea
 * Thomas Stafford Williams, of Wellington (voted in 1987 conclave)
 * Pio Taofinu'u, of Samoa (voted in 1987 conclave) (dies 2006, no elect)
 * Ricardo Vidal, of Cebu, Philippines
 * Jose Tomas Sanchez, of Nueva Segovia, Philippines
 * Jaime Sin, of Manilla, Philippines (dies 2005, just a voter) (voted in 1978 conclave)


 * Telesphore Toppo, of Ranchi, India
 * Mar Varkey Vithayathil, of Ernakulam-Angamaly, India (dies 2011, no elect)
 * Simon Pimenta, Emiritus of Bombay
 * Michael Michai Kitbunchu, of Bangkok
 * Nicolas Cheong Jin-suk, of Kaesong, Korea
 * Paul Shan Kuo-hsi, of Kaohsiung, Taiwan
 * Nguyen Van Thuan, of Saigon, Vietnam (dies 2002) (thought to have been papabile before his death)
 * Oswald Gomis, of Columbo, Sri Lanka
 * Domingos Lam Ka Tseung, of Macau (dies 2009, no elect)
 * Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, of Maronite Church, Lebanon


 * Bernard Agré, of Abidjan, Ivory Coast
 * Frédéric Etsou-Nzabi-Bamungwabi, of Kinshasa, Zaire (dies 2007, no elect)
 * Anthony Olubunmi Okogie, of Lagos, Nigeria
 * Armand Razafindratandra, of Antananarivo, Madagascar (dies 2010, no elect)
 * Christian Tumi, of Douala, Cameroon
 * Emmanuel Wamala, of Kampala, Former Uganda
 * Alexandre do Nascimento, of Luanda, Angola (voted in 1987)
 * Alexandre José Maria dos Santos, of Maputo, Mozambique
 * Robert Sarah, of Conakry, Guinea
 * Hyacinthe Thiandoum, of Dakar, Senegal (dies 2004, just a voter)
 * Paulos Tzadua, of Addia Abba, Ethiopia (dies 2003, no elect)
 * Basile Mvé Engone, of Libreville, Gabon
 * Youhannes Ezzat Zakaria Badir, of Coptic Catholic Church, Alexandria, Egypt
 * Henri Antoine Marie Teissier, of Algiers


 * Ramón Echarren Istúriz, of the Canaries
 * Aurélio Granada Escudeiro, of the Azores
 * Desmond Connell, of Dublin
 * Marco Cé, of Venice
 * Josip Mrzljak, of Zagreb, Croatia
 * Antonio María Rouco Varela, of Santiago de Compostela, Galicia-Spain
 * Henri Schwery, of Sion, Switzerland
 * Kurt Koch, of Basel, Switzerland
 * Georg Eder, of Salzburg, Austria
 * Silvano Piovanelli, of Prato, Florence, Tuscany
 * Angelo Bagnasco, of Genoa
 * Alexandru Todea, of Romanian Church United with Rome, Romania (dies 2002, just voter)
 * Antónios Varthalítis, of Corfu (dead 2007, no elect)
 * Charles Amarin Brand, of Monaco
 * Antanas Vaicius, of Telšiai, Lithuania


 * Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, nee' Italy, of Nicaragua/Honduras (Survived due to being diplomat, Church Admin)
 * Sergio Sebastiani, nee'Italy, of Madagascar (Survived due to being diplomat, Church Admin)
 * Carlo Furno, nee' Italy, of Brazil (Survived due to being diplomat, Church Admin)
 * Edward Idris Cassidy, nee' Australia, of South Africa (Survived due to being diplomat, Church Admin)

Now, separate from that list, and really just an excerpt from it, these are all the surviving cardinals from otl I could find that I dug up a reference to them being papabile, without a death reference being attached:


 * Angelo Sodano, nee' Italy, of Chile (Papabile otl 2005) (Survived due to being diplomat, Church Admin)
 * Keith Michael Patrick O'Brien of Aberdeen and St. Andrews (Papabile otl 2005)
 * Wilfrid Napier, of Durban, Former South Africa (considered papabile for the future otl)
 * Peter Turkson, of Cape Coast, Ghana (considered papabile for the future otl)
 * Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa, Honduras (Papabile otl 2005) (considered papabile for the future otl)
 * Odilo Scherer, of Curitiba (considered papabile for the future otl)
 * Jorge Bergoglio of Buenos Aires (Papabile otl 2005)
 * Geraldo Majella Agnelo of Salvador (Papabile otl 2005)
 * Cláudio Hummes of Fortaleza (Papabile otl 2005)
 * Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne of Lima (Papabile otl 2005)
 * Norberto Rivera Carrera of Mexico City (Papabile otl 2005)
 * Francis Arinze of Onitsha, Nigeria (Papabile otl 2005)
 * Ivan Dias of Bombay, India (Papabile otl 2005)
 * Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, of Guadalajara, Mexico (considered Papabile in some circles)
 * Julius Darmaatmadja, of Semarang, Indonesia (considered Papabile in some circles)
 * Nicolás de Jesús López Rodríguez, of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (considered Papabile in some circles)

Now, I had to think a great deal about things past this point. The way I see it:


 * Sodano, given all things from otl and atl, would be likely seen as too close to the Pope, though as with Ratzinger otl, that may not matter much
 * Really don't see any Africans or Europeans as being likely.
 * Brazil really wouldn't happen, I'd expect.
 * SAC members are better than Brazil, but it is almost impossible for another at this time, given the political situation. They just couldn't get the votes.
 * Asians are also not likely, though it's more of a numbers case.
 * I only was able to find one reference to Íñiguez and Rodríguez being thought of as Papabile, and they may have just been opinion on the part of the author.
 * Most of the remainder of Latin American Cardinals would likely be too controversial, given the political situation internationally otl
 * Mexico, however, is exempted from this, given that the ANZC and SAC see them as kind of a neutral player between them

So, with all of this, by my best guess, the top 5 choices are:


 * 1) Norberto Rivera Carrera of Mexico City
 * 2) Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa, Honduras
 * 3) Angelo Sodano, nee' Italy, of Chile (Church Admin)
 * 4) Nicolás de Jesús López Rodríguez, of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
 * 5) Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, of Guadalajara, Mexico

And, name ideas for the top 2:


 * Norberto Rivera Carrera: Clement XV or Paul VII, named after Popes that were in power when the Mexico City Diocese was made, and then made an Archdiocese.
 * Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga: Pius XIII, for the Pope when his Diocese was founded. At a stretch, given that it would mirror otl so closely, we could also use Benedict XVI, named for the Pope when it was made an Archdiocese.

My preference would be for the Pope elected at the 1999 conclave in the ATL to be Norberto Rivera Carrera, taking the name Clement XV.

Thoughts?

Lordganon 14:10, May 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * As i said before, i would like the idea that the second Pope be a Mexican, because the important catholicism in these country. About the name, for me Paul VII is the option. Regards! PS: Other Cardinal at this time was Jorge Medina Estévez (February 23, 1998) Cardinal Protodeacon during the OTL 2005 Conclave. --Katholico 20:26, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

I saw, and still see, no reason at all for him to be named a cardinal atl. Otl it was very much an honorary thing for him, and did not happen until after Doomsday. By my best guess he would remain at the university in Santiago, where he would be needed more. Lordganon 20:42, May 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your point LG, you're right. :) --Katholico 22:13, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Consensus seems very strong for making this change. By 1987 it must have been certain even to optimists that John Paul II was dead. The Latin American church leaders saw the need for a leader - but obviously it would not have been possible to convene bishops from anywhere outside Latin America. As the "sphere of communication" expanded, would Catholics of other regions have been offended at the "presumption" of the Latin American church? Another intriguing possibility - suppose other regions took similar steps? In Italy in particular, devastated as it was, there would have been a slew of surviving bishops... what if they too saw it as their prerogative to choose a Pope? An interesting situation when the two find out about one another! Benkarnell 18:00, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely true, Ben. I made a list above, and it goes slightly further than just SA, but I see the point.

