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

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

Thunder Bay referendum
Thunder Bay was supposed to hold a referendum on joining Canda, Superior or staying independent a few months ago. what would be the result of this?--HAD 18:38, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously this has been forgotten, just like the war in Saguenay and the war in Europe, just one of many problems I guess. And I think no one can speculate on the outcome other than the author, although I think that the referendum would be directly connected to the outcome of the war--Vladivostok 19:48, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's take a poll so we can get it updated.
 * Let's take a poll so we can get it updated.

What should happen to Thunder Bay? Merge with Canada Become a protectorate of Canada Merge with Superior Stay Independent

Note:My browser had a spasm and marked "Stay Independent" when I meant to mark "Merge With Canada". Arstarpool 19:04, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as none of the options reached a 50% threshold shall we move the top two vote getters to a runoff? --GOPZACK 01:45, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. --Lordganon 10:12, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

What should happen to Thunder Bay? Merge with Canada Stay Independent

Resetting the runoff poll because the "merge with Superior" option officially lost. It had seven votes, the other two had eleven. Yankovic270 15:12, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

How the hell is Thunder Bay supposed to "Merge With Canada"? Most of Ontario is still outside of Canadian control. For God's sake the Canadians have yet to reclaim southern Quebec, let alone Ontario. I think that Thunder Bay should stay independent until at least 2020, when the Canadian province of Ontario is officially restored.

Yankovic270 22:58, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

So it's a problem with Canada when they are to "merge" with Thunder Bay, but not a problem when the Virginians control eastern Virginia which was ripped to shreds by nukes. I sense hypocrisy...Arstarpool 02:48, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Thunder Bay merging with Canada....'''eventually. '''Let's be rational here. It would be much more convenient for both parties if they held off the merging until Canada reclaims the territory between itself and Thunder Bay. Which, at this rate of expansion, is around '''2020. '''And et tu Arstarpool? I defend the Commonwealth of California/Californian Republic and this is the thanks you give me? I try to be rational and you snap at me. All I'm saying is wait until its plausible. Which at the earliest is still ten years from now.

Yankovic270 02:57, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

How about we bring back the more plausible possibility of them merging with Superior? Arstarpool 03:09, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I had that on the original runoff poll but Yank cleared it off, in defense of Yank it varies region to region as to who joins who & such. Thunder Bay is different then Virginia & such. GOPZACK 03:12, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

You guys need to remember that while dormant, a debate is still going on as to the actual condition of Ontario after Doomsday, and how it was originally made much, much worse sounding than it actually would have been.

Also, Canada does control the Ontario coast of Hudson's Bay - and Thunder Bay is not all THAT far from there.

While it is more plausible for them to join with Superior, it would still make some sense for them to join Canada.

On another note, whoever came up with that date for Ontario in the first place was likely wrong in some regard - sure, southern would be out, but Northern Ontario, except for North Bay, would be fine to establish a minimal territory/province, on the same level as Quebec.

Lordganon 12:30, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

While they are "not all THAT far" there are no roads to create a viable connection between the two. GOPZACK 04:26, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I think we should delay the vote until Canada actually controls the area in between itself and Thunder Bay. Until then, more practical voices will prevail over the blindly patriotic. Thunder Bay should remain independant, at least for now. I'm basically the practical person of the discussion, who noone listens to because the truth hurts. Thunder Bay can't and shouldn't rejoin Canada now. How many times to I have to say that it isn't practical at the moment?

Yankovic270 03:36, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a tie, chaps.HAD 08:11, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

It is? I'm seeing 13-12 in favor of Canada (and I just voted in favor of Canada - however, the vote tally didn't change to reflect that). BrianD 15:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind...the tally just changed. When are we cutting off the voting? BrianD 15:24, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, but the vote is too close for this to be called a consensus. Also we must debate which is plausible. Yank makes a very valid point that there are no roads of use that would connect Canada's holdings along Hudson's bay with Thunder Bay. GOPZACK 06:11, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well, way I figure it there's gotta be a way we can combine the two - without it being something that happens in 2020.

Something along the lines of what the deal was with B.C. and the railroad when it joined Confederation?

Lordganon 07:08, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts about what I said? Sheesh.

Lordganon 13:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

We've been busy. We'll get to it soon. --GOPZACK 23:26, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Two points of interest: why is it that the 1st poll putting merging with Canada in the lead and the 2nd puts Independence in the lead. And how is it that 34 people have voted! With regards to communications, surely it would be possible to establish a radio link between Thunder Bay and the rest of Canada? HAD 16:25, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Up until basically today the numbers on the second one were reversed.

Lordganon 23:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

East British expansion into Lincolnshire
I have written it down on the page. But I wanted confirmation as to whether this would be a sensible course of action. As East Britain is mostly based in Lincolnshire with some areas of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, as well as Hull, it only seems natural for East Britain to take control of Lincolnshire. Bob 10:15, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

It could be done, but you'd need to make sure you do a good job with the locals. East Britain has only a population of 40,000, and would be incredibly thinly spread across Lincolnshire - unless you make sure the locals agree to become citizens of East Britain, you will have major issues in maximising the effectiveness of the land you've colonised. Fegaxeyl 08:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I've updated it and East Britain has a population of 230000. Bob 11:07, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

That figure seems a little high to me; is it the population before or after expansion? Fegaxeyl 12:09, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Before expansion. I altered the numbers to include populations from South Holland in Lincolnshire, Hull and the occupied Cambridgeshire areas, all reduced by a considerable margin to produce this number. Bob 18:30, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Chechnya
Don't the Caucasus Emirate and Chechnya contradict each other?

Lordganon 14:39, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to change Chechnya to match the Emirate. Hell, feel free to adopt it if you want to.

Yankovic270 15:56, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

They don't conflict. The Caucasus Emirate only controls part of Chechnya, not all of it. The rest can be controlled by the proposed Chechnya. Caeruleus 15:57, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Evolving the Alpine Confederation
Hey guys. I was wondering if you could help me with the Alpine Confederation and something I plan to do with it. I saw what was recently done with the Greek Confederation and I would like to do the same with Alpine, making individual articles for the member states and such. If anybody would like to help me with this please comment. Arstarpool 20:24, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

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

New Chumash Flag
Im thinking of changing the flag for the Chumash Republic here is what I came up with

New ideas Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

In addition I will also let people submit there designs Riley.Konner 01:38 August 28 2010 (UTC)

Here's my submission. Basically just the same flag only cleaner.Oerwinde 06:31, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do any other users think the browns and tans of the flag make it look dull and unnapealing? What do the Chumash have against vibrant colour? Don't get me wron, the tribal logo is grest, it's just that the flag looks altogether boring.

Yankovic270 23:34, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well for some reason the images on the poll aren't appearing, but Yank option one is very colorful. Also Oerwinde you must add your option under "option 3 on the poll and give a description. Riley.Konner 07:29 August 29 2010 (UTC)

Maybe post the other ones on here separately so we can see them? Just call them Option 1/2.

Lordganon 05:37, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking. Riley.Konner

Also just a note the same flag that gets picked will also change the nations coat of arms (unless option 3 is chosen). Riley.Konner 16:02, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone think that the Chumash Republic needs a flag that looks like it came from an old western. We can use a flag that doesn't look like it came from a sepia-toned movie. We have the technology.

Yankovic270 16:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to have a tie-breaker poll. --Yankovic270 15:46, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Tie-Breaker Option 1 Option 3

Thanks for making the poll I will officially close this one Tuesday September 7 at around 8:00 AM Pacific standard time. Riley.Konner 14:30 September 5 2010 (UTC)

Quad Cities Flag
So I have been working on the article and I realized it does not have a flag. So I am opening up a contest for some of our more graphically inclined editors to design a flag for the article. Best one will be selected for the article, most likely by vote. Mitro 04:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

What should be the flag of the QCA? Option 1 Option 2 Option3

Duchy of Lancaster flag
Okay, I've done my research and there's two possibilities. The first is the flag of Lancashire, while the second is the flag of the real life duchy. Personally I'm leaning towards the former (the latter seems rather gaudy) but I thought I'd get a second opinion.Tessitore 17:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with you.

Lordganon 19:48, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Lancashire flag is definitely a better choice I think. May I also submit one of my own?Oerwinde 07:29, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I like the shield but I'm not keen on the background. Firstly it just doesn't look quite right and secondly it's a vertical triband, something associated with republics and more specifically the French. Lancaster isn't a republic and since they're still English in a manner of speaking I doubt that they'd go near anything associated with France. *shrugs* Plus I'm in two minds about the Duchy flag given that I've just found out that it's based on the Royal Standard of England (from wikipedia: "The Royal Standard of England, with a three point label, each containing three fleurs-de-lis") so now I'm wondering if it's use would be appropriate under the circumstances. I think I'll leave deciding on that one until I make up my mind about the political side of things.*sigh*Tessitore 12:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

The French flag is three bars of red, white and blue that are of equal width. The third flag reminds me of the modern flag of Canada, which was a loyal member of the Commonwealth. I see no problems with using such a flag.

Yankovic270 15:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what you mean. I stand corrected. Still doesn't look quite right to me though, although I can't quite put my finger on why.Tessitore 18:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I chose the colors I did was because I didn't want the seal to be surrounded by yellow or red. The only other major color in the shield was blue. I made a blue ensign alternate if you like, to emphasize its britishness.Oerwinde 03:30, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had another trawl of google and come up with a couple more real life flags. By the by, is it just me or does the north of England seem to have a red-and-yellow fixation when it comes to flags?Tessitore 16:41, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had another trawl of google and come up with a couple more real life flags. By the by, is it just me or does the north of England seem to have a red-and-yellow fixation when it comes to flags?Tessitore 16:41, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Have to admit, the first one is still the best-looking.

