Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

Former Proposals: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

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

Shanty Towns/ Trailer Parks
The question I have to ask is: Is it possible for America, and by extension the world, to be riddled with survivors living in shanty towns? Would it be possible for  pre-Doomsday recreational facilities like campgrounds to transform into makeshift survivor communities? And would it be possible for these people to survive the long term? Yank 17:47, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

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

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4

2018 Winter Games
Before I forget about this, the bidding for these games is supposed to be decided by the IOC at the end of this month. We know that St. John's and Krasnoyarsk have both bid for it already.

Now, I've got some ideas as to other bids, but I'ma hold off that for now.

Anyone have a nation that they think would bid, realistically?

Lordganon (talk) 10:55, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Guys? Lordganon (talk) 09:40, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Why not Tromsø or Östersund? Yes, they are bidding in real life as well, but almost any Nordic Union country could host the games easily. Shouldn't be Norway probably though, but I'm not familiar with the way they vote for the Olympics. Vladivostok (talk) 19:39, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

Because Trondheim is already hosting the 2014 Games - and that is the second in Europe in a row, as well. Basically nowhere in Europe has a chance, and no one in the NU is going to bid. Lordganon (talk) 09:53, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't leave very many options. Perhaps the Alpine Confederation, what difference does it make if the games would be held twice in a row in Europe? You could always go the exotic route and go with Chile or Peru, but in OTL not a single Winter Olympic Game was held in the Southern Hemisphere. Vladivostok (talk) 11:56, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

That would mean three times, actually - 2010 was in Zurich. It just wouldn't get awarded to Europe.

The only spot in the Southern Hemisphere with winter athletes and the needed facilities is New Zealand - and they just finished hosting a Summer Games atl. Would be no demand.

There's a reason why South America has never had any winter events, and the only real bids even looked into remotely in the south are in Australia, and a stronger one from New Zealand (which may manage to host one day)

More or less a reason why there's never been a Winter Games in the South.

Lordganon (talk) 09:06, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see this before, sorry. So, other than St. John's and Krasnoyarsk, what did you have in mind? I mean, there could be only two bids, it's still rather early for a whole lot of nations to want to spend money on the Olympics after all. Vladivostok (talk) 13:25, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well, Japan placed a bid for it prior to the earthquake and meltdown, and withdrew it after that.

Planning for some combination of the other two bidders for the 2014 Games -Ljubljana and Andorra - and the otl host making bids for this one as well.

Andorra's kind of wish more than anything on their part - not happening, though they are actually trying for it otl. Aside from being in Europe, the concept of a Ljubljana bid is a good one financially, and I could see it happening atl for a future Olympics.

The Korea bid, facilities aside, would be strong in that regard as well.

But, being realistic, only the Siberia and Canada bids would be considered at all likely. And given all things, I strongly suspect that the St. John's bid would win, if for no other reason than it has better access.

Lordganon (talk) 02:08, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Reagan's Plane
I have noticed that, in the timeline, the E-4B plane carrying President Reagan crashes in the Pacific due to EMP interference. However, this is highly unlikely. The E-4B is specifically designed to resist such interference - it is built with analog instruments, which are less susceptible to EMP. It is also designed with EMP shielding, so I do not think that it would be likely for it to crash due to EMP. RevenantAscension (talk) 16:01, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

"Resistant" in no way means "immune."

The crash was far more due to their telemetry "going." Even flying over the Pacific, their radio equipment would not have been of much use, and both it and their radar - to say nothing of their location equipment - would have been difficult to use, at best, because of residual EMP. Indeed, it took them months to get in contact with anyone with their equipment - the EMP damage to signals was that bad, and only their equipment being designed to be more resistant got them that much. Moreover, you overstate the analog equipment, as a fair portion of the equipment on board was "hardened" gear, not analog.

GPS sats in orbit - the small weak ones first launched - would have been damaged or destroyed by the EMP and/or its atmospheric effects.

And, to add to all that, his plane didn't get out of NYC by much, and likely had damage to its systems, at least to some degree, from area effects of those blasts, be they the EMP ones or otherwise.

The continental EMP going off only made it worse.

So, the crash was primarily a navigation problem. It's not a question of EMP damage to the plane - while there would likely have been a small amount, it's largely insignificant. Rather, their communications and navigational aids would have been weak, or down outright. Heck, for a while after DD even compasses would have had problems compared to normal. Add damage on top of that, from blasts or otherwise, and it's not a good outlook.

And after going off course, they ran out of fuel. The President and everyone else managed to get to some safety, making it to life rafts. They didn't get any further than that.

But, crash due to EMP? Nope.

Lordganon (talk) 10:39, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons
LG, I noticed that there is a page for nuclear weapons... I was wondering if the LoN ever attempted to do a count on known nuclear stockpiles in nations such as the ANZ, and the USSR. Considering the fact that it says in the timeline that the Soviets launched about 1400 nuclear devices, and the US responded in like, it could be assumed that there were only around 7000 total launched, given the occasional launch minutes into WWIII.

The Chinese nuclear stockpile in 1983 were at around 380 nuclear warheads. The US arsenal stood at 23,154 nuclear weapons, and the Soviets were at 35,804. (http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/info/atom2.html). Who is working on that page? It could be assumed that the ANZ, USSR, NAU, and other powers in former nations would have acess to them. Could I create a page that delt with this problem, or adopt the nuclear weapons page. Also, if you have an idea about the exact amount launched, that would be great info. Thanks.Daeseunglim (talk) 16:25, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

It is a community page. Any can edit it, within reason.