I kinda doubt, myself, that many would be offended. I can see a few areas not going along with it, but not many, and they'd be small and isolated only.

Up until contact with the rest of the world, most surviving Catholics wouldn't have dreamed of setting up a Pope or the like. And with contact would come knowledge of the Pope, rendering any thoughts of it moot.

Given the situation in Italy - even in the north - until the 1990s, I doubt they'd have worried themselves about a Pope much. Besides that, they'd have known about the Papal decree anyways and likely not bothered for the time.

Lordganon 22:30, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

I think similar. The majority of the catholic communities should accept the new papal authority without many problems, after a reasonable time to understand the situation in the cases of insolation. Maybe could occurs something similar to the Celtic Church in a very isolated place, but his would be a very small exception. Regards! --Katholico 23:04, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

OK, then - though I strongly doubt that African or Indian bishops would be available before the 90s... remember, this was the era when even major powers were sending out grand naval expeditions to explore the world, it was still so fractured and unknown. Benkarnell 00:15, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Between the archbishops fleeing as refugees, and contact still being possible to some degree, it's possible. Not one of these countries - the capitals or church headquarters, at any rate - besides South Africa experienced much chaos. Nor do the articles give contact dates, or anything - the only real limit is in Sri Lanka, and even that is just full contact with the ANZC. Indonesia was in contact, and it's more or less not possible for them not to know the case in southern Africa, to some extent, which would mean that contact with Rio is possible for the cardinals in some of these areas. Lordganon 05:35, May 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, a global (rather than regional) conference of bishops goes absolutely against the spirit of the timeline. Everything that's been written has assumed that global communication and trade broke down completely, for years. Some sporadic transatlantic contact between South America and Africa has been described, but not that early, I don't think. You can probably figure that occasional ships went back and forth across the Pacific, too, leading to the possibility of getting some kind of message from the Americas to the Philippines or even India - but that's a very different thing from getting the actual bishops in question to come all the way back. By the late 90s, the time of the second conclave, networks have begun to re-establish themselves as people accustom themselves to living in a postwar world. But the 80s have never been described as anything but a time of chaos in some places, a bunker mentality in others. (Even Brazil had a civil war around that time, right?) Benkarnell 15:17, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Not a single article actually mentions the extent of contact between any of these locations, truthfully - but that is no reason to just assume that it didn't happen, as that's not plausible. And you'll note that some locations, namely the Philippines, aren't on here because of limits long established in canon.

The Catholic Church, while present in Brazil, would have its own networks separate from that government. As messages get through, with the Church hunting for surviving members of the College and surviving networks of the Church, they would send out their representatives to try and find them. You'll note the few that were found, in my opinion, are not from anywhere inland, or very far north in Africa. It is entirely plausible for them to be found. Heck, it's entirely possible - and very likely - that the Church has its own explorers/representatives for that purpose.

Brazil having a civil war would have little to no impact on the overall situation. The Church is not part of the Brazilian government, and the war would have no impact on them. Nor are any of the Brazilian cardinals from the areas in question.

This is not a global thing by any means. Of the listed cardinals, 9 of 25 are not from Latin America. One is from New Zealand, one from Samoa, one from Sri Lanka, one from Indonesia, one from India, one from the Ivory Coast, one from Nigeria, one from Angola, and one from south Africa. The last two, definite in the case of the South African, are refugees - cities not hit, but in likely areas of chaos and definitely able to get to Rio, since canon shows that South Africans managed to contact the remnants of the British government, and Rio is a heck of a lot easier than that. The New Zealander and the Samoan would definitely be in contact. Indonesia is definitely in contact with the ANZC, and thus with Rio. With Indonesia included, Sri Lanka and Calcutta are very plausible, despite the situation in both nations. And that only leaves Ivory Coast and Nigeria, which would be in some degree of contact with South America, and thus Rio. This is a small area compared to the world, and dominated by the South/Latin Americans.

All limits canon puts on this have been included, no matter my personal opinion. All of the nations these cardinals belong to are either ambiguous with regards to contact, but are in areas that are close enough so that at least some contact - remember that the church, if knowing of some survival, would have made sure of this - or are definite in that regard.

Lordganon 10:59, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

All right, me and Kath - the only ones who have given opinions on the matter of the 1999 choice for Pope - have both chosen the same guy, but differ on the papal name. Can we get some more opinions on who it would be, and what the name would be? Lordganon 13:42, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Carrera is the one I would pick. As the head of the Mexican church, he would likely have quite a bit of influence and power within Roman Catholicism at the time, far more than the Honduran candidate I would consider as the other possible choice. The name issue is like comparing apples and apples to me, and I say this as a Protestant who honestly doesn't understand the difference. Would Carrera calling himself Paul VII be somehow seen as an attempt to tie himself directly to John Paul II? If someone could explain the significance of the name (Paul v Clement) to me, it would be helpful to me to develop an informed opinion. BrianD 17:13, May 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the Papal Name, has a symbolic function. When a Pope chooses his name, tries to give a message to the world about how will be his reign. For me, the name should be Paul VII in honour to this previous Pope, who continues with the Council Vatican II and initiate new dialogs with all the nations of the world. In case of the new Pope, he would have to continue with the work of reassembling and restructure to the Catholic Church in the whole world. Regards! --Katholico 01:42, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Well, often a new pope's choice of name upon being elected to the papacy is seen as a signal to the world of who the new pope will emulate, what policies he will seek to enact, or even the length of his reign, for starters. However, it is a choice of personal preference, and has been chosen for dozens of reasons - these have even included taking their papal name from a member of their family, or a similarity in politics to someone else.

I'm glad to hear someone else agree with it being Carrera. That should make it definite, most likely.

Indeed, Paul as a choice of a name would definitely be seen as reaching back to John Paul II. But, the previous Pope atl did that already, having taken the name John XXIV. Carrera is rebuilding the Church globally, which John did, true enough, but this is a entire new level now. Carrera is younger, and his reign will be long, with great impact on the world. What you forget, Kath, is that John Paul II barely reigned atl before being snuffed out, and didn't manage much. It's also likely, like otl with Ratzinger, that he would choose vastly different name from his predecessors, to show what he wishes to do and to establish his differences.

The two names I suggested were just that. There's 80 names to choose from.

Carrera, otl at least - no reason to see a big change atl - is seen as a fairly conservative person. However, he is also seen as a "strong advocate of social justice." In effect, that means that he is more of a neutral character.

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/conclave/top_candidates.htm#Carrera for more on the matter.

To me, Clement is a name, unused since the 1700s, that would mark all of the above. However, I'm also very much in favor of a name not used since long before 1700, one less used - the list of Popes since 1500 has only a few papal names - or even more so one that has never been used, to signify a fresh start, so to speak. Something like Antonio, Carl/Carlos, or Philip, to name a few.

Lordganon 08:39, May 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, ups, I think that I didn't explain well. When i suggested the name of Paul, i am not trying to connect it with John Paul II, but with the Pope Paul VI, for the reasons that i said before. However, i understand your point LG about that Carrera maybe should adopt a unused name, is a interesting option. Anyway, i will support the option that achieve more consensus. Regards! :) --Katholico 17:23, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

I figured you probably meant that, but was hoping that you weren't. Paul VI was a liberal Pope, and someone that Carrera, as a noted conservative-leaning member of the church, would not want to be associated with. It also would not have any significance, and does not at all show the beginning of a new era, but being stuck in the past, and not even a past that Carrera would agree with. Lordganon 20:09, May 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that i have a different point of view about Paul VI; according what i know about him, i not consider to him as a "liberal" Pope. For me, his characteristic is that was pragmatic. But if you think that is improbable that Carrera choose this name, i think maybe now that i should choose other name (Clement as you said before) that could be a better election for generate a consensus. Regards! --Katholico 21:18, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Heh. And I changed my opinion somewhat in the last few hours too, lol - though not into in being Paul.

Thing with Paul VI, he continued Vatican II, which is considered a liberal reform of the Church. Carrera isn't of the persuasion to like that much, though he wouldn't change it.

Looking into the life of Clement XIV, the last Pope named Clement, he was more of a liberal Pope in many regards - and he dissolved the Jesuits, who to the best of my knowledge were liked in several corners of the Americas, which when added to this likely being why the name hasn't been used since, would make such a name choice difficult, though still a touch more likely than Paul as a name, I'd think.

Did research into Carrera's past, and the bishops/Popes/etc. that were important to his dioceses, his birthplace, names of his consecrators when he was named a bishop otl first, the bishop of the Durango Archdiocese when he was made a priest there, etc. Results (Note that these names are all translated from Spanish):


 * Raphael: Bishop of Tehuacan before Carrera otl and likely atl, and first of that title, and the name of a Mexican bishop from the early 1900s recently canonized otl - and likely atl - as well.
 * Ernest: Translation of the first name of the Archbishop of Mexico City before Carrera otl and atl.
 * Anthony: Archbishop of Durango when/where Carrera became a priest, one of the name's held by the Pope who made him a priest (Pope was Paul) before becoming Pope, As well as two of his three consecrators when he was made a bishop (one was that Archbishop of Durango, but still applies)
 * Alfonse: Second bishop of Mexico, as well as another having the name being second bishop of Durango.
 * Paul: Pope when Durango was made a bishop's see, in addition to other reason from before.
 * John: First bishop of Mexico, and then a Mexican saint from the late 1800s named long after DD in addition to him.
 * Leo: Pope who made Durango an archbishopric.
 * Ralph: English translation of Raul Silva Henríquez's first name, elected pope 1987 atl.
 * Raymond/Ray: Carrera's father's name was the Spanish equivalent of Raymond.
 * Joseph: First name of the first Bishop of Mexico and first Archbishop of Durango, also a man on the path to sainthood at DD and two more myatred priests named saints since then.
 * Michael: Translation of the first name of the Archbishop of Mexico City and Primate of Mexico when Carrera was made a priest.

John and Paul eliminated earlier, that leaves 9 of them.


 * Ernest and Ralph: That is really just silly choices for a papal name. I doubt very much that it could happen.
 * Michael, Raphael, Joseph: Much as I like the name "Raphael" for this, all three of these are religious names - two archangels, and Joseph is obvious, so these are unlikely.
 * Raymond/Ray: I have to find it unlikely that he would do this. Would be hard for many to swallow.
 * Leo: There's been 13 of them, with the last one dying in 1903 (the one referenced with regards to Durango too). Better than Clement, I feel, but..... no need for another, I'd think, lol.
 * Alfonse: Again, I find this a touch unlikely. Just doesn't seem like a name one would choose for this position.
 * Anthony: Probably the best connection. Also the name of several saints, not from the Bible or anything like that, and sounds the most of the new ones like a Papal name.

Out of these, despite my personal, and highly unlikely, preference of Raphael, the most likely would be: Anthony, Leo, Alfonse, Raymond, and then the religious names, in that order.

Thoughts?

Lordganon 06:26, May 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * In this case, my options would be Anthony I (as a new name for a Pope) and Leo XIV (curiously, the last Pope with this name, Leo XIII, he reigned after the end of the Papal States... and Carrera will reign after the end of the Vatican City). Regards! --Katholico 18:12, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty good logic there for Leo, Kath, but it would have made more sense for the first post-DD Pope :p

Glad you liked it, though. Now, before I go ahead with a choice, could I get another opinion? lol

Lordganon 03:00, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Anthony I works for me. BrianD 05:14, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Anthony is good. Very modern. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:22, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Good. Anthony it is then. Lordganon 10:18, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

1999 Conclave is now added. Church Structure, differences now present, regional changes, problems in some areas, and current Cardinals, I think, to go. Lordganon 15:38, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Pope Anthony. That was sudden (I didn't get a notice). I noticed the change to the page (I assume at the same time as the 'Review' being removed), and had to look at the discussion on the main page to see what had happened. By the way, who removed the "Review" Banner? I thought I got to do that! :-) Anyway, thanks for your hard work, LG.

Two things. First, I think he should be known as Pope Antonio, since the church is so overwhelmingly Hispanic, as is the pope. We English speakers can live with that. Second, I was thinking that mention should be made to one of the St. Anthony's of history as the ultimate choice (though the reasoning of a 'new name for a new age' has merit). The aforementioned 'conservative' leanings would indicate that the present pope of TTL would look to history for a 'new name' rather than his personal history in Mexico.

My preference among the saints would be St. Anthony of Padua (13th century), a Franciscan priest known for his preaching and knowledge of the Scriptures. However, St. Anthony of Florence (nicknamed Antoninus, "Little Anthony") has merit due to his work to reform the church, and his work in disaster relief (plague and earthquake) in the 15th century. SouthWriter 18:33, May 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, good work LG! :) In this case South, the other Post-DD Pope (John XXIV) should be called also in spanish? Juan XXIV. Regards! --Katholico 19:17, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps John XXIV could have been "officially" Juan XXIV, except that that was with an old name officially (Latin: Ioannes) and would be known by many languages. In Anthonio's case, the "official" name, Antonius, might better be carried even in English language sources as "Antonio" based on both his nationality and the plurality of Spanish-speaking Catholics. SouthWriter 19:32, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Review banner is still on the article, South. Haven't touched it at all.

Well, I'm sure that in Spanish in would be "Antonio," just like the name would be different in every language. Officially, since all of the names are technically in Latin, it is indeed Antonius, but in English that translates to "Anthony," which since the article itself is in English, I've used. It's been like this throughout history, and there's no reason for it to change now. Even atl, the English-language press would refer to them as "John" and "Anthony."

Same thing applies with John. Would be referred to as "Juan" in Spanish, John in English, and "Ioannes" in Latin.

For instance, John Paul II was referred to as "Juan Pablo II" in Spanish, while his actual Papal Name was "IOANNES PAULUS Secundus."

It's actually not "conservative" in that sense South - more so that he opposes change otl, for the most part, not that he looks to the past for things like that. If he was a member of the Franciscans or the Dominicans like either of those Saints, I'd say that it was possible - but as he is not, I find it highly unlikely he'd do it.

Like I gave in the reasons for Papal Names being chosen, it's often to do with the length, or the type of reign they intend to have, symbolically, or names of those dear/important to them. John XXIII, for instance, chose his name based on the Church where he was baptized. The current Pope chose his symbolizing that little will change, and his reign will likely not be long, based on the reign of the previous Benedict. The two John Paul's based theirs on their immediate predecessors. There are others who did indeed choose names of various saints, but for the most part that is because the saint was a member of their order. Another one chose his in honor of his father.

Carrera's principal consecrator, and one of the co-consecrators when he was made a bishop, the pope who officiated in Rome when he was named a priest, and the bishop he first worked under in Durango were all named "Antonio" in some capacity. For a man with conservative leanings, and knowing he had a task ahead of him like atl, such a move on his part, honoring those who made him where is is today (atl, and otl to an extent) is quite logical. Shows the "new name for a new age" type of ideal, that he doesn't really know what's ahead of him but it will be new in the history of the Papacy, and reflects his own beliefs.

Lordganon 12:31, May 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * About the banner, I must have been looking at a preview or history version. :-(


 * I see your points, LG. Mine is but one opinion. My point is that this pope, in chosing an unused name, might want to go with a saint by that name for inspiration. It's a bold move, introducing a name into the papacy, and I just thought it would be better to link it to the history of the church. And if not, even more a reason to go with the predominate language, and for the majority of Catholics in TTL, that is Spanish. But I'm good with Anthony over Antonio. And with that, I will remove the "Review" Banner. SouthWriter 15:59, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. I will move this discussion to Review Archives tomorrow after everyone has read my last note. SouthWriter 16:16, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose what I meant, south, is that all Pope's actually have their names in Latin. A majority of Catholics atl are indeed Spanish in descent/language, but all other languages are still going to use the name in their own tongues. In the ANZC, for instance, it's still going to be John and Anthony, but in most of the SAC it will indeed by Juan and Antonio.

Really though, we have no knowledge that Carrera has any sort of Saint preference, of the like. If anything, the St. Anthony's being in orders would make it a bad thing, so to speak. Orders tend to get a bit of a bad rap, historically, lol.

Lordganon 14:35, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Celtic Church
Well, looking at the Vatican stuff, I've noticed some massive issues with this article too. Not a single thing that was taken up on the talk page of the article has been done, nor does it really make much sense overall. Kinda getting the feeling that I should go over all of Mjdoch's articles and have a close look at any of the religion stuff that was written for plausibility, lol. Lordganon 13:58, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

I thought it unusual that the Celtic Church would be the one and only church in Celtic Alliance, but it was Mjdoch's article and figured that Ireland was one place where such things might work out differently post-nuclear war than in most of the Western world. That said, I second your idea of reviewing the religion-related portions of Mjdoch's articles. I'd prefer we stay as close to his ideas as possible, but that does not preclude revisions for plausibility, whether it be on a minor scale or a major scale. BrianD 16:59, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, another project for me to look into, lol. Of course, as little as possible would be changed.

The idea of the Church itself is indeed plausible - it's kinda like the Anglican Church, given what all this says about it. But the idea that the Catholic Church would become part of this thing entirely is a touch ridiculous - some, maybe even many, yes, but not all. And, that is ignoring the extremely valid points that are on its talk page as well.

Lordganon 08:08, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

The biggest concern for me, besides keeping Lahbas's work largely intact, would be to clarify the reason behind the Celtic Church: the government only wanted to deal with one official organization, not hundreds claiming to represent Christianity (especially with the Protestant/Catholic divisions in northern Ireland, and lesser so in Scotland). That actually makes sense to me, as does the government's recognition that not everyone will choose to align themselves with the official state church.

It kind of makes sense to me that initially the various churches might join together, given that the Alliance didn't really know of survivors outside its borders for years. Once it became known that South America had survived largely intact, and that the successor to Rome had established itself in Rio, the issue of Roman Catholicism within the Alliance would have to be raised. Perhaps there is still a Celtic Church today, alongside Roman Catholic parishes, Orthodox churches and however many Protestant churches and denoms would have established themselves in the country.

Since Arstar is caretaker of Celtic Alliance, what does he think about this? BrianD 05:20, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well, there really isn't a religion section to the CA article besides a link to this, and it's more of an independent article than anything. To me, that means it's only part-ways under his caretakership. And, on that note, as per his request, I'm watching his articles anyways, so the net result is that it'll just get changed. He's been on once in the last couple months, so I kinda doubt we'll hear from him anyways.

To a certain extent, that's my opinion on the article as well, though I'd make it more so one primary official organization, instead of two. Even with the government behind it, I find it highly doubtful that more tha half the population would go along with this. After re-connecting with the Pope, what you describe is my opinion too.

Lordganon 08:04, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Here again I think we're seeing the effects of changing assumptions. When the CA pages were written it was assumed that the people of Ireland had every reason to believe they were the last people on Earth - or close to it. In that context, the merging of the major churches is more understandable. Benkarnell 15:15, June 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * That more or less sums up what I've been working on doing with regards to the article. Will make a touch more sense in many regards like that. Lordganon 18:28, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

=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.''