Lordganon 18:03, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2

Nuclear winter
I found this link at alternatehistory.com (on a thread dealing with the buildup and aftermath of a nuclear attack on Britain). At this link, Carl Sagan's theories of nuclear winter are thoroughly debunked; the argument becomes that, in the event of an all-out nuclear war, the survivors would deal with a nuclear autumn (though crops would fail because not enough sunlight is getting through to ground level). BrianD 15:46, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal Overload
We currently have 53 proposals swimming around, most of them have sat idle for a month or so. Lets try to get to around 30 or so before we start making new pages guys. In my opinion I think placeholder articles like Yunnan or Alaska should just be graduated and marked as stubs. Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there are 86 proposals currently. Also no offense Arstar, but a fair few are articles created by you. I think you should try getting some of your articles graduated before creating any new ones.
 * On a similar note, personally I am not that bothered by this huge number. Admittedly I used to be like that in the past, but the more I think about it, its better to make sure a few quality articles are added to the TL instead of just rushing through several mediocore ones. If it meets the proposal cue is a little long, so what? This is an active TL, we have more than 20 editors contributing to it. Its a good sign we have so many proposals. Mitro 01:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Modern 'Knights'
Okay now this is probably one of my stranger ideas and I'm not sure what to do with it but it just won't leave me alone so I thought that rather then creating yet another proposal, I'd see what you made of it first. Basically it occurred to me that something like Doomsday is going to lead to some 'interesting' coping strategies. Given the general lawlessness of large areas of the world, I had an idea that someone (or several someones) who was a serious fan of chivalric ideas and imagery before Doomsday gets it into their heads that they have a calling to defend the innocent and for one reason or another (maybe the line between reality and their idea of the age of chivalry gets a bit blurry) establishes a military order to do so. Under 'normal' circumstances that sort of thing would quickly fizzle out but post-Doomsday there are a lot of people desperate for something to believe in and give their lives meaning, and anyone who seems to know what they're doing is going to attract followers, particuarly if they have a decent amount of charisma, so the order starts accumulating members (I see it starting out small, a few armed individuals protecting an isolated community or a travelling group of refugees, and then gradually snowballing) and one way or another it actually works. As I said, it's one of my stranger ideas.Tessitore 15:18, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Sounds sort of like the "New York Rangers" militia in Central New York State.

Lordganon 15:31, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

(had to look up the Rangers) Yes, I suppose it's along similar lines. There would be a number of differences though, the first being their motivation. The Rangers are in it to protect their homes, my knights do what they do because they see it as their calling/duty to 'smite the evil doers and defend the innocent'. Plus I see them as being European rather then American. I just need to think of a decent name for them.Tessitore 18:44, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea. How about "The Defenders Of The Right" as a name?HAD 18:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think before you think of a name you should think of where they're based. Once you have that you can look at historical groups in that area. Perhaps a resurgence of the Livonian Order in Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia.Oerwinde 19:11, September 5, 2010 (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).

The Sultanate of Turkey is the successor state of the now defunct Republic of Turkey. I've started to write the article. Commentary and ideas are welcome. Most of the pre-Doomsday history is straight off Wikipedia. And I hope this doesn't conflict with any already accepted nations in this althist. I've accounted for the existence of Kurdistan, the Greek control of Rhodes and the (formerly) Turkish Straits, and the possiblity of an enlarged Armenia in eastern Turkey, though I'm not sure there's an accepted article about Armenia.

Caeruleus 22:17, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

In fact, its pretty awesome. Any objections? Arstarpool 17:24, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Heh. That Caucasian war bit is impossible, realistically, and the state is still too large.

Lordganon 03:03 June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if it included only southern Turkey, and shared little/no borders with Greece, then it would be acceptable. The Causcausian War crap should be taken out. Sorry, but I didn't read through the whole article, heh. Arstarpool 16:31, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

You have to erase the Georgian and Armenian things. There is a state on Georgia since much before you wrote this article. Fedelede 16:48, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Bye bye Turkish Empire I guess. Caucasian War portion removed. Caeruleus 18:29, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Still way too big as well as expanding too fast, and he's right about the strikes - dont know why I didn't notice before. You have to remember, the list is only a guideline, not anything definite. Some research is involved in this project, remember.

You need to take the criticism and work with it, not ignore it.

Lordganon 10:50, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Christ! He just gave himself nukes. Not getting graduated with that there, buddy.

Still needs to be smaller and expand less, especially with the new nuclear strikes. No way is that happening now. Add Edirne, in European Turkey, as well, please.

Lordganon 10:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know per our earlier discussion, I have posted my thoughts as you asked on your discussion page for Turkey. Please let me know if you wish to talk further in the future.--Fxgentleman 03:30, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Any other objections to its graduation? I believe I have fixed most of the previous issues. Caeruleus 15:42, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Um..... no, you haven't. It's still illogical for it to be that size. If I'd been the only one to say so, I'd let it slide, but I'm not the only one. Thus, I do object.

Lordganon 05:176, August 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * But it's not illogical for it to be that size. It makes sense and is explained in the article... Caeruleus 23:15, August 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * LG, you're the only one left who has signaled any opposition. So, last call, can it be graduated now? Caeruleus 20:19, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think it seems too optimistic. Every rival just seems to fall over and submit.Oerwinde 11:44, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * And...? There are lots of optimistic articles in this TL. There is also always one state that always wins their battles to unite their nation (i.e. Genghis Khan and the Mongols, Red Army in China and Russia, etc.). Caeruleus 19:51, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're always complaining that Greece is ASB, so then why are you sinking to its level? Just because more than a couple of nations here are optimistic doesn't mean you have to make yours bigger than it should be out of spite or because you want your nation to bloody recreate the Ottoman Empire; ever heard of the "Would you jump off a bridge if..." saying? Mr.Xeight 21:59, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike Greece, I'm not creating an international empire and an entirely unrealistic Mediterranean superpower in a country that would probably revert to a Peloponnesian War-like state. Also, to clarify, my main problem with Greece was not that it was unrealistic (lots of things in althists are), but that there was no detail on to how everything happen so it seemed as if it became a superpower from nothing. Now the article is much more detailed and I thank you, and the others who assisted you, for that.
 * The only reason this article is may seem optimistic, in my opinion, is because I didn't dwell very much on the famine, disease, death, and general destruction post-Doomsday. I also assume that Turkish nationalism remains relatively strong post-Doomsday, which is not unreasonable to assume. Between nationalism and pre-Doomsday preparations, I crafted Turkey to be reunited in a relatively short amount of time, which happened previously during post-WWI Turkey and during the initial Ottoman unification of the Turkish peoples of Anatolia in similar timeframes. Plus, Turkey isn't a particularly large nation, so unification can occur in a much shorter time period than it can in other nations. Caeruleus 22:09, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Are you still on about that? The only reason they got anything in North Africa at all was because the ADC either gave it to them to hold onto, or they nipped off pieces from lawless Libya. I didn't even want Greece's influence to extend past Tripoli; it was Mr. Hicken and Venezuela that has Greece puppetifying the Barbary. And you have no room to talk about implausibility either; you bloody have all those eastern-Anatolian states practically fawning over some neo-Sultanate to become annexed by being defeated in a mere months. Greece wouldn't revert back to Ancient Times; literally no one in Greece sees themselves as "Peloponnesian" or "Athenian" like philhellenes would have you think. The only reason their are facturated states now is because the ruling parties of each won't relinquish power-a very human theme. Greece is gradually unifying anyway-by 2012 it'll become one state due to the neo-conservancy, Byzantine-recreationism, all part of the "return to the Glory Years" mentality of post-Doomsday Greeks, mostly barely out of college and learned about East Rome in their studies and how in the early-mid Byzantine Empire things were good and they'll want their politicians to represent them on that and when they get older some will become politicians ride the band-wagon and use unity to make themselves look good. Mr.Xeight 22:23, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one who brought it up, so don't complain when I mention it. And your explanation for why that happened still doesn't explain how that's even possible, but whatever. Now that I've discovered where you actually mention all those tiny details, I don't particularly care to oppose the plausibility of the FoG anymore. Also, please learn to recognize historical analogies. The Peloponnesian War was an ancient war between Greek city-states. I was refering to my belief that post-Doomsday Greece would enter into a similar state of civil war between many small Greek states. But, once again, Greece is canon, so I can't change it. My current focus is this article. This isn't the place to argue the feasibility of Greece anyway.
 * And if you actually bothered to read the entire article, you would know it takes seven years for the Sultanate to conquer eastern Turkey, which involved direct warfare, proxy warfare, and difficult gunboat diplomacy. Not "mere months" as you put it. Caeruleus 22:30, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I believe Mr.Xeight has been satisfied. Any other objections? Caeruleus 19:00, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Some of the diplomatic contact dates need to be changed to those established in Rhodope, or afterwards.

Lordganon 08:14, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough. Anything else? Caeruleus 15:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

The size...I'm sorry but it is way too big, if not almost bigger than pre-Doomsday Turkey. Arstarpool 22:19, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not bigger than pre-Doomsday Turkey. And why is it too big? Caeruleus 22:35, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well when you first made the article, people were already arguing on the size, and then you made it bigger, so maybe you should return it to the original size and map. If you want, I will help you get it wrapped up for graduation even if it means toning it down a little. Arstarpool 22:40, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to reread the article. It's much smaller than when I first started it, back when it was outrageously large. I never increased the size. It's borders are all firmly within the boundaries of pre-Doomsday Turkey, except for a few minor Syrian border provinces. And if it is the map that is confusing you on its size, it's because the map emphasizes the size of Turkey in comparison to the other countries around it. But that's just a feature of the map I used. Caeruleus 22:54, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

See? I'm not the only one that feels that way.

The dates are a bit better now, but you have the Greeks telling you of Rhodope before they even found the nation.

And I've noticed that you have the Greeks in Thrace being found and encountered for the first time in both 1995 and 1990.

The Macedonian dates should likely be held back a bit too, depending on the Greek date, but it shouldn't make too much difference.

Lordganon 00:52, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well you weren't when I initially mentioned it a week ago.
 * Where does it mention Thrace being encountered in 1990? I'll move that back, then I'll edit the Macedonia and Rhodope dates accordingly. Caeruleus 01:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

In the international relations part. And the eastern med. map is also wrong, fyi.

Lordganon 01:43, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed the dates. What's wrong with the map? Caeruleus 03:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you just made it bigger. I mostly take issue that Turkey seems to be the only country nuked to hell that is unified. While it doesn't break any rules, it goes against the spirit of the TL. The territory in the north that was until recently believed to be Greek I don't think should have been added, maybe create another Republic there, as Turkey having rejected a monarch being entirely unified by one seems suspect to me. There should be more republics in Turkey. And not just Republics in Name Only like Hatay that are prime targets for Sultanate imperialist expansionism. Oerwinde 05:28, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

That sums up my feelings nicely.

It's the borders in the Balkans, Caer. Make them like the Macedonia map~

Lordganon 05:58, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I made it slightly bigger to adjust it to accommodate the actual borders of Greece. I assumed that they had more territory than they actually have and are claiming.
 * Well, I'm sorry if it violates the "spirit" of the timeline, but like you said, it breaks no rules. Unless you have a problem with the actual substance of the article, I see no reason why it can't graduate.
 * I'll fix the map LG. Caeruleus 01:12, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, there are a handful of real democratic republics in eastern Turkey. I just haven't gotten around to writing articles on them yet, or found a volunteer willing to do so for me. Caeruleus 01:16, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Rules? Listen we have marked articles as obsolete for being overly optimistic, like Rhodesia (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 01:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it isn't too optimistic, or at least no one has proven it to be so thus far. Caeruleus 01:36, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a lot of people who feel it is to large or else they wouldn't still be objecting. Have you thought about reqriting the history a bit to allow some of those Turkey survivor states you also created remain independent to cut back on the size? Mitro 14:05, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I considered it yes, but dismissed it because there's nothing I can find that is unrealistic about it. If someone can point out something concrete that shows how it couldn't happen, then I'll change it. Otherwise, why not? It makes things more interesting anyway. It's also not particularly large. It's smaller than OTL Turkey. Caeruleus 23:22, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I agree with that. Considering the map, even with the loss of territory to Greece and Kurdistan, the additional territory in Syria makes up for some of it. Furthermore just saying "its interesting' isn't going to convince the objectors to drop their objections. Mitro 00:10, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, just drop some land... Arstarpool 00:15, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

The Syrian border territories are minor. Less than 100 km into Syria and the border with Syria is shorter than it is OTL too. And if someone can give me a legitimate reason to drop some land, I will. So far, the most people have said is "It's too big." but give no reason why it is too big or why it can't be that big. Or at least that's how I understand most people's point so far. Arstarpool, if you, or anyone else, can come up with a reason why it has too much land, then I'll reduce it. "Just because" isn't a reason. Also, don't assume land = undue strength. Because it doesn't, at least in this case. Caeruleus 01:29, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I personally find the idea of Turkey returning to monarchy to be a bit implausible. Republicanism is pretty strong in OTL Turkey. HAD 16:52, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I think initial expansion is a bit much. The article says they become somewhat oligarchic and deal with some heavy unrest and power shortages, yet despite this nearly triple in size. Though this might just be an issue with article clarity. Contact with Hatay would have come earlier I think, considering they share a border. My major issue though is if France and Spain, countries that were struck much less than Turkey with less people and less land area haven't been able to unify their nations or even come close why has Turkey? They've been able to fully industrialize, reach nearly their OTL borders, expand their military, as the article stands they are nearly on the same level as the SAC nations, and they achieved this without foreign aid.Oerwinde 17:28, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Really? I must say I agree with the objectors in that case. Turkey needs to be smaller, more divided and less developed.HAD 19:28, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this just now for the Greek contact dates, I notice that you have contact with the Greek Confederation before it is even established. You're gonna have to push the dates back to 1995, and you really should mention the nature of the first contact with Macedonia.

Also, Oer's point is more or less the one I was making.

Lordganon 20:28, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

The return to Monarchy was a result of the conservative religious and civilian leaders of Konya, the Turkish capital, wanting to form an Islamic state. To the military, a secular constitutional monarchy would be much more agreeable than an Islamic state, so they went for that.

Oerwinde, the reason they grow so quickly in the early years is because of pre-Doomsday preparations and a gathering order from the remains of the Turkish government. That caused most of the surviving Turkish military in western Turkey to either head for Konya or hold up where they were and join the Konya government when they expanded to reach them. Similar to the US's Gathering Order. It probably could have happened faster, but I tried to be reasonable about the how many units would follow this order. And you're probably correct about the meeting date with Hatay. I'll correct that.

Also, they're not fully industrialized. The southeast portions of the country are fully industrialized. Northern Turkey is sparsely populated, deals with lingering fallout effects, and is mostly agricultural. Eastern Turkey is rebuilding from the wars in the area and much of it is devastated. Only the former territory of the Republic of Greater Patnos is somewhat industrialized because, before their unification with the Sultanate, they had some assistance from Kurdistan and they were never invaded by the Sultanate during the war.

Countries like Spain and France could have plausibly reunited by now, especially with foreign assistance, but the writers of those pages have chosen not to do so. If you take a closer look, there are no massive wars between the various French and Spanish survivor states (for the most part). Unlike Turkey, they've chosen a more peaceful route to reunification, which would obviously take longer. Also, the Turkish survivor states in the north were mostly just small communities with minimal population who either were easily crushed (because they were essentially bandits) or willingly joined the Sultanate (out of desperation). In eastern Turkey, the survivor states were much more powerful, but they had assistance from foreign states (Georgia, Armenia, and Kurdistan) and constantly taxed their own resources in wars between other Wasteland states. The early years of the war in eastern Turkey was fought through proxies, so when the Sultanate military entered the area, they were already weakened and exhausted.

The Turkish military is not on the same level as the SAC. It is large and they have weapons similar to those they would have had around 1983, along with a few newer weapons recently developed, but those are only on like an OTL 1995 level, if that. Their military expansion and strength is largely due to the initial Turkish gathering order. That saved and united most of their surviving military. After that, conscription and a slight militarization of the state took care of the rest. Additionally, foreign aid is unnecessary to do this. Greece, Japan, Korea, and a few others have done the same thing all without foreign aid. The Turks also industrialized the first time, during the 1920s and 1930s, and won their full independence during the early 1920s largely without foreign aid. They received some military aid from the Soviet Union, but that was very small because the Soviets had their own internal problems to deal with. At the time, they were also fighting powerful nations such as France and Britain, along with the weaker Greece.

If any of that is unclear in the article, please just tell me where it's mentioned, or not mentioned, and I'll change it to make it clear.

You're right LG. I'll adjust the contact dates to make more sense and mention the nature of Macedonian first contact. Caeruleus 15:02, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Dates look better now, but the references to the Aegean need to be taken out - it makes no sense for them to get across there without the Greeks noticing. As it is it's hard to believe that going from the Adriatic they would not be found by Greece, but its plausible enough that I can live with it.

Thrace is only a territory, so you'll want to fix that too.

Caer, that's exactly what we mean - you're sugar-coating the whole thing, and have from the start. It's perfectly clear that is what you've written. What we're saying is that it's not very plausible. But you refuse to listen.

In the case of Spain and France, they have not been reunited because most parts of the territory collapsed. They need to rebuild, and defeat what chaos remains today - and much of the territory is still like this. Now, in your case, you've got more of a central authority, so being more organized/able to recover is possible. But not to the extent, nor the speed, which you have them doing it at. While it was possible with only a pair of strikes, with the present amount it is not possible like this at all. And any less than that makes no sense, so....

Thing is, what you're saying makes sense. But what you're saying, and what the article says, are not the same thing. You describe chaos over much of Turkey, yet have them recover so easily, and its even more positive than that when you go on like that. You can't have both, and yet you do. And since the chaos is both canon and what would have happened, you have to live with it.

(EDIT) The Rhodes part is fine, though I wish you'd asked first - you should have.

Lordganon 18:20, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agreewith Lord. The Sultanate should be one state amoungst many.HAD 18:47, September 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the article itself is plausible, along with the timeline, if, and only if, the situation in Turkey is more deplorable than the article currently makes it seem. And, along with that, what I'm saying about the article needs to be included in the article. Is that basically it?


 * When rereading my article, I believe I have addressed the same things that I have said here. For example, the situation in northern Turkey is described here and here. The second link also describes how far Turkish industrialization has come along with passages here, here, and here. Some other things are probably slightly sugar-coated or haven't been properly clarifying and I'm looking through to alter those passages.


 * Also, if it helps, the historical basis for the article comes from the post-WWI Soviet Union and post-WWI Turkey. After WWI, the Soviet Union used force to successfully reunite the country during the civil war and defeated many factions that had foreign assistance. For Turkey after WWI, they drove out all foreign armies, established a highly nationalistic socialist state, which lead the country for the next 20-30 years and their rule resulted in the industrialization of Turkey. So, when basing it off those situations which were somewhat similar, rapid reunification becomes a more realistic prospect.


 * LG, the Adriatic is east of Italy. No where near Turkey. You have your seas mixed up. Turkey borders the Aegean Sea. I'll fix the part about Thrace. And what did I mention about Rhodes? Caeruleus 20:12, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you misread. Slow down and actually read things.

What I said was that having them go across the Aegean would not be plausible, due to Greece and all its islands being in the way and not having spotted them. Having them go down the Adriatic, something go horribly wrong, and then drift towards Anatolia south of Crete is slightly plausible.

The part about the Dodecanese. Can't spell it off the top of my head, but Rhodes is one of them and should have been recognizable. You should have asked first.

The article as written is not plausible, thought you keep failing to listen to anyone about that. What we're saying is that you're giving too rosy a picture. There should be no way they can unify Turkey by this time.

Lordganon 14:28, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense. You have to cross the Aegean to get to the Adriatic from Turkey. Also, a Greek presence in the Aegean has nothing to do with the ability of Turkish explorers to traverse the area. They wouldn't be out shooting every unrecognizable ship, not they could do so anyway.


 * Not sure what there was to ask, but sorry.


 * The article is plausible, imo. None of you have stated a reason why it would not be plausible. The Turkish monarchy may not be the most likely type of government to form, but it's possible.


 * The fact that they have reunited already isn't implausible either, or at least it isn't based on anything any of you have said thus far. The military option is always takes less time than the diplomacy option. The most prominent example of this in this TL is Socialist Siberia. They're regained control over half of their pre-Doomsday territory through military conquest. The only reason they're not fully reunited is because the USSR was a massive and incredibly diverse country. Turkey on the other hand is much smaller and largely composed of a single ethnic group. Most of the surviving Turkish industry was based in western Turkey, which is where the Sultanate arose. This enabled them to be the most economically powerful of any possible Turkish survivor states. Also, the Turkish Gathering Order (the Toplama Order) resulted in most of the Turkish military in Western Turkey remaining loyal and part of the new Turkish state, with many exceptions. This Gathering Order, just like the ANZC Gathering Order and Socialist Siberia's actions to retain control of their military post-Doomsday, allowed to the Turkish military to be quickly rebuilt and retain much of their pre-Doomsday strength. And, to clear up something, the Toplama Order was issued before the new government was instituted, so that wouldn't be an issue initially. This led to the easy annexation of most of southwest Turkey because most of the units in that area followed the Toplama Order. All these things are plausible, which contribute to the early success of the state.


 * Next, there are the 1990s, which is essentially one continuous era of conquest. As I said before, the Sultanate of Turkey inherited most of Turkey's surviving industrial centers and military. And, due to the mass exodus from northern Turkey as a result of the concentration of nuclear strikes in the area, the Sultanate's population greatly increased from refuges, which took 7 years to properly deal with. In 1990, the Turkish state, which was highly centralized, was organized enough to start a coordinated expansion effort. This is one major difference between Turkey and other post-Doomsday nations, like France and Spain. The new governments that arose either took longer to form because they resulted from a coalition of local communities or were less centralized for various reasons. The Sultanate follows the early stage Kemalist model, which Turkey used in the 1920s-1940s. When they began expanding north, the area was minimally populated, even before Doomsday. This enables the wealthier and more populous Sultanate to easily overtake the area over the course of 7 years (I will add more to that section to further clarify it). Then comes the war with Hatay. They started the war, but the Sultanate was able to defeat them because of their greater industrial base and population (I will also attempt to further clarify this). At the beginning of the war, most of the Sultanate's army was in northern Turkey. Once it was recalled to southern Turkey, it was able to turn back the Hatayan advance.TurkeyPopDenswNukes.jpg


 * Finally, there are the 2000s, which is the more destructive decade. Unlike in northern Turkey, many powerful states appeared in eastern Turkey and there were several large population and industrial centers in the east. However, the main difference is that eastern Turkey did not follow the Toplama Order because they were fighting the Soviets. The fighting with the Soviets only lasted a few weeks, but supplies lines had broken down and much of the equipment on both sides was destroyed. This left the Turkish military in the area in a very weak position, even though pre-Doomsday more of the Turkish military was stationed in eastern Turkey. Next, you had various Turkish generals seize control of various provinces as the region collapsed into chaos. These warlords lacked the ample military supplies they had pre-Doomsday and, thanks to the constant warfare, were unable to properly build up their industrial base rapidly. This constant warfare is another difference between Turkey and other nations. Unlike France, Spain, etc, many Turkish states were engaged in constant warfare, while the various French survivor states, for example, were comparatively peaceful. This weakened them to the point where it was relatively simple for the Sultanate, with their superior numbers and industrial, were able to defeat them. However, several of them willing joined the sultanate as autonomous republics, so they didn't conquer the entire area.


 * If you find any of this implausible or unclear, please tell me exactly what's wrong with it. Your general opposition doesn't help me improve the article. I need details. And sorry for the WoT. I was bored and had nothing else to do.

Caeruleus 15:51, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you overestimate the number of troops the Sultanate would have. As the majority of Turkish military was either in the east, which you stated mostly didn't respond to the Toplama order, or were based in nuked cities such as Istanbul or Izmir.

Oerwinde 18:00, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe anywhere from 30-45% of the pre-Doomsday Turkish military that survived would be based in western Turkey, about 70% of whom would follow the Toplama Order. Even though they'd lose large numbers of troops to the nuclear strikes, they would still have a larger military force than any other state in western Turkey. In addition, they received the 25,000 or so troops evacuated from Cyprus. Also, the military would be greatly enlarged through voluntary recruitment, post-Doomsday necessity, and conscription.

Caeruleus 19:38, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

It is the idea that a state could do so in general. If you hadn't noticed, I haven't griped at all about the government, just about its acceptance by the ex-army warlords so readily. I actually like the monarchy you have.

You should have asked because it is proper, and it involves what someone else has created.

Considering it was Macedonian explorers that arrived in Turkey..... >.>;

To arrive on the southern coast of Turkey from the Aegean is implausible. Maybe the western coast, but not the southern. It would be impossible to get through the Aegean without somebody noticing.

What states in Western Turkey? You've made no mention of this before, though there should indeed have been something there.

Wasn't it Hatay that got those troops from Cyprus? Methinks articles are saying different things again....

That's roughly how much was in western Turkey, sure. But the vast majority was in destroyed cities. Maybe 20-30% of troops that were in the west would have lived.

The issue is that it is not plausible to have expanded so fast. You've had suggestions several times over what might be better, but fail to give any sort of credit to them. That's the problem, Cer.

Lordganon 18:32, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Others have griped about the government. I was addressing everyone, not just you.


 * I still don't quite understand your issue with that, but you're correct about them landing on the western coast versus the southern coast. I'll edit that.


 * In southwest Turkey, there were very few states. There were warlords, but they were mainly Turkish generals who were following the Toplama Order and waiting for government forces to arrive. In northern Turkey, the massive amount of refugees and nearby nuclear strikes caused the region to collapse. There were several large marauding gangs, but no organized states.


 * And no, Hatay got the Turkish Cypriots were who expelled. The Sultanate got the Turkish troops who left early on following the Toplama Order.


 * Notice I said of the surviving soldiers. There would obviously be massive losses, though most Turkish military bases aren't actually based in cities, so the losses would be only like 30-50%.


 * Actually, I think it is plausible. Of course, none of you have been able to prove otherwise. Only Oerwinde, and Lordganon to a lesser extent, has actually be able to present any facts to back up their points. So far, none of your evidence has given a reason why it can't unify this quickly. Caeruleus 19:02, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Macedonia
I moved the old discussion to the Macedonia talk page archive. Arstarpool 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other things needed to be fixed before we graduate this? Arstarpool 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the objection I had about the bunker. It is based on to many assumptions with zero facts. South has already pointed out the prince would survive without it. Any reference to a fictional bunker should be removed. Mitro 01:55, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro, if you'd look at the page, all references have been removed regarding the bunker. Ownerzmcown 02:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh, your right, my bad. On another note, the map posted seems to conflict with the map posted on the Greece article. What is the deal on that? Mitro 03:19, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Owner, just fix it quick. Mitro, when he's done lets try to get this graduated quick. Owner's put a lot of work into it, and I think its time he gets his pay. Arstarpool 03:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

The Turkey contact dates will have to be adjusted due to issues involving their contact with Greece that would preclude contact with Macedonia.

Lordganon 20:30, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

When should the contact date be, it need to precede the Civil War? Ownerzmcown 21:09, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Just make your story match the 1994 given in the Turkey article for contact (the voyage), though give 1995 for the trip of the king.

Lordganon 21:43, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Also needs a map that removes the Serbian parts, or it needs to explain in the article how Macedonia managed to get a big chunk of Serbia from a nation that is far larger and more populous and experienced in warfare. And that needs to happen after 1989.Oerwinde 00:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

The understanding at the time was that in the aftermath of 1985, much of Serbia was in chaos. As of yet, the Serbia article doesn't say this, though they should, in part. Heck, my Bulgaria articles have even said that from early on.

Lordganon 17:45, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revamp the article when I have access to a computer on a regular basis, so please refrain from editing until I do so. Arstarpool 05:11, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hows it looking? Better than before? Please do not leave a long comment because it is hard for me to view on the current device I am using but just tell me if you may. Arstarpool 22:27, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Better, I think, but Erie is still listed as the capital, which is a problem.

Lordganon 23:31, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

How about now? Any objections to graduation? If it is something regarding Erie please don't take it into account because when I have the time I will revamp the Erie part of the article. Arstarpool 23:38, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * We take everything into account when graduating. As for Erie, the part of rebuilidng it makes as much sense as Richmond being rebuilt by Virginia. WP is a small survivor state. They do not have the time or resources to commit to rebuilding a city destroyed by a nuclear bomb. Such energy could be spent doing a number of other more important projects. Mitro 18:32, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

With the destruction of Erie, why would WP still be reaching out to Norfolk County across Lake Erie. Also there are still a TON of references that need to be removed. --GOPZACK 18:38, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

You are acting strange, Zack. First you posted a map that supported my claim that eastern Erie would survive, and then you speak against it.

As for Norfolk County, I will have that still happen, but instead it will happen a couple years later. Arstarpool 23:24, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I said that some of the outskirts are viable for resettlement in the future because they were not blown away to smithereens.As for Norfolk, if it happens a few years later London will have gotten there first. --GOPZACK 04:38, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Katanga (1983: Doomsday)
My proposal for a breakaway satate in the former Democratic Republic of the Congo (which I'm assuming fell to pieces following Doomsday).

Yankovic270 19:48, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 21:57, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Gécamines is a state-owned company of Zaire. As soon as Katanga gained independence the company would have no control over its mineral wealth. Nevertheless, a big question is, who is buying their mineral wealth? A landlocked nation can't have access to that many markets. Mitro 23:27, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Me and JackOfSpades' proposal for a international organization in the Great Lakes region. Arstarpool 01:34, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to passing as a stub? Arstarpool 00:13, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we get a list of members, that way people don't have to consult the map. Mitro 15:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also London, Pennsylvania and Toledo should become canon first before this is graduated. --GOPZACK 19:00, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this proposal might actually conflict with this article: League of the United American States (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 16:03, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does. The League of the United American States (1983: Doomsday) was a proposed idea as I recall and hadn't even been foramlly voted on by Superior's Congress. --GOPZACK 16:26, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is my point though. The LUAS is a canon article and pretty much seems similar to this current proposal. If the proposal is graduated, than why would this organization even be proposed if Superior was already a member of the UC in 2007? Mitro 21:28, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah but, LUAS does not even exist yet its a bill purposed by Harold Duke some right-winger in the Congress of Superior. With that said, I really don't know Superior would be a member now that I think about it. In fact I don't know why the other members would want Superior in it. Superior would dominate all decisions made in the UC. --GOPZACK 03:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar became caretaker of Superior, but he may not have been aware of the LUAS (which if I recall correctly was Lahbas' proposal). BrianD 03:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are their any articles he's not a caretaker of? ;) I think your right Lahbas did write that article. --GOPZACK 03:55, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

How does one become a "caretaker" of an article he has not edited? Arstar was appointed to look out for vandalism and "trolls" (which I assume are obnoxious articles offensive and totally irrelevant). I am hard-pressed to keep my own articles updated, much less hop around fixing elements of other folks' articles.

Apart from that, the UC seems workable. It is not the grand scheme to bring the USA back under a new umbrella (an idea I like, by the way). The UC is a locally based organization, and probably would have been founded some time before anyone knew of the LoN. --SouthWriter 04:36, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * He asked Lahbas for permission to adopt Superior (and Wisconsin). BrianD 14:57, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Did Lahbas grant him permission? GOPZACK 01:19, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Zack, yes on Wisconsin, no on Superior. The latter was my misunderstanding. I got Lahbas and Superior mixed up with Mjdoch and Celtic Alliance. Lahbas did give Arstar permission to be caretaker of Wisconsin (with a couple of conditions), and Arstar did in fact ask him for Superior. According to their talk pages Lahbas never responded back in regards to Superior. So as far as I can tell, Lahbas is still caretaker for Superior.

Ah, I don't see any radical edits by Arstar on the Superior article so we need not worry about that for now. I still think this alliance can't work with Superior in it. Pennsylvania (if graduated) will be weaker then Arstar's original article, Toledo is in decent shape, Niagara Falls is small and London doesn't have much of an army so Superior would basically run that show with an iron fist. GOPZACK 01:22, August 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Waitasecond. Oerwinde makes reference to Arstar being caretaker of Superior. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Arstarpool#Superior.2FOntario.2FCanada.2FSaguenay_War BrianD 18:03, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the adoption rules somebody must ask somebody who hasn't edited in three months or more to adopt a page. If the editor does not respond in a week the article is theirs. Other than a few talk page related edits within the three months Lahbas did not edit, meaning that I am the current caretaker of Superior. However I will return it to Lahbas should he request for it to be returned. Arstarpool 03:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you plan to do with Superior? BrianD 20:55, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is true that someone can adopt an unedited article the article cannot be changed based on QSS. However, it can be continued in a different direction from the last chronological reference (new item in "real time" in most cases). It will have to confirm with the histories of other related articles in order to stay viable as well. I suspect that Arstar has no real drastic changes in mind, though. SouthWriter 15:39, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is true that someone can adopt an unedited article the article cannot be changed based on QSS. However, it can be continued in a different direction from the last chronological reference (new item in "real time" in most cases). It will have to confirm with the histories of other related articles in order to stay viable as well. I suspect that Arstar has no real drastic changes in mind, though. SouthWriter 15:39, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Rhodope-Vidin War
Call it the Bulgarian finale. Will be ongoing through the month.

Lordganon 02:20, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

It's not done yet.

Lordganon 10:15, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank and expanded by Ven. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduating this now? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a little optimistic. Many of these countries have fought wars with each other in recent history. For some many to cooperate so quickly seems unlikely. Mitro 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Jnjaycpa. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2jec010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Caeruleus. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Oer. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

List articles


I have a concern regarding the article dealing with National Historic Landmarks in Virginia. Several of those listed were located in Richmond, VA and likely destroyed along with the city on Doomsday. I mentioned it previously, but I noted they are still there. When this article is canonized, I believe this part should be accordingly adjusted. --Fxgentleman 04:46, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

So do I. I like Yank, but his insistence on Richmond having survived is almost as bad as Owen's perpetual attempts to retroactively save Manchester, England. BrianD 01:36, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted it so that Richmond was struck, but with a non-nuclear ICBM. I altered the page to make the landmarks in Richmond reconstructions of the originals.

Yankovic270 14:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Richmond is too important of a target to not be nuked. We have been over this almost as much as Manchester with Owen. Mitro 04:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * At least Owen's proposals are amusing. Can we by any chance add that Richmond VA & Manchester UK were hit by nukes to the QSS and QAA and the . --GOPZACK 04:08, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Caeruleus. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Former obsolete article revived by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is still a lot of discussion going on in this region. What do Vlad, Lordganon, Caer and Owner have to say on this article? Mitro 01:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn`t mesh with canon. The Croatia article doesn`t have Serbia declaring independence from Yugoslavia, and it has it annex Kosovo and Montenegro prior to the dates in the article. Since Vlad seems to be dealing with most of former Yugoslavia aside from Macedonia, I say let him have a go at fleshing it out first.Oerwinde 08:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes no sense for them to be declaring independence.

The region should also be made more chaotic, especially in the areas near Bulgaria.

Going to have to make the Macedonian expansion northward plausible somehow too.

Would make Macedonian interference in the Sicily War much less likely too.

Lordganon 23:10, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Former stub expanded on by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the Sri Lankan Civil War? What happened to the Tigers? Doomsday probably would have made things go better for them. We could see a divided Sri Lanka. Mitro 01:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by BSE. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Bob. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I did my research, and this is actually Bob's grandfather who died in OTL, but somehow managed to survive irridation and starvation. Arstarpool 23:39, August 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Admit it, Arstarpool, the "research" was the talk page where Bob revealed to Mitro who William had been. As long as William was alive on Doomsday, his life could have gone any number of ways. This could include escaping whatever it was that killed him in OTL. If William died of heart disease, then the more austere life after DD may have improved his diet and excercise. If he died of cancer, life style changes might have prevented the cancer from developing as well. The fact that anyone escaped destruction means that it could be just that, ANY ONE


 * I say develope it, Bob. You've got the start of it on the East Britain page. SouthWriter 01:25, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Because this man is my grandfather, I know the intimacies of the causes of his death. He was a farmer and a successful one at that. He died because of a combination of a tumour which developed in his face because of long term chemical use and a small stroke. My idea was that due to Doomsday, he continued to farm, providing for his community. As East Britain expanded, it took control of farms and made them state controlled. At this point my Grandad stood up for farmer's rights and moved from the agricultural field to the political one, all the time calling out for farmers rights. He grew to be a prominent politician and helped form the Agricultural Party. Because of this move from the fields to the political battlefield, the exposure to chemicals that would one day kill him is dramatically reduced, though small cancers would trouble him for the rest of his life. I know that toward the end he may have appeared pathetic but this was just the drugs. He was a strong man with a strong will to fight. Also as you say South, the more austere life leads to his heart being healthier, rendering the stroke that would be the slippery slope to death null. This means he still a fit and strong man now, in fact even more so. Though not leader of the Agricultural Party, he was a strong voice on the National Council and his political ideas about agricultural redistribution lead to a proliferation of jobs as young mean and women served their 'National Service' not in the Guardsmen but in the fields. His popularity as food became an exportable product and wealth flowed into East Britains coffers ultimately lead to his election as King of East Britain. Bob 11:01, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * With all that information, you need only move it to the article in an organized fashion and the article can be on its way to graduation. --SouthWriter 15:58, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think making your grandfather king and you a prince is not the right choice. How about making him a chancellor of East Britain? But a king? And you a prince? I am sorry but not only is it not plausible, but unfair. If I said I wanted my cousin the new Queen of Spain, or my aunt the Eternal President of Singapore, or my dad the King of Kentucky, or my great-uncle the new Dictator of Cuba, it would be shouted down, but making him have a temporary seat of power as a prime minister would be much more plausible. Arstarpool 22:46, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find a plausible reason why your cousin should be the new Queen of Spain, or your aunt the Eternal President of Singapore, or your father the King of Kentucky, or your great-uncle the new Dictator of Cuba I'll support it. --GOPZACK 01:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do Zack. Arstarpool 01:32, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * But anyways does anybody else think it is implausible to make your grandfather king? At best I think he could be chancellor or some other seat of power but I doubt they would make him king. Arstarpool 01:32, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The English love the monarchy Arstar. GOPZACK 02:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a decendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The English love the monarchy Arstar. GOPZACK 02:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a decendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a decendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by BSE. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

That is way to late and all of us will most likely be gone by then. I chose 2011 because it is far enough away and unification has been a planned thing since the 90's. And actually, couldn't they be an "exclave nation", a nation with no access by land but all share sea access? Nevertheless I will make a couple of modifications to the date so that they all unify at the same time. Arstarpool 03:19, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * We must stick to plausibility we may not be here in five years but he have to keep this timeline in good shape for the next "generation" of contributors. An exclave nation would not work in this environment. In Texas reunification works because the nations are almost beside each other, the three Florida's are spread out and in three separate corners. Maybe a partial reunification could work. --GOPZACK 03:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Was thinking about Ocala, 93 Highway, would of Gainesville visted them?, in fact its quite large, wouldent it become some type of city state?--Sunkist- 03:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ocala is only 30 miles south on Fla. 93 ( I - 75 ), so there is no reason why the two cities could not have not only known of each other, but Ocala could have been a city of North Florida. If so it would probably be the southernmost town or city of North Florida. Highway 93 Conecting_Florida.png/or I-75 take turns toward bombed areas somewhere south of Ocala, though. The roads east out of Gainesville sneak between bombed out areas to conect to both St. Augustine and Daytona Beach. If we wanted to put the capital in a centrally located city, Lakeland, a small town which had to deal with refugees from both Tampa and Orlando, would be the best choice. It is about equidistant between Gainevile, Daytona and Ft. Myers (junction of state highway 35 and I-4), but may have suffered as being isolated and overwhelmed. It's survivors probably ended up in South Florida, but some would have certainly gone north towards Ocala.
 * To the right is a map showing the probable roads used between the states.
 * To the right is a map showing the probable roads used between the states.

Guyana Esequiba War
War mentioned at the Guyana Co-Operativa article

any objection to graduation ? VENEZUELA 17:09, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why so soon, is there really no plans to expand on it? Mitro 02:24, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely this condtricts canon? The borders of the Co-Operative have been set for along time. I know that Venezuela has a claim on Guyana territory, but I doubt they would act in the immediate aftermath of Doomsday.HAD 19:16, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

It has actually long been canon that this attack occurred, just not advertised much. Check out the article of the co-operative.

Lordganon 08:18, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Caucasus Emirate
About crazy, Islamic state in the Caucasus, tiny but claims many lands that are not from them. VENEZUELA 17:09, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * We need more ideas like these. Although it's not yet filled in I like it so far. Arstarpool 04:53, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * So Ven would you say this is a theocratic city state? --GOPZACK 16:26, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * yes. VENEZUELA 17:31, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Duchy of Lancaster
An English survivor nation in the county of Lancashire. Just an introduction so far, I'll add more once I'm sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.Tessitore 17:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to see another survivor community in Lancashire in my article it was originally thought Manchester was hit by 2 nukes but the nukes malfunctioned saving the city--Owen1983 23:07, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Owen, I believe that you've already been informed on a number of occasions that Manchester is toast in this timeline. Learn to take a hint will you. Tessitore 23:16, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Owen, Manchester is gone. G.O.N.E. H-Bombs tend to do that to cities. HAD 08:20, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I'd really appreciate getting some feedback on what I've done so far. I've been careful but I'm pretty sure I've made some sort of mistake and if I have I'd prefer to correct it as early as possible.Tessitore 16:57, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I'd really appreciate getting some feedback on what I've done so far. I've been careful but I'm pretty sure I've made some sort of mistake and if I have I'd prefer to correct it as early as possible.Tessitore 16:57, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've gone over it for you, and corrected what spelling, grammar, etc. errors I could find.

I shortened the Pre-DD history for you, it contained much that didn't seem relevant, though I'll leave it up to you if you want that kept.

Also added a nation-box, have fun with it.

Really, about the only thing is that it's full of bullets. Those should be made into paragraphs.

Lordganon 08:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

I plan it to be a sort of rump state comprised of the remnants of the US Military and initially the US's Atlantic territories until eventually it begins to deteriorate until it is comprised of two or three small islands in the present day. It will be kind of a mix between the APA and the CRUSA. Arstarpool 02:08, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I left my comments on the talk page. Mitro 04:18, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be high if I'm asking this but are there any objections? Arstarpool 01:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...yeah. There is still no way there would be an American presence in Guantanamo. It would either fall to the Cubans, or be abandoned and then fall to the Cubans. The idea that they would be bailed out by the ECF makes little sense. Even I doubt the ECF nations have that large of a navy to provide proper support. Furthermore Guantanamo would mean nothing for the Confederation. Mitro 01:51, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Food
I've started a page on this, since if there's a page on what people are drinking then there should really be one on what they're eating.Tessitore 20:35, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections?
 * So much of it is not even finished. Give Tess some time to work. Mitro 01:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Neonotia (New South)
SouthWriter's proposal for a nation-state in OTL southern Alabama and Georgia, with former President Carter involved. BrianD 17:41, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

The name is kind of wierd, kind of something you would see in the original Map Games, but the details are okay I guess. Arstarpool 23:19, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Wales
A survivor republic based in southeast Wales. Jnjaycpa 17:53, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Second Empire of Trabzon
I have just completed an article on the Second Empire of Trabzon, a now-extinct monarchy in post-Doomsday Turkey that was extinguished by the Sultanate of Turkey in 2009. It claims to be the (nominal) successor to the original Greek Empire of Trebizond based in modern Trabzon, Turkey. --Emperor of Trebizond 19:44, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, but graduation will have to wait until the Sultanate is graduated.

Lordganon 00:55, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Greek Revival
So with Mr. Xeight's permission me and Lordganon have been filling out Greece including doing some articles on the various states that made up the confederation before it was unified at the end of last year.
 * Agion Oros (1983: Doomsday)
 * Cyprus (1983: Doomsday)
 * Heptanesa (1983: Doomsday)
 * Dodecanese Republic (1983: Doomsday)
 * Morea (1983: Doomsday)
 * Hellenic Republic (1983: Doomsday)
 * Cyrenaica (1983: Doomsday)
 * Delian League (1983: Doomsday)
 * Thrace Reclamation Zone (1983: Doomsday)
 * Kemet (1983: Doomsday)

We'll be filling these out for the next little while as well as expanding on the existing greece article. I'll put up the article for greek egypt once I get it started.Oerwinde 23:06, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Can I work on Cyprus and Hellenic Republic? Arstarpool 23:10, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

They're both already being worked on. Mr.Xeight 01:21, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Me, Oer, and Xeight have them all covered. This includes Thrace as well, even if I didn't end up making it last night.

(edit - that's made now too)

Lordganon 05:46, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Kemet(greek egypt) is up too. Oerwinde 07:04, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Well which ones are ready to be graduated? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Only Kemet and Cyprus can be called close.

Lordganon 10:20, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think Flag of Greece is ready for grad. I really didn't even think it necessary to mark as a proposal since all it contained was the flags of the states within the Greek Federation. Still needs Thrace, but its flag hasn't been decided yet.Oerwinde 08:07, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

It's up now. Went with your new version, Oer.

Flag of Greece can be graduated.

Lordganon 14:49, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you guys, none of the articles have to be called proposals. Because the Confederation of Greece was graduated (what seems to be) years ago, and thus all of the states and territories with it, all of this stuff is just expanding on what's already been here for (what feels like) years. All you guys did was finally create articles for things long considered canon, that's all. Mr.Xeight 16:45, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the Flag of Greece article can be graduated, but I still think all of the other sub articles should go through the process. It is only fair. Mitro 17:20, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The proposal process is there to let us improve our articles. Some things on here were graduated too fast and it led to problems later. Oerwinde 20:23, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Indiana
Nation located in the former state of Indiana. Thanks to all who helped .--Sunkist- 04:39, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Could we maybe pass this now, or is there anymore things to talk over to get this moved along?--Sunkist- 18:40, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Just remove more of the south of the state and it'll be good.

Why?, clearly it talks about how Indiana refuses to expand outside of the state, Terre Haute and Richmond also control the counties south of them.--Sunkist- 00:58, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Anything else?--Sunkist- 01:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Could we pass this now, or is there anything else I need to explain :D?--Sunkist- 16:38, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It still just seems to optimistically large. One of the reasons the original version of this article wasn't graduated was because of its size, now nothing seems to have changed. Mitro 17:22, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I could always get a bigger map, show all of Kentucky and Virginian Republic. Indiana has been growing for the last 14 years, and if you look at the history, you would see that Terre Haute, Fort Waye, Anderson, Richmond, Lafayett kept order in the nearby counties.--Sunkist- 19:35, September 6, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Mitro and the south of the stater is claimed by the

Commonwealth of Kentucky (1983: Doomsday) --Owen1983 20:00, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Owen, The Republic Indiana doesen't claim Southern Indiana. Let me explain this, we are in 2010, this happend in 1983....Indiana has been doing the same as Kentucky, expanding.--Sunkist- 20:41, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Chinese State
Can anybody help me find an heir to the Chinese throne that I can use in an article I am going to make? Arstarpool 00:12, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I did some digging earlier when trying to come up with a Chinese revival of the monarchy. I believe the current heir was a member of the People's Liberation Army stationed in what becomes the Uyghur Socialist Republic.Oerwinde 00:45, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I wrote that he was banished into the Chinese wastelands, since the Soviets aren't the biggest fans of monarchy, and managed to establish a small control sphere or an empire-in-exile? Arstarpool 00:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)+

He was a communist. I doubt he would want to. He was also a technician in the army, so he probably doesn't even have the leadership or combat ability to carve himself an empire.Oerwinde 01:00, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he could be part of the People's Kingdom! Heres my idea: Him and some PLAs could try to revolt against the Soviets and get banished, and get picked up on the other side of China by Jiangsu. If not I could use him for Taiwan-China as a political figure or a supporter of "The One China".Arstarpool 01:16, August 30, 2010 (UTC) In 1983 this guy would have been the heir Yuyan Mind you at the time he was working as a road sweeper in Beijing so he would have died on Doomsday. His eldest son, the guy Oerwinde was talking about is Hengzhen Verence71 18:32, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * You could definately have some banished PLA members going from Uyghuristan, as that is already a part of the history of that former country.--Vladivostok 08:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

So Oer do you think it would be plausible to have him in the People's Kingdom? If not, I will give him a small area of control elsewhere with his banished army. Arstarpool 23:00, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I think Jiangsu is too far away for him to have made his way all the way there. Its opposite ends of the country. Also, if he's going to be king of anything, he's going to be a puppet king. He's a projectionist and member of a communist army, not really monarch material. If you're going to do something with him keep that in mind.Oerwinde 08:26, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Bosnia
A continuation of my work in the Balkans.--Vladivostok 08:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Article describing the history of the state of Maine after Doomsday. Created by Arstar but I have written most of it due to being caretaker of Aroostook. Mitro 17:24, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Created by me but Brian and South pretty much took over on their own initiative, so I renounce having anything to do with it. Arstarpool 00:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is starting to be a real pain. But I'm not backing off.


 * Arstar, the entire timeline is a collaborative effort. Some of us have probably been harder on you at times than we should have been. But I think our criticism at times has been fair and necessary. You reference South and I taking over your article. You would rightfully have a solid case for complaint if I took over Superior. On this article, one that is a gateway to various articles for citystates and nations based in the former state, it is only fair and right that everyone have a chance to contribute, and certainly those editors who are caretakers of nations and citystates based in that state. If the article belongs to only one editor, then that editor can potentially write his own article without regard to what is already history in this timeline, and without regard to what other editors have created. It also locks everyone else out of contributing to it and clarifying the history of states referenced in the article. You cannot have that on a shared wiki, where everyone has a chance to contribute.

You also cannot have editors contradicting other editors for their own purposes. I believe this is what you were trying to do with Auburn - so you could write something that in and of itself was not wrong, but contradicted what is canon. In a timeline like this, you have to have some respect for what has come before and what has been established as history. Otherwise, the TL becomes chaotic, subject to radical changes on a whim...something Arstar that could work against you, if a future editor comes along and decides he or she doesn't like anything you've written.

No one took over your article. It is a shared article, and I went in and corrected your information on Auburn. I didn't do this to be personal, nor to offend or anger you, but to correct the article. I'm sorry if that is any sort of problem, but I wanted to clarify for all of the editors what my reasons were for what I did. BrianD 01:00, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article on the state. Arstarpool 00:47, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article on the state. Open for adoption. Arstarpool 21:35, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Auburn, Alabama
So what happened in the Alabama college town, and site of a provisional state government post-DD? An article to expand on what has been written as canon in the New Montgomery and 2009 WCRB report on the southern United States articles (I'm giving Charles Barkley to South if he wants him for the Neonotia article) --BrianD 03:17, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article mentioned in the New York State page. Also mentions a whole bunch of other small lake communities too. Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why so soon, you just created it. Give people a chance to read it first. Mitro 14:50, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article I made and Zack wanted to work on it. Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

All it is is a hole-filler, and writes about how the Republic of Virginia controls it. Any objections to immediate graduation? Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Trebizond. Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Just a hole-filler. Any objections to immediate graduation? Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd change the name, "Alaska State" just sounds kind of awkward. --GOPZACK 05:13, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Matlock
A small survivor state in Derbyshire. Basically a pre-Industrial Revolution Las Vegas. Fegaxeyl 11:12, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

An article by Oerwinde. Don't dismiss it by the title, its actually rather plausible. --GOPZACK 17:08, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Its a joke right? Arstarpool 08:02, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Originally yes, but I might try to develop it a bit more. Up the pop a bit, no more than a hundred or so though in a small walled commune.Oerwinde 08:04, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

But just to clarify it, this is not a page we are going to be seeing on the World Country Profiles riiiite? Besides that its pretty halarious but I think some people are taking it a tad seriously as evidenced on its talk page. Arstarpool 08:37, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well if its plausible, why the hell not? It is unrecognized though, and would likely be annexed if some sort of actual state entered the picture.Oerwinde 08:53, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

It is a pretty plausible idea, as a matter of fact.HAD 18:38, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I am looking forward to New York been mentioned in 1983DD --Owen1983 19:27, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Private Response and Military Defense Services
A private mercenary organization in the military field formed after Doomsday.--Emperor of Trebizond 01:24, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it but it's not really plausible for this sort of community project. An army fleeing to a small island and turning it into a fortress with spotlights and such? Defending from who? Being hired by who? For what purpose? I'm sorry but its a tad, um, unfit for this sort of thing. Arstarpool 08:34, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

There are such real organizations in the world. Who? For What Purpose? Defending it from who? The small island you described is just barely large enough it can be used for this. Besides, it's not one army, but ex-soldier survivors looking for a job that were brought together by someone whose fortune was generally unaffected by Doomsday. See the talk page for more. --Emperor of Trebizond 12:10, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand. There is nobody except the Australians and the South Americans that had fortunes after Doomsday. Trade collapsed, and with it order, so there would be no jobs for a long, long time. You can't just keep things vague like "they meet under the table" in this sort of thing. Everything needs reason. And there are not such"real organizations" in the world. Sure, there are the New York Rangers, but they were founded on practicality Arstarpool 19:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

How do you contact the most prestigious and the best law firms and banks on the planet? Does that have a reason? No, it's awfully vague. You have to have a lot of money, and many important people contact such organizations "under the table". Investors in Australia and South America could have private reasons for funding the PRMDS.--Emperor of Trebizond 16:30, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool, you're comparing two very different things. The SAC and ANZC are nations. The PRMDS is a corporation. Corporations are a dimension we've failed to explore thus far on this timeline. Just because nations collapse doesn't mean corporations would also collapse, and the same goes with how prosperous they are. Many corporations, pre-Doomsday, were well equipped, wealthy, and highly connected. It's very possible that several large, multinational corporations would survive Doomsday relatively intact and be able to reorganize post-Doomsday. Or, another way to look at this is that the post-Doomsday world is a survival of the fittest world. The stronger you are, the wealthier you are. The PRMDS would be formed from various military groups that survived Doomsday, were well trained, and kept their equipment. At first, they would be glorified raiders, but later on, once the states of the Black Sea became interconnected with the rest of the world, they would become a legitimate mercenary force with global reach. Caeruleus 16:39, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm really impressed. That sums up my concept of the PRMDS flawlessly.--Emperor of Trebizond 17:35, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

The SAC is not a nation for one, and neither of you have read enough and don't fully understand how everything works. There aren't investors in the northern hemisphere, where buisness is still at a very basic. Exceptions would be the Celts or the Alpines or the Siberians or maybe even the Nordics but they aren't going to be funding a private militia because they need dirty work done or something. World travel as you portray it is not how it really is, so they would not be launching missions across the world. This "world" isn't how ours is minus the US and Europe and the Soviets, its a world where you can find a degree of normalcy in the Pacific and South America and pretty much everywhere else is struggling at the moment including places like the Alpine Confederation and the Celtic Alliance and Canada and Siberia. If this was reorganized and renamed into something of a local militia it would be more plausible.

The worst part is is that you speak of nations that aren't part of the timeline yet, the Turkey page is still a proposal and isn't going anywhere for a looong time...so this page would remain a proposal until Elazig and Turkey are graduated. Arstarpool 19:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter that your opinion that this would remain a proposal until Elazig and Turkey are graduated? I haven't a problem with that. The PRMDS could've been planned before Doomsday but significantly affected by the results of Doomsday, which made it by far a more possible, attractive, and plausible venture by whoever planned it. They can travel locally to the East or to the West (Furthest to Africa and furthest west to Central Asia). Limited range, but more than enough within that to keep them busy.--Emperor of Trebizond 19:46, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know the SAC is a collection of nations, but it fits into the same category. You're also misinterpreting what this is. This isn't a typical pre-Doomsday corporation that you just go and "invest" in. A more apt comparison would be to the Knights Templar or Knights of Rhodes. These were wealthy, independent, private mercenary organizations that had large amounts of capital and small amounts of territory in which they are based, similar to the PRMDS. They don't need people to invest in them. They acquire their own funds, or, in a post-Doomsday world, simply obtain success in survival which essential means they pay for themselves because in eastern Europe, financial systems broke down post-Doomsday so the typical dynamics of a money-based economy would not apply to as great of an extent.


 * Also, you vastly overestimate the necessary level of stability for this to be plausible. The Alpines, ANZC, SAC, Nordics, Celts, Siberians, Koreans and Japanese are all stable enough. They don't need to be prosperous to be able to pay for mercenaries. African warlords OTL are able to pay for mercenaries, and we all know how poor and unstable they are. The chaos of eastern Europe actually provides a ripe enviroment for them to develop because, like I said, they could start off as glorified bandits, grow wealthy through pillaging, and establish a semi-legitimate international operation by the late 2000s. This article is plausible, though they may not be deploying to Africa until the late 2000s. Caeruleus 19:52, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool has a thing about rushing articles through quickly so don't feel like you have to hurry. I defiantly think this article can work. After Doomsday there would be a lot of "guns for hire" popping up around the world. Also in the anarchy who says they need money? they could raid an armory get all the weapons they need. I'll try not get too philosophical here but money in the post Doomsday world is just pieces of paper. Major currencies would collapse on the commodities market (or whats left of it) and food, water and other necessities would become the new currency. Perhaps now that the situation has stabilized the ANZC Dollar or the currency of South America might appeal to them but initially its the necessities of life that ruled the day. GOPZACK 19:54, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't they use the already existing ruins and temples as bases? That would be more practical then demolishing them (which would be pretty hard post-Doomsday) and building new bases when materials would be scarse. Or they could build using ruins as foundations into new structures. Arstarpool 03:36, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose those temples would be small, ruined, and in their way, probably too unstable to use for much. They seem to be in pretty bad shape--the product of thousands of years..But I've seen remote ruins turned into secure monasteries before, so it wouldn't surprise me. It could also be a waste of explosive. I think I will probably consider this idea.--Emperor of Trebizond 09:35, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Page created by Michael Douglas 03:22, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about this one, guys what do you think? I really doubt they would decide to stay in Antarctica and anybody there probably starve or search refuge elsewhere. Arstarpool 04:09, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Really sounds kinda implausible.

Lordganon 18:10, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

No offense but there is pretty much no way this can work in this timeline. So should we mark it obsolete? Arstarpool 22:43, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Another article by Owen. Makes.... no sense.

Lordganon 18:10, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Another by Owen. Once again, makes little sense.

Lordganon 18:13, September 6, 2010 (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.

Outer Banks
This article, created by an anonymous editor and graduated by Mitro, has been dormant. Recent concerns about plausibility lead me to add it back to the proposal list. If anonymous would reveal himself, or someone would adopt the article, these problems could be cleared up. SouthWriter 01:07, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

If the original writer does not come forward, I would be willing to take a stab at the article since the area is near Delmarva and the two areas would likely have contact. I will not do anything however until someone gives me the okay to proceed. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 04:52, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I've left messages on the talk pages for all four (or five) of the IP addresses the anon editor had. My main interest was in linking Outer Banks to the Appalachian nations and having their respective leaders open talks on building a port in Outer Banks. If you want to adopt the article, Fx, you definitely have my blessing. I trust you and your judgment. BrianD 01:14, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Just so I will be certain to not miss anything in my research, is there any one particular article I should review first beyond the those for the Outer Banks and WCRB report on the South to understand the dynamics involved?--Fxgentleman 01:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think those two cover it. Anon didn't write a whole lot on the area. BrianD 01:58, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth
After due consideration, I have decided that this article needs a review. It was graduated with remaining problems with previous article named "Outer Lands " (a geographical location in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York. I suggested earlier that Outer Lands might readily join with the new state, given their loose confedation anyway, but that has not been incorporated in the new article or the old. Since both are "under control" of one editor right now, I think this should be easily resolved by that editor. But until it has been, it needs to be "under review." (unsigned by SouthWriter)

Who is the anonymous editor who suggested it to be under review? Arstarpool 22:57, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Basically since I haven't incorporated one into the other you can tell me to do so?

A direct statement by Brian giving me control of Outer Lands clearly states in fine print "do whatever you want with the article". So rather than hog up the whole Cape Cod region for Plymouth I decided to split it only taking the areas around Barnstable. So I have also removed the review template. Besides that there are no other problems so if you have something else bring it up on the article talk page.

Okay, South, I found out it was you. To be honest I think you are suffering from Power-to-the-head Syndrome like you claimed I had moons ago. I have seen a slight change in your language and even a couple "orders" like on the US Atlantic Remnant talk page telling me to change the purpose of the organization after you recently became a leutenant. I am trying to keep my slate clean as Mitro calls it but anyways the issue was resolved, but it would have been nicer if you would have just said "Hey, you should fix this".Arstarpool 22:57, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

My sinsere apologies. I simply forgot to sign the post. It happens every once in a while. And no, I am not on a power trip. I have mentioned the needed changes on the article's talk page, and even offered solutions. I have not "ordered" anything, but only made suggestions as to make your articles more viable. All I wanted from Plymoth was consistency. With US Atlantic Remnant I have resisted the concept, offering a way around the sticking point with many editors that happen to disagree with you. Consensus means compromise, and your idea of compromise is usually that the other side bends in your direction.

You have control of the articles, and all you have to do is work out the differences. The original article about the the Outer Lands assumed that the destruction of the mainland of Massachusetts was complete. It then preceded to conclude that the wasteland of New England would keep in separated from Vermont and Aroostook until recent times. Since Plymouth survived, contact would have been made early on with the Outer Lands - say 1990 or so - and the Outer Lands would be absorbed into the new nation (which claims all of Massachusetts anyway. I see no reason why the Outer Landers would not agree.

About the "fine print" - here is the exchange as Brian got tired of dealing with the article:


 * I read the description, but its not very descriptive. Plymouth had no nearby strike zones other than Boston, as with Barnstable. So I thought that it would be logical for them to cooperate with each other. If you could just allow me to use the northern tips of the Cape, that would be good. Arstarpool 04:16, June 30, 2010 (UTC) 


 * You know...that's fine. Best wishes to the Plymouth survivor nation. BrianD 04:21, June 30, 2010 (UTC) 

You "wore him down," and he decided that you could do "whatever." But when you did not change anything on the Outer Lands, only making the changes you wanted on Plymouth, you confused matters. He asked for "control of the article back" and has now relented - giving his "blessings" on the proposed changes (merging the two articles). When you make the changes on the Outer Lands, it will become a footnote in "history," and Plymouth will be on its way to claiming all of Massachusetts (and returned to canon.) It's an odd situation in which the first article has to be changed to make the second one viable. Together they will make a great nation. --SouthWriter 00:36, September 1, 2010 (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.''

Nordic Union Admissions
Having checked the page on the Nordic Union, it says that Karelia and Estonia were due to be annexed on August 10th. It's now August 26th... and no mention of this pretty important geopolitical event has been made. As well as politely requesting the curator of the Nordic Union article makes the necessary additions to reflect this news, could I make a recommendation that we have a page where future events that are set in stone (i.e. known annexations and sports events, not idle speculation) be placed, like a calendar? Fegaxeyl 16:45, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he has actually added them to the page and I have added history to the pages in question regarding their admission. But, there hasn't been all that much added to the economy section or history section regarding the issue.--Vladivostok 17:38, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

US Congress
Early on in the timeline it was stated no evacuation was possible but by my calculations September 26 was a Monday and congressmen or women would be informed but with the general chaos they would be on their own its a fair assumption thay would make it out of the capitol to either Maryland or Virginia --Owen1983 17:19, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The attack occurred Sunday evening Eastern Time in America. BrianD 17:37, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've covered this elsewhere with Owen "in attendance," I believe. It seems he is just raising questions to get credit for doing so. However, it is true that the legistators would have been informed - perhaps by some form of telephone link (we could hope there was some such system in place) - before the general public. If not, though, they would certainly not hesitate to head out away from Washington when they heard the news. At most they would have had an hour. Though it is written that they weren't evacuated as such, we can assume that they knew of Greenbrier and that some of them made it there.
 * In a way, it would probably have worked better with there NOT being "at work" that day. SouthWriter 16:28, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * In a way, it would probably have worked better with there NOT being "at work" that day. SouthWriter 16:28, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

South American and Australian Colonies
Although the world is slowly stabalizing, most of the world is still in chaos. I can very easily picturing some less devestated countries in South America establishing colonies or protectorates in the former United States and Asia. Although there would most definately be an outcry from several survivor states, these nations would be almost unchallenged. This would be a new age of imperialism, and the irony is delicous. I can even picture Australia taking over land. Is it plausible for modern day colonies to form? JackofSpades 20:55, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. This probably wouldn't happen. The SAC has made their hatred of imperialism clear and, since they're former colonies, they know what it feels like. ANZC has no reason, be it economic, military, territorial, or political, to establish colonies. OTL Australia and New Zealand aren't into anything related to any form of imperialism. The only thing they've done so far is admit English-speaking survivor states as associates. Caeruleus 22:26, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the might fit under this category since it is jointly administered by both blocs. Mitro 22:48, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that technically a colony though? I believe its existence is due only to the fact that a safe harbor was needed in southern Africa and the LoN mandated it. I view it as more of a peacekeeping mission than anything else. Caeruleus 23:41, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * RZA is a special case - an old remnant of South Africa that had become a tragic shell of itself. International intervention was necessary to stop its total collapse. I would hope that New Britain will one day be allowed to administer that area, giving the transplanted British a decent chance to rise back to a place of influence in world politics. --SouthWriter 16:51, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

governments are focused on feeding there populations and as radiation is still a problem they would be focusing there resources on humanitarian research like new farming methods and combating radiation sickness --Owen1983 01:27, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Owen, the ANZC and SAC are the two most powerful nations on the planet. And they're also amongst the least affected by radiation. If they have the resources to establish a global community (the LoN) and explore the planet with a fleet of former NATO vessels, then the issues you're describing (while valid in a handful of nations in the world) do not affect the nations in question. Fegaxeyl 08:52, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Owen has a point, though, Feg. The "global" nature of the LoN does give these power blocks should have been working toward solutions in the devastated areas. The fact that the LoN was so long in forming reflects a decades long deficiency in their efforts in learning the true state of the world above the equator.


 * However, we have to work within the framework of the time line as created so far. Left on their own for so long, many survivor nations did not have the resources to even rebuild communications networks. With the loss of readily available fuel imports (processed and unprocessed oil), these nations would be "self contained" for decades. The coming of the new superpowers from the south after a quarter of a century can only be in a humanitarian role, for interventionism is not to their best interests. --SouthWriter 16:51, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * i think that if both are Superpowers and in a disguised Cold War, why not to have and establish puppets. VENEZUELA 16:10, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * i think that if both are Superpowers and in a disguised Cold War, why not to have and establish puppets. VENEZUELA 16:10, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Puppets are very different than colonies and neither state has shown any interest in establishing puppet states. Both powers want to avoid a repeat of the Cold War anyway. Caeruleus 17:16, September 6, 2010 (UTC)