Those warhead totals are somewhat inflated - multi-warhead missiles have each warhead counted on there separately. And both launched more than that - many targeted areas were hit multiple times, and there was sub and bomber-launched warheads as well. You far underestimate the amount of time they would have had to make launches in, too. That's in addition to a certain amount being misses, duds, or lost for other reasons. Heck, a massive amount of warheads would have been destroyed by impacts, or prevented from leaving the silos by "glass."

I should probably remove any mentions of exact figures from that timeline article - that is in no way accurate.

China's warheads were either destroyed by Soviet strikes, or wasted upon Soviet cities, mostly already decimated by American missiles.

The vast majority of warheads not launched or dropped were destroyed or rendered inaccessible by the blasts, globally. Your assumptions about who would have them is not remotely accurate, either.

There are five nations that have been agreed upon as having nukes without question - the ANZC, Siberia, Israel, the Russian Confederacy, and New Britain. The latter two of the five, being the weakest, have stockpiles consisting of a few recovered warheads and former nuclear depth charges, respectively. Israel has almost their entire pre-war arsenal, the ANZC has at least part of the arsenal from the former USS Carl Vinson, and maybe more, and the Siberians have managed to retain at least part of the Soviet arsenal (considered to be from isolated launchers and boomers, primarily)

Several others, such as the SAC and the Nordic Union, are known to at least have the ability to manufacture the weapons. Whether they have or not is another question.

Below that, there are nations that may have recovered, salvaged, etc. other weapons. Primarily, these would be nations with former bases on their territory, or along the German front lines, and consist largely of tactical or bomber weaponry. General rule of thumb, is that none of these have them yet, and never will - but that's not going to entirely be the case.

Past that, there's the question of states actively seeking out the weapons, either through recovery, manufacture, or purchase. I know of at least three of these, of the top of my head.

We will not know the exact amount fired off, and nor would they know it in-universe. It would, quite frankly, be impossible to tell.

We already have the community nuclear weapons page. Don't go making something else.

Lordganon (talk) 11:42, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Okay...Did the LoN ever attempt to do a count on these WMD? Another question, did bombers manage to take off and hit targets, were they decimated, or did they survive? I stand corrected too... I guess if a nation was willing to send guys into a radioactive nuclear power plant they could theoretically manufacture nuclear devices. Thanks.Daeseunglim (talk) 14:04, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, i had forgotten about the multiple warhead missile systems. I know that at the time the US had nuclear weapons in South Korea...most of them were removed from South Korea in 1991... All of the missiles would have been launched presumably, and what survived would have been destroyed considering the attacks. My question is would it be feasible for Korea to have nuclear artillery or something along those lines?Daeseunglim (talk) 20:06, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying the the first of those two posts before - missed it going through the list of edits that day, I guess.

LoN has never tried - there would be absolutely no point.

Yes, bombers did take off - not all of them, mind - and bombers up in the air on station went out too. Many would have gotten around their targets, though we've no way to know exactly how many.

Very few would have survived that trip, and most that didn't get destroyed in/around the target zone would have gone down somewhere aftwerwards. The percentage that would have gotten "home" would have been small. That being said, I do know of a few that did - sans bombs, of course, and not at all in reusable condition.

Manufacturing nukes isn't quite that simple - going into such a plant would only get you the very base materials, at best. Not that there really is any such plants, mind - the only plant like that that wouldn't have been hit (as collateral damage) by a nuke is Chernobyl, and that's worse than otl.

Basically, they'd need far more than those materials. There's no way that would allow them to build nukes.

All US nuclear weapons in South Korea were held at Kunsan Air Base - a nuclear target at DD. In any case, it only consisted of bombs and shells, not missiles.

Korea would in no way, shape, or form have any of these weapons.

Lordganon (talk) 04:42, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that additional information...I hadn't thought about the potentiallity that the air base would have been struck. ThanksDaeseunglim (talk) 14:27, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

I found the article stating that the US kept only artillery and bombs. My apologies. Wouldn't the radioactivity levels dropped in the 30 year period? I know areas that were struck hard would still be 'hot', but is it likely that nuclear power plants that were hit or melted down partially would be accessable? The nations desperate to be powerful could use criminals to perform the labor.Daeseunglim (talk) 22:26, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of nuclear plants were not hit, nor did they melt down.

Just having access to a plant does not mean nukes - you also need a great deal of electricity, technology, and knowledge. These three things are scarce, to varying degrees.

Yes, radioactivity would indeed have dropped in the 30 years - locations hit by smaller blasts (i.e. less than 100kt) may even have had it go down to safe levels by now.

The blasts in SK, however, would have been larger - any such weapons on the base - not that they would have survived the blasts and aftermath, let alone the 30 years to the present - would not be at all recoverable.

Lordganon (talk) 09:39, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

I was not thinking about South Korea, but more like the NAU, Texas, and some other North American nations.Daeseunglim (talk) 15:26, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

It would apply to virtually any location where weapons were stored. Lordganon (talk) 06:46, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Available Nations?
My question is this: May I help with your timeline, by making a nation and a page/story for that nation? Which are available for me to make? Reximus55 (talk) 10:38, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Not quite how nations are really "made," I'm afraid.

That being said.... any areas of the world that you are interested in? I can gives you ideas based on that.

Lordganon (talk) 11:15, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

No real ideas, but I would like to work on an article or two about a nation. Are there any that you can think of that need massiver overhaul or redo, or ones that no one has made an article on yet? Reximus55 22:36, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

There are many. What area of the globe? North America? Europe? Asia? Even that little info would be helpful. Lordganon (talk) 09:07, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.... I guess Europe. That would be my top choice. Reximus55 (talk) 01:03, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

is up for adoption right now - that would be the best place to start.

Besides that, there is a few small states in Spain that do not have articles, the member states of the Alpine confederation could use articles, and the International Zone around the Strait of Gibraltar could use one as well.

There's a few states in NW Africa without articles, too, if something close to Europe would work.

Anywhere else in Europe... well, that may be possible. Depends on both the location, and the idea.

Remember that there is canon about Europe in place already that you would need to work with, however.

Lordganon (talk) 05:00, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

If you need Finland, I'd be happy to do that. It wil just be a few days before I can really start, but then I'll spend some serious time on it! 10:24, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

That would be great ^^ Lordganon (talk) 11:47, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

May I help?Ninjasvswarriors (talk) 15:07, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

Course. I recommend, say, a page on the former Congo (both of them) The one and only Guns, who is too lazy to go to source mod and type out his real sig. (talk) 21:18, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

Queen's Speech in the event of a nuclear war
Government papers from 1983 have been released detailing a speech drawn up by officials that Queen Elizabeth II would have given in the event of a nuclear war

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/archived-papers-reveal-queens-world-war-three-speech-115251119.html#oAbaBe3

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23518587

I wonder if this could somehow placed in the article about what happened to Britain in the immediate aftermath of Doomsday

Verence71 (talk) 13:24, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

By everything I've seen about that, it was more of a possible contingency plan than anything, drawn up only in theory. Also something that would be only used even remotely with some warning, which our scenario does not have.

You can see similar items in other countries - I've seen similar types of things out of North America before, for example - the speaker and the small details being the main differences. But those have been acknowledged to have been impractical, at best, in such events. This is probably the same.

Really don't see a need to add something about it. At most, some sort of speech she gives on the Isle of Wight a day or two after DD.

Lordganon (talk) 11:47, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Map Update
Lol, I think we are going to need a map update pretty soon. :D  Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:13, September 30, 2013 (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). {C {C

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

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

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

Thought I'd leave this note here - that I left on its talk page quite some time ago - but the strike list on this article isn't plausible. Lordganon 07:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

This page has been sitting here for over a year, and I handed it over to Fx a while back. Is it at least stub suitable, or should it be obsolete? Arstar 07:31, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

No in both cases. There are major issues with it so we cannot graduate it in any form, yet, it is an article on an established nation, so we cannot mark it as obsolete. Lordganon 07:34, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I am still working on the article and intend to complete it along with Greenland. The only issue I am aware of as of this date which was raised had to do with the strike zones I selected. The areas I selected would have been legitimate and logical military targets of a Soviet attack: NAS Keflavik, the Keflavik Airport, and the Distant Early Warning (DEW) radar stations located in Sangerdi and Hofn.

Although the Doomsday scenario does revolve around a Soviet attack based on the assumption they are under a sudden assault, there is nothing to indicate the Soviets would not have followed up with bombers in a secondary attack on targets. The DEW radar system was designed to detect such incoming bombers. This would make it a target by the USSR. Although this aspect of the war to the best of my knowledge has not been explored in any great way, it was established in the history of Victoria that coastal Canada came under attack by Soviet bombers and they were shot down.

The destruction of DEW radar stations in Greenland and Iceland coupled with the effects produced by the HANEs over the continental US would help to punch holes in the network and leave North America vulnerable to any bomber attacks from that direction. I can not explain why other writers never elaborated on the fate of DEW sites in the US, Canada, and the Faroe Islands. It may have been a simple oversight given how many areas there are to cover. The article on Alaska speaks to multiple attacks on the Aleutian Island chain against military targets. Although it did not specifically clarify the exact targets, there were DEW stations in the islands which almost certainly would have been among sites hit. --Fxgentleman 16:33, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that not a single part of the DEW network was in range of the HANE blasts. By 2,500 miles, at least.

Not a single one of these sites was hit, anywhere. To hit a detection site after its job has been accomplished holds absolutely no point. We've never elaborated about the bombers because whether a site is hit by one or a ICBM doesn't really matter.

And the Alaska article is not referring to them, either. Why? Because those stations in the Aleuts had all been closed in 1969. What it would be referring to is Cold Bay Air Force Station, and likely Unalaska as well.

So, as stated: They were not hit, anywhere.

Lordganon 17:12, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the stations in the Aleutians. The sources I read gave me the impression they were open in 1983. I went back and checked and you are correct. You are also correct that the DEW system ran across the northern border of Canada and Alaska. I was thinking of the Pine Tree Line and the Mid Canada Line which I mistakenly lumped in with the DEW network. It was these two that I was thinking of when I made a reference to the HANE since some of their stations would fall under the EMP line. So my error on those points.

However, could you elaborate further why you think DEW sites would not be hit?

The DEW radar stations were designed to detect bomber(s) with a certainty of at least 99.9% that by the time they crossed the line the bomber(s) location, track direction, and time of detection had been ascertained and transmitted to NORAD. Once the last of the bombers passed the line then yes, you would be correct that the station's purpose has thus been served and to strike it would be pointless because what it was created to detect has already gone through. The question I would have to ask is since the bombers would have to be launched from the USSR and pass over the Polar Cap to reach Canada and the US how long would they take to reach the radar line?

Lets hypothesize for a moment. We know the Soviets received the warning at about 3:40 GMT+3 and launched their ICBMs roughly five minutes later. Since I don't know how long it would take to scramble Soviet bombers lets say hypothetically the first bombers begin scrambling at the same point the missiles are being launched and are airborne roughly ten minutes later or 3:50 GMT+3. At this point we have different groups of bombers inbound. I suggested the radar sites in Iceland were hit at about 4:05 GMT+3. I do not know how long it takes a bomber to leave its base and reach the radar line. But I don't believe that all the bombers would have already reached and over flown the radar line by that time. So logically until that last bomber goes over their existence creates a viable threat to the effectiveness of the Soviet bombers. Thus an early attack on some or all the stations would be a reasonable action on the part of the Soviets. My suggestion is this, I can reduce the attacks to missiles carrying conventional explosive warheads given they are small targets. This would serve the purpose of neutralizing the target while leaving a insignificant footprint on the area. What do you think, I am open to thoughts?--Fxgentleman 00:58, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have always understood that this scenario was basically an accidental war fought long-distance by ICBMs and some SLBMs. If there had been scrambled bombers, they would have been sent out by both the USA and the USSR, and perhaps many NATO and some Warsaw Pact nations as well. All of this means planes in place to shoot down each other, and perhaps a few incoming ICBMs and SLBMs. The accidental war would have been over the Arals and Canada as Bombers met each other. We don't have this in any of our story lines. There is some of it, but not over the lower 48 states. The damage was done by the first strike almost exclusively, as I interpret it. There may have been waves, but as I understand it, it was mostly over in a few hours (except for border wars such as that in Alaska). Introducing bombers is too much for the time line as we have it to absorb, in my opinion. SouthWriter 05:24, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed and considered South's comments I have gone ahead and removed any mention of the narrative regarding the DEW stations. I have to say though it is indeed very confusing from my point of view. I agree with South in that I always subscribed to the theory of how the war evolved, sudden rather than planned using just missiles in the US and Canada. The Victoria article when I read it a time ago had changed my thoughts regarding the whole business since we now had bombers flying in from Russia to attack. I just took it on faith it was simply another part of the story which had never been addressed. Under those conditions I felt DEW stations could not be ignored for the reasons I addressed earlier since they would just be to much of a threat for the Soviets to not strike. Hopefully, sometime in the future, another writer will take up the challenge of addressing the bomber aspect of what occured so we can square that part of the war. --Fxgentleman 06:39, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Basically, Fx, it's what you said in all of that: By the time the bombers arrive at the line, everything (for all purposes) is known. Their existence, and a lot of the details, would already be known by the destruction of any of them could occur. I figure there'd be a few minutes delay with the bomber launches, but it still stands. Destroying them, in this regard, really doesn't accomplish much of anything.

And, too, the radiation and EMP from such blasts would screw up any future waves a fair amount.

By the time the bombers get to anywhere that they can be harmed, the EMP and many ICBMs have gone off, crippling a lot of them. Same goes for their adversaries, and most people to whom the data would mean much of anything.

It's really a waste, at best. Largely, entirely ineffective. They know about them the entire time, so there is no point in destroying them.

As for Victoria.... really, those ones would have likely flown over the edges of the continent, and survived the EMP, etc. like that. To assume that the bombers would all fly straight is a little off, in my opinion.

Past that, as South said.

Lordganon 10:10, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

One of the things I learned during my recent research was in 1983 there was an active discussion on going about revamping the entire DEW radar line. I was surprised in my reading to find out how bad a shape the network was actually in, reports describing it as decrept. Soviet bombers could fly under 10k feet and avoid it. Apparently the Soviets had a far better and more effective network to stop US bombers. The Reagan administration was discussing as of 4/83 of spending $2 billion to revamp the entire network and trying to force Canada to cover part of the cost. This data was part of the reason my thoughts were finally swayed. Based on all these points, Soviet bombers would have had no real concerns. Nice to find out how well we were protected in 1983. --Fxgentleman 15:31, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

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


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

Ok to graduate?--Smoggy80 14:59, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No. It's definitely not done. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ganon's assessment on the talk page, Paul McCartney's demise must be mentioned in order for the article to be complete. SouthWriter 04:17, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Something on John's grave, and maybe even Yoko and/or Pete Best would be nice too. Lordganon 08:08, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Jer1818, are you still there? Just a little bit more and this can be graduated. @Ganon, though John was cremated, and his ashes scattered in Central Park, a memorial was erected -- dedicated in 1985. The memorial was a gift from Naples, Italy. More info on this would need to be gathered (I have only been to Wikipedia), but I suspect that this probably didn't get built.

Wikipedia only says Ono continued to live at the Dakota, across the street from Central Park. If she was home in 1983, she probably did not escape. Given her active career, though, she would be a good one to bring through the wreckage if possible.

On the other hand, Pete Best, the Beatles first drummer, had been working as a civil servant in around 15 years in Liverpool when the bombs fell. He got back into music in 1988 in our time line, but could have become popular sooner in this time line. He is known to have been a fan of the Beatle's music though the group apparently did not treat him well after his being replaced with Ringo Starr. I'm for him becoming one of the Celtic Alliance's formost musicians if it could be worked in to the time line.

~South

Well, it was only actually part of the memorial that was from Naples. Yoko and the city did actually start the project in 1981, and "completed" it sometime before the blasts - it was redone in 1984, and the dedication in 1985 was very much a re-dedication, for all purposes. None seems to have been done previously, yet it had obviously been open before that.

Yoko was recording parts of several albums at the time - and she did record in NYC.

Best is a bit of a dilemma - he was in Liverpool working for a number of years, but at some point between 1963 and 1988, he became the training manager for the entire regional division of England, meaning his job likely moved to St Helens, east of Liverpool. Seems that he still lived in Liverpool, but... nothing for sure, there, really.

Lordganon 15:00, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to putting this up for adoption? Lordganon (talk) 10:00, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Adoption tag added. Lordganon (talk) 06:08, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what's the plan for this one, guys? King, are you planning on doing anything with it? Lordganon 22:45, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Are there any objections to making this a stub?Arstar 22:43, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is no reason at all to even consider it at this time. The article is far from done, and unlike the stubs, has entire sections blank. Lordganon 09:39, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Superior Election Articles

 * 1984 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1986 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1988 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1990 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1992 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1994 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)

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

The first two have no basis in canon at all - virtually no reference to numbers and political positions of the two parties or the like with the congress of Superior exist for that era that actually indicate things one way or the other like this. The independent numbers are.... not possible, either. The 1994 one is the only one with some actual accuracy as it currently stands, though even it has to be massively re-written. Lordganon 20:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I think we should mark the first two obsolete and put the last up for adoption. Any objections? Mitro 18:31, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this won't come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to the newsbits and edits with Superior I've been doing lately, but I'm adopting these articles, and am going to be adding many more of them. Lordganon 00:11, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

President ones first, then congress, then governors. Lalalala.... 07:15, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

All right, I believe I'm done with the Presidential elections. The 2012 one is ongoing, obviously, but should be graduated too, I think.

Any objections to their graduation?

Lordganon 14:46, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

All right, they've been graduated. Lordganon 23:00, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Arstar, why on earth did you do that? The articles that I asked about were graduated months ago. Lordganon 11:17, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Arstar: This is now the second time that you've done that. The articles here are proposals and the ones I asked about, as I already told you, were graduated months ago. Lordganon 01:14, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

What's the story on these? Ganon says they're graduated, but they're still have proposal templates on them? SouthWriter 02:29, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

There was several presidential election articles here that were graduated back in October. Arstar's missed that a few times, despite being told about it point-blank, lol. Lordganon 14:35, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

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

So what are we doing with this? It's pretty obvious that Sun's more or less abandoned it. Should we obsolete it? Or what? Lordganon 22:48, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Anything done with it has to tie into Kentucky. I could adopt this, as part of my proposal to flesh out the DDTL state of Indiana. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

That would work well, though I'd talk to Zack about it first. Lordganon 05:30, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Has BrianD adopted this?--Smoggy80 15:04, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

More or less. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

South, you still working on this? BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Brian, since I am no good at creating fictional characters, would you mind adding to this article. You can use the characters that you created for me earlier. I can't get into the evil mindset the way you can. The article can be an extension of your fascinating one on Athens. It will make a great addition to the post DD history of the tri-state area. SouthWriter 04:13, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ok to graduate? --Smoggy80 15:05, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's not done yet - they periodically add to it. By the looks of things, it's about half done.

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

Feg, Verence, what's the story here? Lordganon 22:52, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

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

Is GB still the owner of this article? I have read through it and would like to take it over and expand it based on research I have been doing and also bring it into line with what I am doing for Delmarva. If anyone can let me know, thanks.--Fxgentleman 13:24, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is. And you are definitely the person who should take over and do the article. Lordganon 14:27, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

What's the progress on this article? FX, you still want to take it over?BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

By my best guess, he's doing some research and will get to it when he's ready. Lordganon 05:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ok to graduate as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:06, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No. There's barely anything here, and what is here... well, it really isn't the case of what would happen. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner regarding this. I had not thought to look at the discussion regarding this for awhile. It is still on my list of things to do and I have not forgotten it. Unfortunately, the duties of my job often take alot of my time and energy and things have been especially hectic since December 2011. If I don't appear to respond and there is a concern/question please just message me on my discussion page or email me and I will respond. Thanks and sorry.--Fxgentleman 22:45, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

More or less what I've been saying about your articles on this list, Fx. No worries, overall - I know some of us are very busy. Lordganon 09:11, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

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

....I suppose I'm not shocked to see this, but since I posted that there has only been two days that it has been edited, and virtually all the problems and blankness remain. Yet, Jnjaycpa has been around. So, what should we do with this? It is somewhat valid, so I'm really not of a mind to make it obsolete. Maybe make if ofa? Lordganon 22:58, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

OFA works for me. It would be good to see Jay return to it and finish it out. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

I have now marked it as open for adoption. Lordganon 01:01, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request this article for adoption. Gatemonger 17:31, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to ask if it has the banner. Power to you, Gate. Lordganon 01:41, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Has this been adopted?--Smoggy80 15:07, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Smog. Gate's clearly done so. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Since most of the history is written out, can we make this a stub? Arstar 21:47, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

There is a long list of objections to its current content on its talk page, and there's no mention of this anywhere but here. So I must object to the idea of making it a stub. Lordganon (talk) 23:41, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I have Gate's permission to adopt Nitra. Aside from those listed on the talk page, what else do I need to do to this article? Godfrey Raphael (talk) 09:29, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

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

It appears to be all finished now, so any objections to graduation?--Smoggy80 14:54, August 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing I noticed: No casualties or losses mentioned or listed on the template. I think it needs to be fleshed out just a bit, but I don't know much about 'battle articles' (the only war I did was incorporated into the main article).


 * Before we graduate this one, and the one below it, I thought I'd point out the irony of the two being adjacent: The Invasion of Kent & Superman! :-)


 * SouthWriter 04:56, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And, too, the invasion goes from 15th May, 2011 to 2nd June, 2011, but only May 15th-17th is written down. Not even any idea what the consequences/results are, either.

Basically, it is over, but there's no events listed right now. We could probably get away with stubbing it, but... I would really rather avoid that.

Lordganon 06:54, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, since then Vegas has added a little to this, but it remains mostly the same. Feg, Vegas, what's happening with it? Lordganon 22:59, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Is this article finished? can it be graduated?--Smoggy80 15:08, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No to both counts. There's basically nothing here. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation as a stub? Lordganon (talk) 10:09, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

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

Looks much better now, ok to graduate?--Smoggy80 15:09, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

There has been no improvements, nor is it complete. So, no. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

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

This article is complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 04:08, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

The idea that all of these states would have good relations with the Tanganyika remnant and join that organization makes no sense at all.

Same goes for the situation in most of these states. Have a good, hard, long look at where the economic power in the nation actually is, and where is actually poor: it's not how you show it, at all.

Lordganon 08:29, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * They have good relations with the Republic of Tanganyika for two reasons. First, they have to if they want access to their ports. With Mozambique having a civil war to the south and Kenya allying its export policy with that of Tanganyika's, if they want access to wider markets, they have to be nice to Tanganyika. Second, Tanganyika rejected its goal of reunification in 1990, which removed the immediate threat it presented to the newly indepedent states.


 * Tanganyika controls the ports, the commercial capital, most of the region's industry, and the only operational gold mine. At the very least, Tanganyika would be wealthiest because it could tax any exported through its territory. However, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it. Caeruleus 16:32, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you have a good long look at your EAC article. It specifically states that unifying the area is its long-term goal. So no, it has not rejected it.

Ports are overrated whenever you write something. Note the big lake in the northeast? The population around that lake is self-sustaining, and not dependent on the rest of the area or those ports at all. Largest inland fishery in the world. There is no economic pressure that can be done to them, for they have no need to export.

Operational Gold mine? No gold mines were operational at the time. Most only opened in the late 1990s, and the others went out of business by the 1950s. And they would all be in the breakaway states, too.

Commercial Capital means little - and that city would be where most deaths and refugees occur. With exports and imports gone or sharply reduced, the "commercial" aspect goes.

So does industry, which is almost non-existant. Especially since until recently, there was basically nothing in that direction. Most of the exports and agriculture are from the breakaway states. Those on the lake are going to have a higher GNP ratio than Tan~ itself. It's also dependent on them for food, which you failed to notice.

Who's got the economic power? In some regards, Tan~ has some but overall? Not them, by a long shot.

And all that avoids entirely the aspect of relations in general. These states revolted. And you are trying to make them have good relations. That is ridiculous. A few of them, sure. But all? That is just not possible. Each and every time a nation has broken up, especially by force, not all of the parts have been friendly. And yet, you have them all loving each other. That's impossible and makes no sense whatsoever.

Lordganon 02:04, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Please read through the new updates. Any remaining objections? Caeruleus 03:17, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement, though you missed the point about economic power, and population.

The states on the lake are not dependent on the rest of the nation, in any real way. The population overall fails to include any real number of deaths or refugees.

Lordganon 06:30, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The economic power portions have been revised. The poulation is fine. It's 10 million less than OTL, which is more than enough to count for the number of deaths and refugees. Caeruleus 07:20, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

No. Half the article reads like it is an article on the remnant, the other half reads like an article on the area. If it is overall, that may work as a population. But for the remnant, not in the least. By and large, it appears to be the remnant.

Lordganon 08:01, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the total population of the entirety of Greater Tanganyika. Caeruleus 08:19, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to re-write the article. That is only about a quarter of what it actually says. Most of it is an article on The remnant. Lordganon 09:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It progresses from talking about the remnant to the survivor states, while remaining somewhat focused on the remnant in the context of the other survivor states. After a certain point, "Tanganyika" stops referring to the remnant and begins referring to the region. I'll go through and change references to the region to Greater Tanganyika" in order to clarify that. Caeruleus 13:34, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Much better. Lordganon 19:18, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

with the improvements is it ok to graduate this article then?--Smoggy80 15:10, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

There are still problems with the "focus," so to speak, of the article. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I vote for graduation. This article demonstrates a sincere effort that should be recognized by the community as part of the time line. SouthWriter 03:19, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

And to that, I have to object. Half of the article is still on the nation-state, and half of it is on the former nation. As I said, there's a problem with the focus of the article. He's done work to improve it in that regard, but the problem has definitely persisted, and needs to be fixed prior to graduation. Lordganon 15:02, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

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

This article is complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 04:06, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

That this remains intact while most of Africa collapses, despite the major drought just after Doomsday, makes no sense. Earlier on, you had a couple of the provinces go. And yet, then you had them re-join. That is not plausible.

Lordganon 08:33, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

And, to add, there's several statements in it, such as "largest economy in East Africa" which are suspect, and probably not true at all. Lordganon 08:56, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the largest economy in East Africa OTL and that would hold true here as well.


 * As for the drought, droughts don't necessarily cause a collapse of government. The only thing that is assured to happen is a higher death toll for the duration of the drought. During droughts, Kenya does need food aid, but it still produces enough to feed a majority of its population. At most, only a few million have ever needed food aid and, even without aid, the situation could still be handled by the government. Caeruleus 16:04, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, you don't make statements like that. Ever. And, for the record, it is very likely that they are not the largest economy. With the reformation and such that occurred in Ethiopia, it is likely that it, Mozambique, or Madagascar hold the title anyways. Especially given the economic aspects relied on in Kenya, which would have collapsed the economy quickly.

You'll note that I did not say it collapsed. A dictatorship, with a coup attempt barely a year prior, in a multi-ethnic - very multi-ethnic - state with regional divisions. Otl, with massive relief getting sent to them, half of the herds died, and massive amounts of crops. More than half the country is drought-prone. The blasts are on record as warming the earth slightly, making it a touch worse. And, the drought ran from 1983 until 1985, too, throughout all of East Africa. To boot, after that period there was massive floods to make the effect even worse.

http://worldvisionnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/horn-of-africa-drought-map.png

and

http://writingtowellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/horn-of-africa-drought-map-29-july.jpg

While the two maps are from modern droughts, they show the at-risk areas well, in combination. That has long been the same. Think about it.

You have a few million starving people. And no food to give them. Did you know that the average person is only three meals away from civil disobedience? Do the math. Atl, they are going to have trouble feeding the army. Good luck keeping stability like that.

Collapse outright? Not likely. Remain whole? That's crazy.

Lordganon 05:03, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes. Any remaining objections? Caeruleus 03:18, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement. But you fail to actually take the droughts into effect, at all. Lordganon 06:31, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * There's not much to be said about the droughts other than that they happened and had some effects. Caeruleus 07:15, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Not what I mean. You do not go into details about its effects, and mention it in passing, for the most part. Not only that, but a population 2 million lower, only? A fair portion of the area is constantly fought over, a few massive droughts happened, along with general chaos, and only two million lower than otl? Not plausible in any fashion.

Lordganon 08:05, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a minor adjustment to the population. Still, nothing really needs to really be elaborated on about the drought. It happened, there was a famine, and obviously some people died and/or suffered because of it, which contributed to political instability. What else would you like included? Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Better, but you've not gotten the point. You just mention it. It's like a non-event. That just does not work. Lordganon 09:42, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a drought. They happen. It wasn't some seismic event. What happened and what it did are pretty basic. Do you want me to include specific information about what areas were affected and death tolls and such? Caeruleus 13:38, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A massive drought, causing many deaths and society-wide problems. And you just mention it. It's not a question of figures - though some sort of those is a must - but actually mentioning more than "it happened." Currently, you fail to do so. Lordganon 19:21, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Much better, but now you've made it sound like droughts never happen again. They will. Lordganon 21:57, October 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it that there can be a blossoming of the Sahara in Egypt based on a proposed increase of rainfall by mere inches a year while insisting that the droughts and desertification in Kenya remain the same? I have been told that we cannot generally expect the weather to be predictable, but here, on the edge of the equatorial rainforest things remain the same!


 * There is no mention at all of this drought, or any since 1983 for that matter, on the Wikipedia page about Kenya. It should not be a requirement for such to be an article on this wiki either. I agree, droughts happen, and people cope. In the case of this drought, with no help from the USA in 1984, there would have been a few thousand more deaths - maybe even a million in the poorer regions. The people affected, though, are not those who would revolt after a few days. They live day by day any way, gladly receiving aid when it comes, coping in other ways when it doesn't.


 * Meanwhile, back in Nairobi, well away from the suffering, life goes on. The army might fight the neighbors who take advantage of the drought, but the government would at the same time reach out to the Indian Ocean community for aid (Malyasia, Indenesia, and Australia, especially) when the emergency of the famine developed.


 * This is a very good article, though it might be improved with mention of coping without US aid in the particular emergency. I am in favor of graduating it in spite of the lack of dealing with the drought. However, I would say more attention should be shown as to how the new connections with New Britain, Australia and New Zealand would come into play when droughts inevitably come. SouthWriter 18:18, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

South, the Sahara has almost nothing to do with the rainfall, and everything to do with redirecting the river partially.

Google "Kenya drought" and either "1983" or "1984." You'll find that there was a drought then that otl, effected 200,000 people greatly even with massive food imports. This drought is referred to as one of "the most severe resulting in loss of human life and livestock, heavy government expenditure to facilitate response and general high economic losses of unprecedented levels." Which, otl, was followed by massive flooding in 1985. These droughts, btw, hit the region every few years, and especially hard every ten years or so - in 1974, 1984, 1994, and 2004, otl. These hit the entire region. 50-75% of cattle died before food aid came otl - and here, it's not coming. There was severe food shortages, too. This drought has even been called the first in the last century by some. Food crops were 50%, in the case of corn, to 70%, in the case of wheat, lost to it in Kenya. This is a drought that killed three million people in the region. Millions in Kenya were dependent on food imports to survive. And here, there isn't any.

Ever hear the addage "The average person is three meals away from civil unrest?" Think about it. The death toll will be on a disturbing level in this case.

Again, no contact with the outside world during the drought. Nor could they help at all, anyways.

And, the climate changes - wetter, etc. - are unlikely to have much impact here overall. Changes otl aren't, so why would this? And, changes here are not happening in the first few years, either. so there's no impact form them.

So, I say again: The article mentions the drought in passing. Yet, this drought has such an impact, that it needs to actually be dealt with. Caer is failing entirely in that regard.

Lordganon 05:49, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I did do a search for the 1984 drought, and it is seen as a border issue. The fact that the Wikipedia article does not even mention it should be taken as a hint that the Kenyans indeed adjust to these seasonal emergencies. In fact, the actions of President Moi, not the US government, are what mitigated the effects of the drought and accompanying famine. Since trade with the US had vanished in TTL, agreements with nations in the southern hemisphere would have been used instead. This response was touted as a model for famine relief. Far from causing conditions for revolt, the Kenyan government was able to mitigate the situation getting the population through.


 * I know this is counter to my suggestions above, for they were just suggestions lacking LG's superior investigative abilities. I would say that Caer should indeed mention the effort since it even if the Wikipedia article in our day did not. It enhances the article to point out the effectiveness of the Moi regime - no matter where it was able to get outside help. If nothing else, help would be available from surplus in Malaysia and Indonesia (sources of year-long exports to the US and other nations of the north pre-DD).


 * One more thing, the deaths in this drought measured two million in the region, not in Kenya. The losses to Kenya were only 200,000 in its northwestern sector. In a nation of 30,000,000 that is hardly a disaster that would topple a strong regime like the one in Kenya.


 * Long story short, I agree that the drought should be 'dealt with,' but not that it is essential in validating the article. The drought would not, in my opinion, have altered the history of Kenya in this time line any more than it would have int our time line. SouthWriter 20:24, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, South, it is not mentioned in the Kenya article because it was not an issue there otl. However, this is not otl.

They imported millions of tons of food. Millions. That is why they were barely effected otl. Not because the government or the people was able to adjust to anything. But because unlike their neighbors, they were able to import massive amounts of food. Which is not happening here.

You say that it was the actions of the President that "mitigated the effects of the drought and accompanying famine." While that is true, you also missed what he did. He imported food. Which, as established, is not happening.

Again: They have no contact with the outside world until after the drought is long over. At best, it will be 1986 before it is restored between this area and the SAC/ANZC to any degree. And the entire matter is long gone by then.

I said in the region three million died otl. Not in Kenya. Most of those were in Ethiopia, which got no imports, and only a small amount of aid. Here, atl, Kenya gets no food imports, or aid. The impact will be worse. Far, far, worse. Half of crops in the country failed, and a large majority of the herds died off, otl, with imports of food and aid. Go from there.

So, we have millions dying. Which is a heck of a lot worse than otl. And as such, the history is drastically altered.

Caer has failed to deal with the drought itself in any degree, and it needs to be rectified before graduation.

Lordganon 23:27, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am keeping this civil, not going into addressing either of you in second person. As mentioned above, I believe there would be communication and trade with Malaysia and maybe even Indonesia, neither of which would have been embroiled in the politics in Australia or South America (neither of which had formed new alliances to any degree in 1984). Unless we are going to assume that geosynchronous satellites directly above were out of commission (see discussion at bottom of this page) and regular cables across the Indian Ocean were disrupted by by the bombs that hit one city in western Australia, then there is no reason why arrangements could not be made with the governments around the Indian Ocean for at least adequate aid, if not in the amount of the US sent in our time line.


 * I see that Indonesia had early contact with Australia and Malaysia but not with the rest of the world (Africa and South America). Malaysia seems a bit more stable than Indonesia because of its smaller population but lost a third of its land to tiny Brunei. So perhaps they would not have been quite as inclined to help an African nation. But I can't see the lack of contact in that direction as a reason. It is enough to lay out options with no need to be dogmatic on these things. This is a community effort and no one editor - not even an administrator - should have the last word on how a small African nation might have fared with the absence of the US in time of crisis. --SouthWriter 03:11, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Simple truth: as I have laid it out is the current fact. Not my opinion, or yours. You need to recognize that fact. You don't like it, fine. But as things stand, it is fact. You need to recognize that.

Past that....

To quote the ANZC history:

"Communications were restored with Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and most of the Pacific island nations by Christmas of 1983"

Contact obvious

"....met with Indonesian President Suharto in February 1984...... He believed that Indonesia needed to move forward on the assumption that the Australia, New Zealand and Singapore markets would eventually bounce back to near pre-Doomsday levels"

Contact with Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei

"In February, an unexpected radio message from North America came: the American President, Ronald Reagan, was alive, as was Vice President George Bush and several other staffers and cabinet members, and they were trying to find out who else was alive in this post-Doomsday world."

"No one had been able to establish contact with anyone outside the Mount Weather or Greenbrier regions, and certainly not from Canada, Japan nor Western Europe."

"The one contact other than Australia the U.S. had been able to establish was with Mexican military south of Mexico City; they learned that Mexico had survived Doomsday and was not only functioning but was apparently taking American survivors from the southwest border states."

"Bush arrived in Canberra on Air Force Two on May 6 from Auckland, greeted personally by Hawke only to be told that the RAAF lost contact with Air Force One."

Contact with American Remnants, and Mexico

And, from the Vatican, we have already established, somewhat, that contact between Mexico and the rest of Latin America is up by sometime in 1984. And that contact throughout the south, is, on some level, restored enough by April of 1987 to have most of the Southern Cardinals attend a conclave. Probably, sometime in late 1985 at the latest for contact.

Contact with rest of the Southernmost Hemisphere

Note, too, that this applies to areas from Senegal south in western Africa, and Mozambique south in the east - though, this could be made further north n the east, and probably will be. But it remains: contact and trade are restored with East Africa in the latter half of 1984 at best.

And guess what? The drought has already done its damage by then.

Your "aid" has no effect. The deaths have already happened.

As stated, Caer needs to actually deal with this. He barely mentions it. Yet, it happened. The problem here is pretty big, and obvious.

Lordganon 05:40, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG, nothing you say is fact until it is established as fact by the community of this TL. That goes for you and everyone else. Also, keep in mind that the issue of communication is under review with a majority of editors so far leaning towards changing it. If it is decided to change it, all the passages you've quoted will be invalidated. