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

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)

LG, my apologies for taking so long to respond. Between my job and being out of town for several weeks in the Northwest, I have not had a chance to return to our discussion until now. In regards to the matter here is my thoughts. If you look at the US East Coast following the war, Delmarva is in the best position early on of any of the survivor nations to begin exploring the coast and embarking on trade exploration voyages. They have a number of small ports along with a fair number of vessels including some freighters and several coast guard cutters they could utilize. Now, I think it would be fair to say for the first five years, roughly 1983-1988, they concentrate on working on their own affairs. However, at some point, given their maritime resources as I mentioned, I find it implausible Delmarva would not try to launch sea explorations and instead do absolutely nothing for 12 years. Also consider this, Delmarva lacks energy deposits such as oil, coal, or natural gas that other areas have. Given the importance of fuel and other items of commerce it would be in their best interest to launch sea expeditions in the hope of locating other nations and establishing trade to obtain these. Given Delmarva's access to the coast and their maritime resources it would be logical for them to pursue this path than trying to carry out major land expeditions to old areas of the US. Logically, South America would be a destination for such expeditions given their resources of oil and gas.

Taking all I have said into consideration, I believe about 1989 Delmarva would be stable enough and desirous of seeing if other countries still exist and initiate trade voyages like the times of past. The arrival of Brazil about this time would nicely fit in. I raised the question of contact between the two nations to the writer of Brazil sometime ago and they had given me the okay to work it in as long as I could find a good anchorage spot for the aircraft carrier, which I think the Norfolk-Newport News roadstead would work fine for. My intention was to have the Brazilians go up the coast to NY as the article stated and miss Delmarva due to bad weather and by chance make contact on the way back. This would mark the beginning of close relationships between the two and help open inroads into SA for Delmarva. Even if this were to not happen, I am of the firm belief Delmarva would still initiate trade and exploration voyages south no later than 1990 due to contact with Bermuda and the reasons I already laid out towards the Caribbean and South America and have a presence there in time for the arrival of the Canada Navy.

As for Canada, it had just seemed plausible contact would have already been established, before 1995 most likely through contact by fishing boats at sea or radio even given it is just over something like 200+ miles to Canada. Heck, I could even see Delmarva sending an expedition there to explore. Your point is taken in regards to how the Canadians might view the condition of the East Coast post World War III, but given there were survivors in Maine and Vermont they would have made contact with before 1995, I can't help but believe they would have sent someone to explore the East Coast earlier rather than ignore it. However, you are handling Canada and as such, I can only suggest.

The thing to remember as I know you do, where as certain points will always remain canon or unchanged in this scenario, other parts are subject to changes depending on the development of other articles which did not exist at the time the original piece was written. This is something we have observed from time to time. I studied up on contacts between the various nations and noted gaps or unclear areas regarding contacts. I want to resolve this issue as it applies to Delmarva, but do it in a manner that is logical and makes sense along the lines I have laid out above. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. --Fxgentleman 03:33, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

No worries Fx.

Canada only came into contact with Vermont and Aroostook in 1997. So, no reason to explore from there.

Canadian fishermen would not go south. The fishing there is overfished, and there wasn't much in the first place. They'd all go to the Grand Banks, like they have done for centuries.

Outside of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canadian control of the coastline would not have come until the 1990s. One heck of a lot more than 200 miles.

Delmarvan radios were fried. Canadian ones were not, and they heard signals from the Azores. They have no reason at all to head south when they have signals from the east.

Delmarva would have had access to several off-shore test rigs at the time. They've all been abandoned, etc. since 1984, but several were producing at the time. That's in addition to the tankers that would have been in the region. And, why on earth would they have wasted the fuel? They've every reason to believe the outside world gone, including South America - and there is no point in using up your fuel like that in such an event.

Bermuda makes contact with Delmarva, after a fashion, in 1990. Yet, they know nothing of the outside world until much later. Thus, Delmarva cannot be in contact in 1990 with the outside world. And, that contact was short and would have encouraged nothing.

Canada has been in contact with parts of the outside world since 1986, though only by radio. Contact south of the Azores only came in 1991. As the articles say, and noted by myself, why would they waste effort on ruined coastline when they knew where others definitely were? Simply put, they would not.

As I said, the Brazil stuff was not possible and has been removed/edited to make it so it was. I don't know who put it in originally, but I'd like to know what on earth they were thinking. That was the one and only reference to such an event, and was and has been contradicted virtually everywhere else.

Given Delmarvan areas of control, it is 100% impossible to get to NYC without spotting them, going up the coast, bad weather or not. And the same thing applies to the other states I listed the first time, between Georgia and Delmarva, and up to NYC. And yet, they were not in contact with these areas until the late 1990s at best.

You exaggerate the extent of the shipping. Remember, any modern, or more modern, vessels would be fried. And, the vast majority are only short-range - with the ones that aren't using up so much fuel that they simply wouldn't do it with their limited supplies - when you need fishermen for food, you're not going to waste fuel on other things.

As stated, neither the Franklin nor the Nimitz went up the East Coast of North America, instead heading to Europe. If Delmarva had been known, they would not have done so without going there first. Yet, they obviously did not. That means that there was no contact with Delmarva at that time. And this is something long, long, held in canon. And it ain't changing. The contact dates here are all very clear.

Simple logic, Fx. Canon, long enshrined, and in many places, says it has to be after 1993, even though the Delmarva article did not exist at the time. I fully realize that you do not think it plausible, but this is how it must be - and, for the record, I don't agree with you that it is not plausible, either.

Thus, 1989 is impossible. And, as I said, 1995 very reasonable. But, either way, it has to be after' 1993 that Delmarva gets to be in contact with the outside world. Not before.

Lordganon 05:20, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Nordic Union Presidency
Mentioned this on the Nordic Union talk page, suppose I should ask here since it'll be more noticeable, and to follow things I've said in the past, lol.

Anyhoo, the NU presidency, which is elected for three year periods, is up at the end of the year. Currently, it is held by Halldór Ásgrímsson, of Iceland, since 2008. There's no limit on terms, but most of them only have served a single term, which is the usual for most international organizations.

Given recent developments, I'm thinking that a change would be in order, probably to a Finn.

Thoughts?

Lordganon 06:29, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Population Redistribution
I've been looking over a lot of the nation articles in this TL, and I have to say the population of most countries seems... I don't want to say implausible, but strange. Some places seem to high, others to low; so I ask that we implore, not force, people to go back over the countries they've made with other people who have made countries in the same areas and redistribute the populations more so they are equal. Riley.Konner 12:01, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Examples? I've never noticed anything that odd, for the most part. Lordganon 19:29, July 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say the west coast being the prime example; the current survivor population is set at five million, and with most of the population in OTL being centered on the west coast don't you think it seems likely that those survivor states on the coast would have a higher population? The only explanation would be people just left, which wouldn't make any sense, or they all somehow died off (which I guess would be the best explanation). Riley.Konner 14:56, July 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of California's loss (the greatest population density on the west coast) is due to the strategic importance of the state to the US, coupled with most of the people being concentrated in major population centers. In 1983 there were about 25 million people in California.  Add in the populations of Oregon (a mere 2.5 million) and Washington (another 4.2 millon) [these also being in population centers, some of which were targeted], and you get about 31.5 million people, 80% of which were in targeted areas (25.2 million).  Lets assume, then, that 80% of the 25.2 million people die either directly or within a few years.  That leaves about 5 million survivors plus the 6 million or so not effected directly by the disaster of doomsday.  The 5 million fight with the 6 million for the resources available (as we see in the articles about the area).  It is concievable, then, that there would be massive death.  Whether or not half of these people would die and then not begin repopulation (say 1% per year?) is another question.


 * I don't know if the estimate of 5 million on the west coast is accurate, but it seems within reasonable perimeters. The west coast might very well have lost people in whatever boats were available (see the articles on South America and the immigrant crises there).  Many would disappear statistically, not wanting to be counted.  The figures given in many articles are the assumptions of the "WCRB" and those have been known to be inadequate based on many factors - not the least the lack of resources. SouthWriter 00:36, July 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * And you don't find just the little bit weird that those who would remain have just not found a country or (god forbid) been enslaved? I don't debate your statistics, but it's been 28 something years; it seems implausible that no one has found someplace to live on the west coast or anywhere else in the country. Also only a couple thousand, or even more likely only a couple hundred, would have probably found there way to South America. Some people will stay isolated some people will migrate.


 * I think you both might be taking this wrong way, I'm not saying every article has a population problem (that statement is debatable) that makes it implausible, Im saying that no one has done a good sweep through of there articles. Riley.Konner 21:02, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well for starters, the 5 million you quote is California on its own, according the the US state chart, not the West Coast. Considering that, at best, the survivor states in California come to about 2.75 million - the figure is closer to 2.6, but we'll go with the higher to make the math simpler in comparison- the 5 million has to be an error.

Most of the population is in the major cities - LA, SF, Sacramento, SD, SJ, and Oakland, along with a raft of smaller cities with between 150-500 thousand people in them, which all either went "Boom" themselves or caught full-on radiation/fires from the bigger cities.

In California, which is more urbanized than the other two states, at about 97.5 percent since the 1980 census being in urban areas of 50,000 or more, and more compact around the targets, the number in nuked cities/suburbs of them (LA, for instance, given it is so dry, would have uncontrollable wildfires for a long time afterwards, killing whatever is left... repeat elsewhere in the south), the deaths would be in the region of 90-95% or maybe even higher within the first couple of weeks. Let's go with about 91%, here, towards the low end of the range but not quite at it.

That leaves about 2.25 million survivors, of which we can safely assume 500-750 thousand die within a year. Gangs, hunger, radiation... that kind of thing. Call it 500k.

Assuming a decent growth rate - call it 2%? - on that 1.75 million, that gives us about 2.73 million people in California today, more or less within my parameters. Chalk the difference up to a combination of a touch more than 91% and a touch more than 500k.

Oregon is stated to have a population of about 1,598,861 on the same page.

Washington is unknown from that source, but cribbing from other articles, I expect it's population is between 1-1.75 million, largely in Pasco and Victoria. I figure 1.25 million works here, myself.

Gives us about 5.58 million total. Makes sense, then, though thank you for pointing out the California error. I'll fix that tomorrow.

Anything else? I'm willing to show why those are the figures given, and change things, quite readily. I've had a look through everything here, and for the most part, things should be right, but as I said, if something needs changing, I've no problem doing it.

Lordganon 05:18, July 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Those all seem like logical and well calculated statistics, so I'll take your word for it and agree with you. Although you forgot to consider migration in and out of the region that seems like a moderate to small factor, but a changing factor none the less; what do you think it would be considering migration? Riley.Konner 23:09, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Don't really consider migration to be an issue in the region. That's more of a Gulf Coast thing, atl.

At most, I'd say that would change the net result to 5.5 million, but I doubt it would impact it at all, being that those would be included in the 500k reduction most likely. The west coast is pretty isolated from the rest of the world, if you think about it, and most people with boats the live through the first few weeks would stay put. The San Diego strikes would isolate the Mexican border, and mountain ranges or desert would have much the same effect elsewhere. But, my figure is an estimate - I figure the number would lie anywhere between 5.5 million to 5.6 million, given the data.

Lordganon 06:31, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Atlantic Defense Community
Well two things here:

First, we've discussed expansion before, but it never got anywhere. There's countries interested in joining, and with the war over, it seems like it could actually happen now. Have a look at the ADC talk page for more. I'd like to see some expansion, at least to allies of current members, and hopefully another NA member too.

Second, who is this Secretary General? Never even heard of him, and the only Daniel Perry google or wikipedia can find is a American journalist/Congressional worker/executive, and given his work and when he was appointed to a federal task force, he was at the Capitol on Doomsday, being an assistant to the majority whip. Can't be him, so who is it? Really don't know, lol.

Thoughts on someone else for the position, or where they should be from, in light of this, knowing the name is only mentioned in two spots and can be easily replaced?

Lordganon 19:29, July 24, 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

Mexican Space Program
First, I would like to apologize for earlier and now. I'm entirely new at this, as some of you could already tell. Please excuse me, if I make any mistakes in procedure. I did my best to follow instructions.

Also, I'm not sure if I can still propose this idea, but I'll give it the old college try.

The idea that I would like to be incorporated into the timeline was of an independent Mexican space program apart from the LoN Space Authority. I thought of Mexico having the highest influx of American refugees in the world I thought, how about scientists too? Mainly survivors from NASA facilities in Texas, Alabama, and if possible even Florida. Though, SouthWriter was right about not talking 28 years to start a space program in Mexico. I believe that due to the chaos during the first Post DD years, the 1985 Mexico earthquake and the Yucatan War would have delayed such a movement from getting too much political support. Also, Mexico would have a significant head start on their space program do the many NASA technicians having settled in Mexico Post DD.

I think that Mexico would recognize that the SAC and USSR could have a technological advantage by having their active space programs. It would give Mexico a goal to reach and could stimulate the Mexican economy as well as a technological edge. Also, it start a Post DD space race. The only thing that they would lack is a spaceport, which I think could be place in a OTL Naval Facility in Anton Laredo, about 10 miles from Veracruz City. Its reminiscent of the old Kennedy Space Center. When I read the original Space Exploration 1983 DD article, I thought that if possible that Mexico could send an astronaut into earth orbit by 2015.

I also Thought that the way that Mexico could start its own space program would be by a collaboration of pre-existing research going on at the Universidad Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) (National Autonomous University of Mexico) surviving NASA technicians and scientists trying to continue what they started in the former US.

I really hope you like this idea, and well I also hope I can still propose it. I have other ideas as well that I would like to propose in the near future. Libra-11 (Talk | contribs | block)


 * It sounds feasible to me. Also, you can go ahead and start writing the article, or have someone else write it, before general community approval is given. However, until general approval is given it remains a proposal and cannot be graduated. Caeruleus 16:55, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Given where NASA scientists would have been, there's really no chance of any making it. Virtually all NASA facilities in the USA were hit at least once. Given what they were doing at the time, and the problems just found with Challenger, it's likely they'd have been on base, and, if not, at home nearby, too.

Even White Sands was hit - note the strike on Las Cruces, NM, on the strike list, and that is literally right next to it and actually refers to a strike on White Sands - and the odds of any scientists getting out are really too remote. Between that blast, the El Paso blast, radiation, and the desert in general, it's just too unlikely.

The two people you quoted in the newsbit, there's a pretty good chance that they are dead. The researcher, Robert Zubrin, more likely than not was working in aerospace at the time, and not likely anywhere near Mexico, either, meaning death or more simply distance away from much of anywhere put him out of things. Odds are better for Rodolfo Neri Vela, who was indeed most likely in Mexico, though may have started his training for his spaceflight by then, but I wouldn't assume he would be involved if I were you - his degrees and most of his work seems to lead more towards communications than space. Though, who knows, you may have found something about Zubrin that indicates it is possible. But, it needs it.

Mexico would literally be starting with nothing, other than a base to start research and facility construction at. 2015, or indeed, any time before around 2030 or so, would not at all be realistic for Mexico. And by that time, it's likely that the rest would already have managed it, making it really no point.

I also read on a talk page something about you believing Challenger to have survived. While you are right about it's transit - I believe - being at such an altitude, the EMP blasts would have brought it down. Really not much chance of it taking the impact well, if it did not land in the water.

Mexico starting an agency alongside the other effort, much like the Canadian space program in relation to NASA, that makes things and trains people for it, makes sense. So does launching their own satellites, largely for communications, which Rodolfo Neri Vela would be especially good for. As a primary goal, that makes more sense, and is more realistic, than putting people into space. Then there is no need for that undercurrent or movement stuff, which is, quite honestly, a reach. This, all it is is wanting Mexican satellites, independent of anyone else. That's perfectly understandable and reasonable - call it military purposes, if nothing else.

Lordganon 18:35, July 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing about survivors is that if one is fairly certain his area is going to be a target, then evacuation becomes a priority. All too often it is assumed that ANYONE in a target area (apart from high officials) would stay put and be destroyed. Evacuation on short notice, of course, leads to chaos. There is no way to know who will escape, so it is easier to assume no one did. That squelches any meaningful story from being written about survivors. That being said, Robert Zubrin received his M.S. in Nuclear Engineering at the University of Washington (Seattle) in 1984. That would mean, in all likelihood, the promising carreer of this 'rocket scientist' was snuffed out in the bombing of that city. Rodolfo Neri Vela, on the other hand, is a good choice. He most likely was working in Mexico in 1983 (becoming a payload specialist in late 1985 in OTL). His work was not just in communications, but in antenna design for satellites and ground stations.


 * The Challenger shuttle was in post flight inspection on September 27, 1983 after a safe night landing on September 5th. Normal protocol, I believe, would have been to fly the craft to Kennedy Space Center before the inspection. From what a Google search found, the craft is prepared for transport (takes about a week) and flown across country making several fuel stops (as much as 3 days). That would get the Challenger to the KSC by September 15, 1983. It would have been in the final days of post-flight inspection when the assembly building would have been destroyed.


 * Had the Challenger been in space, though, it would have been safe, for the blast's shockwaves over the USA and/or Russia would not have reached through the rare atmosphere in the area where they flew. The EMP only works because of the blast's effect on the atmosphere below it. For a similar reason, the Soviet space station in use at the time was not harmed by the nukes in space.


 * As far as a movement 'under the radar,' so to speak, I offered that as a suggestion only to get around the lack of mention of an effort so far in the history of Mexico post-DD. Yes, a 'reach' of sorts, but respecting the desires of Mexicans in a world that seems to have left them behind for the most part. I agree, though, that the nation would not have the resources to put a man into space on its own. I am not sure about whether it would take until 2030 -- almost 50 years! ?? -- to get a man back in space, though. Dreams do not die that easy, and science does not entrophy that fast. It is all a matter of priorities, of course, and politics surely would play a role. I'd say the international effort would be on track to return men to space by 2020 at the latest. Just my opinion, of course, but there it is. SouthWriter 21:26, July 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming Mexico could develop the necessary technology to launch satellites into space, putting a man into space between 2015 and 2025 is plausible. The technology to launch people into space has been around for 30 years prior to Doomsday and there has been development since then. Maintaining a single human life in space is a feat, but it's not overly complicated. I could see Mexico putting a man in space by 2015, but it would a simple, barebones mission with a small crew that would basically go up and say "We made it." and then come back to Earth. Any longer term or more complicated missions would obviously take many more years to occur. It could even occur earlier if little or no attention was paid to the safety of the astronauts. But if it was done, it would essentially be a wate of money to enhance national pride and international prestige, though the technology to make it possible would aid the Mexican economy and tecnological development. Caeruleus 23:57, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

South, my reference about Challenger was to a note he had left on Brian's page saying that it was in transit between the two places on the plane at the time. Kinda figured it wouldn't be, but had to say what the likely fate would be if it was, lol. Knowing that info, it was definitely in hangar at CC, being studied by engineers, and given what they found wrong, odds are it was a ton more than usual too, lol. As you say, if it has been in space it'd have been fine.

Given that the man graduated with his BS in the early 70s, I thought he'd have done the PhD about 1980. Heh. Must have worked a little bit first somewhere.

Training for NASA missions takes about 20 months, back and forth from Houston. I'm aware of the time gap being longer than 20 months, but we don't know when he started his training. The training taking 20 months doesn't necessarily mean Rodolfo started it 20 months before he left for space and not earlier. But, odds are very good he'd have been in Mexico, so he's good.

Well, the Americans and Soviets only managed it as fast as they did because they took all the German scientists. Seem to recall reading that they both had things sped up by at least 5 years, despite the near-unlimited funding. Most countries that launched satellites did it through one of these powers, or got tech from them. China in 1970 seems to have been the first one otherwise, and they likely had spies to help them, still lagging 12/13 years behind.

Mexico has neither, and rocket formulas weren't something that are out in the open, so to speak. As I said, satellites make a ton of sense, especially for the military.

Note that I was referring to Mexico doing it by 2030, not the world. Specifically mentioned the rest by saying that "it's likely that the rest would already have managed it" by 2030. Won't be any better than the early programs, but I'm sure they'll manage it by 2020, if not by 2015.

Satellites are a lot easier than astronauts. With Astronauts, you not only have to have life-support, and supplies, but you also need to ensure they can come back. Took the Soviets 3 years to do the research, and another to design, Spudnik, with, once again, unlimited resources and German scientist-captives. Add to that that a large majority of space research, technology, and scientists went "poof."

They have to do it all over again, and establish the industry to support it. Then, too, research into rockets in the USA/USSR had started in earnest in the aftermath of the war, though work had begun in the 20s - and took until the mid-1950s to get right. 4 years on top of that for the satellites. With, the unlimited funding and the scientists. Mexico has neither, though we can safely assume the 1920s work is known, since model rockets use that same knowledge and are quite easy to understand.

If we assume a launch date for the first satellite to be about 2018 or so, that's 7 years. The 4 years for the satellites is too much - probably more like one or two. Call it one, since we're being optimistic here. The rockets, took 9-10 years - probably a touch too much, here. I'd say with some being known, and a couple surviving NASA scientists - I'm sure that there would be a couple, though I assume myself they'd be with the other projects, though again, benefit of the doubt here - we can probably cut that in half, give or take. Gives us about 6 years or so..... 2017, which by the time Mexico approves funding and the like, gives us 2018. Add in room for errors, etc., we have a first launch of a satellite anywhere from 2017-2022. More or less, 2018. LoN space teams are, about this time, getting back into space.

On top of that, 3.5 years for the Soviets to get a man into space after Sputnik. That really cannot be rushed, and realistically, would take longer for Mexico, more likely than not, due to funding and industry. With room for errors, we're looking at a 2023-2031 or so range. Probably closer to the end, if they were to even bother. Leaves us around 2030 or so for Mexico to launch its own Astronauts.

By that point, the first LoN space station is likely being put in orbit if it has not been already. If Mexico wants Astronauts, they could already have them long before 2030, with that program - though not their own. Satellites, however, would already be there, and serve much more useful purposes.

Easy choice, in my mind.

Lordganon 06:22, July 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good analysis, LG. I'd say you have it about right. Mexico, if it has not been working on the program before now, would most likely be up and ready with its contacts with the SAC and the ANZC to go it alone with satellites. Its industry could be a boom to the struggling new nations in North America as well. See what thinking optimistically can do for the time line! :-) SouthWriter 15:42, July 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * About the Shuttle, I wrote the following offline, preparing to post it on Brian's page, but instead figured this would be the best place for it. It has to do with not the Challenger, but its new-born 'baby sister' Discovery.

The Shuttle was at the Orbiter Processing Facility (note picture caption "September 1983") at KSC when the inspection was done, having been transported there at least a week prior to the inspection, which was finishing up on the post-flight inspection. Libra's information, unfortunately, is flawed. Perhaps it is the inspection that was scheduled to be completed on September 26th, and Libra assumed that had been at Edwards.

There would not have been time to move the orbiters in storage at the OPF facilities in Florida before the center was destroyed. Even if Reagan had declared it a priority, it could not have been done. Unfortunately, the two space shuttles there were destroyed. However, remarkably, the Discovery had not left the facilities in Palmdale, CA, where, on August 12th, it had undergone its final testing before overland transport to Edwards Air Force Base in November of 1983. Palmdale is separated from Los Angeles by the San Gabriel Mountain Range and so would be shielded from destruction. There is no telling the fate of the orbiter or anything else after that, but this could be a factor in whatever transpired with Mexico and its involvement in any "space race" in the 21st century of TTL. SouthWriter 16:09, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like what he did, true enough.

Lancaster-Palmdale was hit by its own nuke, unfortunately.

Lordganon 17:24, July 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, all that research shot down by a late entry into the "hit list" (Feb. 25, 2011) by none other that "Mr. Nuke'em" himself - Lordganon!  Seriously, LG, I am not angry but it seems that you slipped in the enlarged list of hits - by far twice as many as the original article had - while no one was looking. I admit, I forgot to check the list when I looked up Palmdale, but for goodness sake, how'd you justify enlarging the list that far without any discernible discussion (I looked)? Just wondering. SouthWriter 18:05, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Heh. When I made it so the California entry could graduate, there was a large number of strikes that I added. Previously, there had only been 5 in the entire state, missing pretty well all the military bases, which obviously wasn't working. It amounts to most cities, etc, and almost all bases in the state, as is the case with pretty well all of the other ones. Something I've done for a few areas, actually, that were very short of targets. Note that I did go through proper graduation protocol with this.

For Lancaster-Palmdale, it was pretty simple. Not only is Edwards AFB just a few miles outside of the two city limits, but Air Force Plant 42, a major - and that's a bit of an understatement, to be honest - aerospace facility, is right between Lancaster and Palmdale. Add to that the civic population, and there's a big juicy target, that levels both cities.

Lordganon 19:44, July 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten about the archived proposal discussions. I see where you were quite active in the adding of a strike on every single base in the state - it seems - on a first strike basis.  It was overkill, but then, so is the whole premise of this time line.  It was not just you, of course, that pushed Arstar.  Mitro brought it up, and Zack jumped right in.  I must have been asleep or something when the discussion was going on! :-)


 * Anyway, what's done is done. Finding the newly minted space shuttle was a pleasant surprise, but losing it to a masochist USSR first strike list that includes every single possible strike on th FEMA map, is almost too much to take in.  Why did California have to be different than other places where some FEMA strikes were avoided.  What happened to our discussion on primary, secondary and tertiary targets?  All I can say is, Wow!  I don't want to change what has been written, but sheesh!  :-(


 * SouthWriter 20:45, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, far from every base. Just that California is so full of the blasted things that it seems that way, lol - the number of strikes on that list now is only 31 - not including multiple ones on LA and SD, mind, but that's minor - which on the map would be the number in the Greater LA area alone, adding maybe one or two from nearby. Believe me when I say that there was a great deal of discretion used in making that list. But, as I said, the Palmdale one was unrelated to that, with the aerospace facilities.

Perfectly willing to remove targets from the list if you find one that you don't think is reasonable, though.

Lordganon 02:05, July 27, 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 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 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)

Is this page going to be amalgamated into the Korea page? as it doesn't really add anything that is not already on the Korea page (in fact in places it contradicts the Korea page)--Smoggy80 16:32, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Parts of it are going to have to be, but most of it would form the article still. Pita seems to have dropped off the face of the earth, however. Lordganon 16:59, July 22, 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 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)

I'll adopt this article. Caeruleus 20:49, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I've worked on a few paragraphs. Let me know what you think. SouthWriter 01:46, July 20, 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 Girardeau. SouthWriter 05:20, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, guys, any discussion? As it stands it's mostly a stub, but it sets the stage for a revived northern Missouri. Any ideas on how to improve it? Or objections to graduating it as a stub? SouthWriter 23:30, July 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in this case I'd say that a map of the state would be a must before it could be graduated. Going by the content, the map right now isn't remotely right. Lordganon 23:58, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

I have a map, somewhere, of the proposed extent of "North Missouri." However, the article is not about the state, but rather about the capital of the state - Hannibal. The map included in the article is only a map showing the location of the city. The info so far only states that communication and discussions have been made between many small towns across the northern part of the state. I would say, then, that the map is now EXACTLY right for the city. The STATE can be developed in an article of its own. SouthWriter 01:17, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

PS: I changed the caption of the map to remove any confusion. "Missouri" is now "the former state of Missouri." SouthWriter 01:22, July 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the article doesn't sound like it's about that city. What it sounds like is the first stage of an article about a survivor-state based out of Hannibal, called Hannibal.


 * Ignoring that, given what you intend it to be, I have to object until the nation article is at least made.


 * Lordganon 01:44, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

LG, I am a patient man, but sometimes it seems that you object just because you can! There is already a "nation article" that deals with this. It is the Missouri article (a stub), which clearly states in the last line of the "Survivor Communities" section that Hannibal has recently been discovered. The Hannibal article, on the other hand, avoids calling the new state anything other than Missouri, stating (again in the last line) that the provisional government of the state "of Missouri" was established in the town of Hannibal. If anything, the article on Missouri needs to be edited in the "Present Situation" section. If that section warrants it, then a separate article can be created to cover the "new" Missouri that reality (the self-governance of Joplin and Cape Girardeau) makes necessary. This article, as with the articles on Joplin and Cape Girardeau, is presently supplementary, and complementary, to the Missouri article. SouthWriter 13:21, July 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * The Missouri article is on the former state. It's not on a provisional government. And even that indicates that "Villages and towns in the tri-state area bound together to form a community colloquially known simply as 'Hannibal,'" which indicates that the state itself is called "Hannibal."


 * Thus, there is no nation article. And, this has been followed in other areas. Nations that officially refer to themselves as the state name do not have the state name as what they are called in the majority of cases, with the exceptions being those that descend from the state government and control the state. The Missouri article is on the entire state, not the Hannibal government.


 * It is a very valid objection. What you are asking is the graduation of an article on a city, in a nation-state that doesn't even had an article - and that makes no sense. All you have to do to erase this objection is make the nation article. North Missouri would be a good name. Simple, really.


 * Lordganon 20:02, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that synopsis, LG, and I specifically note that the intention of the continuing government there was to reclaim the state as soon as possible. The note and the article do not extend past 1989, the end of Bond's second term (actually 3rd, since he had reclaimed the post in 1980). Though the article is about a city, it can stand alone as do the Athens, Ga, and Auburn, Ala., articles do. The fact that no "nation" article is in existence is irrevalent to the publishing of the article. I am trying to work on present proposals I have up, not create new ones that will have to be developed before present ones can be included.

It is not absolutely necessary for your objection to be overcome, for it has been established that it is a consensus that brings an article to graduation. A single objection, no matter how valid, can be overridden. My logic is solid as to why I put the article up, and I am not asking for it to be fast-tracked, so I am in no hurry. One reason I have not created a new article is that the formation of this government is a continuation of the former government in the absense of knowledge of the others. It is not a 'new nation' but the old state that is continuing, making the Hannibal article an extension of the original article as was intended.

I respect your opinion as a historian, LG, but this is not a question of viability but only of protocol. We are of equal rank, so protocol is important to each of us. I have put forth a proposal, and now I have asked for discussion as to viability and suitability. Just because this city did not fail like Auburn and Athens does not mean it cannot, for now, stand alone for the time being. It may, in development, turn out to be a failure, or turn into a regional nation-state after the government learns of competitors. If it developes that direction, the name can be changed to that nation-state's designation.

'''To all others out there: please join into the discussion. The two of us could go on forever over little differences, keeping us from other things we need to be doing. Some input from the community would be great.''' SouthWriter 03:28, July 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Both the towns you quote are the destroyed centers of attempted governments. Going by what you have written about Hannibal, that is not the case there. The comparison is thus not valid in the least, barring large changes to the article.


 * It is obvious that this is the center of a state/nation government. Auburn and Athens were both the governments themselves, and that is what those articles are about.


 * You have explicitly stated that this is about the city. And now, that you have absolutely no idea as to where you'll take this.


 * As I said, it makes absolutely no sense at all to make an article about a city in a nation-state that does not exist yet. At this time, that is all this is. And that? Doesn't work at all.


 * I am well aware that this may seem trivial to you, but it is a very valid, easily dealt with, point. Simple.


 * Lordganon 20:12, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

'''To any who may be following this discussion, please note that LG did not annul any of my arguments by denying their validity. I invite anyone to read over what I wrote and show how there is any need to produce another proposal to fit this proposal into as an auxiliary.''' It is not true that I have "absolutely no idea where" this will be headed. There, is however, nothing in the guidelines that prohibit an article of this type from existing. It is not an "orphan," for it is linked to the generic "Missouri" article (a gateway to articles about Missouri survivors, be they city-states or "nations").

In this time line, everyone does not act the same. The governor of Missouri, in this case, believes in the future of his state. He therefore does not give up or go independent as many have done. Therefore, this is an extension of the Missouri article. When I get time, I'll bring the article into the present, at which time the "name" of the state will be like that at State College: that is, something along the lines of "The Provisional Government of Missouri at Hannibal" which will be the heading of the info box, allowing for the shorter title of the article as it now appears. --SouthWriter 16:30, July 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Kinda amusing how you feel a need to bold all of that.


 * Arguments? What arguments? The few you hinted at I did deny their validity, and that is still the case.


 * You freely admitted that you had not decided where this was going: "It may, in development, turn out to be a failure, or turn into a regional nation-state after the government learns of competitors. If it developes that direction, the name can be changed to that nation-state's designation."


 * You freely admit that this is an article for the capital city of a nation-state. While, as you say, you may turn it into an article like State College at some point in the future, you admit that this is not the case at this time.


 * There may be nothing in the guidelines, true, but that is irrelevant. All that means is that no one has tried this before.


 * With what this article states, and what South has admitted, it is obviously not a city-state. Nor is it a nation. It could easily be such, but going by what you first said, it was not an option, and now, you do not have the time. Yet, it's just adding an infobox - easy change, and doesn't make another article, since you're so dead-set against that.


 * I never once called it an "orphan," though thank you for trying to put words in my mouth. I'm not blind, nor stupid, and I know of the link you mention. However, that does not change the fact that as it currently stands, this article, going by what you said earlier, is about a city, which is the stated capital of a non-existent, at this time, state. It being listed on the Missouri article is not relevant either, for the same reason. That has been the entirety of my objection, yet rather than go through a compromise, or anything of the sort, all you've done is get mad. You've not even discussed this civilly.


 * Have I once called the content into real question? No. Nothing of the sort. Matter of fact, I trust your work enough so that had you asked, I'd have supported a true, tiny stub for graduation, even with next to no content. I have a very valid point here, which you have done nothing to address, while trying to make me look foolish.


 * All I am doing is making a single, valid objection about it making sense. You've done nothing about it other than getting mad at me, for no reason.


 * Lordganon 17:13, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

First, I do not wish this to be a slugfest with LG. However, the objection he brings is not over viability or even facts of the case, but rather over form. I placed the sentences in bold print to catch the attention of anyone who might be browsing this talk page. It's an old advertizing ploy. I have not meant to make LG 'look foolish' and I certainly not "mad" at him - for reason or not. I am impatient with him, but that is not the same thing as anger.

Tip number 9 suggests clearly "Feel free to write articles besides nation profiles." This is such an article, as was stated in the purpose statement - 'to flesh out what happened in Missouri.' It is no different than creating an article about a person mentioned in some article. It does not need a follow-up article to be a valid contribution to the time-line. In denying this was an 'orphan' I was pointing out that it was not an independent article, standing by itself without any connection to the rest of the time line. I was not insinuating that LG had said it was. I was just defending it as being relevant and therefore a valid article under the guidelines.

LG's objection has been duly noted, and the solution he has indicated has been considered. However, as I stated above, and the reason I put the sentences in bold print, I am looking for discussion from other editors and administrators as well. I hope I have demonstrated that the opinion of one editor, even an administrator, does not change the rules. An article does not have to 'look like the others' to pass muster. This article was made to fill in a blank (the link from the Missouri page), and it has filled that blank. If it is viable and does not violate what has been written (canon) then it deserves consideration.

For the record, I am not "dead set" against any particular change in the article. Neither do I wish it to be rushed to publication (graduation) as is. I understand the compromise, especially the one I introduced myself, but that is not the issue. Articles can exist apart from what has become the 'norm.' A city is a city, and information about it can stand alone no matter what its role in the time line. This is especially true of one that has a connection such as this one does. If I decide that the city, and its government, 'claim' the whole state from the beginning, then the "Provisional Government" info box will be added. If, however, that government learns of Joplin and Cape Girardeau that would probably change, meaning an update would be in line. Such a change, then, would warrant a new article to 'contain' Hannibal unless the new nation-state takes the name of its capital.

All that being said, this proposal is a lot newer than many that still lay unattended and perhaps close to obsolescence. It can sit here in proposal for a bit longer until further discussion, or my further attention, leads it to be amended and made ready for canonization. I thank LG for his stated confidence in my abilities as an editor and writer, and hope to continue in both on this and other articles of interest. --SouthWriter 18:17, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've put up the info box - complete with present governor! Hopefully, this will suffice for now. I hope to be filling in the history a bit later this week, hopefully to include contact with the rest of the state and even with repersentatives from either the CRUSA or the US government at Torrington! How neat is that? :-)

SouthWriter 04:37, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. That was all I wanted, lol. My objection is now gone. ^^ Lordganon 04:57, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, I have expanded the article into the period of contact with neighbors and the world, seeking to keep it within canon. Let me know if I missed something so far. It would be better, in fact, if you put suggestions and critique on the article's talk page. That way I can work back and forth between suggestions and the article a little easier. SouthWriter 03:09, July 29, 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)

As with Hannibal, this article has seen no discussion. Is it okay to go ahead and graduate it as a stub? Any and all suggestions are welcome. SouthWriter 23:40, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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

I don't see why Myanmar would split up. Government changes are fine, but while there is a lot of unrest, the military had pretty firm control. I don't see the whole country collapsing and splitting into multiple nations. Oerwinde 08:48, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. I remember seeing his map at some point - it's a touch disturbing with the extent, lol. Lordganon 19:59, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

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: []


 * I have done a rewrite, hopefully to provide a viable little 'republic' in the foothills. I refer to the area several times within it as 'the Valley' hoping to show a unity of purpose and community for the tiny city-state (two cities and a town, or rather two towns and a village). I tried to keep the 'flavor' created earlier, but I removed the raid on the warlord as unrealistic. SouthWriter 21:21, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a great improvement to the history, though the date of outside contact is still a problem. Lordganon 21:30, July 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * I simply retained the date from the original. I wrote this was the "offical" contact rather than an actual encounter. This is based on a choice by the locals to stay out of conflicts such as that presented by the raiders from Spokane. They would have known of at least the Pasco Free State much sooner. What would a good date be for the tri-city area to make contact with the Wentachee population? SouthWriter 21:56, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, South.

We're stuck with a quandary here. Contact with Pasco first is indeed a given, but considering that Wentachee is at the limit of Pasco territory, we have to assume that they took control of it sometime in the last decade, at best.

Adding to that, Pasco is definitely in contact with the NAU nations, from the Spokane War onwards. Here, lies the issue. The NUSA and Provcan, at a minimum, but the NAU overall more so, have outside contact only after 2009. Victoria, on the other hand, is the early 1990s, at worst.

So, it ends up being a choice: contact with Victoria, or Pasco. Prior to 2009, we can't really have both.

Pasco, being much more likely, would be obvious, and more or less have to be first contact. But, with the position of Wentachee in relation to the borders of Pasco, we have to assume its possession by them is more recent than 1999. I'd say about 2004 or so would work best for official contact - go with rumors since 1999, maybe, but not contact. Victoria from 2009 onwards.

Tourism part is probably a touch of an exaggeration, but it's doable, I suppose, though they will mostly be form Pasco - simple distance and logistics there, I'm afraid, work against Victoria.

Lordganon 23:56, July 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have done some work on the USA, as well as the NAU, and perhaps 'outside contact' could mean outside of the continental USA. The 2009 date is what we are forced with due to how this time line was originally concieved, but we don't have to hold that near neighbors, like Utah and Pasco, were unknown to the government in Torrington.


 * I have changed the wording of the contact to 2004 for official contact and recognition by only Pasco. The part about becoming a tourist town has been reworded to be open to all, but left to the assumption that it will mostly be for those who both know about the town and have the means to bet there.  The date of this re-established tourism is sometime in the recent past, presumedly since 2009.

~South

True, that is possible, but given everything already written, we can't really do it that way outside of Utah. As I said, the events of the Spokane War mean that both Pasco and Utah have to already have known about them.

Sounds good, South.

Lordganon 17:24, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Feg and Vegas. Lordganon 11:32, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Superman (1983: Doomsday)
Article by CrimsonAssassin

Lincolnshire Assimilation Project
Article by me in relation to ongoing project between Cleveland and Newolland--Smoggy80 17:08, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to graduation? I believe this is done now. Lordganon 04:56, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yes the project is finished now--Smoggy80 17:13, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Article by a new user for the Nordic Union member of Denmark. Currently, it is horribly formatted and filled with errors in general. Lordganon 05:00, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

The Black Sea Group I've hinted at a few times. Mostly done, if not done, but something I'm going to let sit for a month, lol. Lordganon 18:20, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

The Great Rutland War
Page by me about upcoming major battle in former UK--Smoggy80 13:24, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Article by me about post-Doomsday Tanganyika. Caeruleus 20:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Article by me about Kenya. Caeruleus 19:55, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

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

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.''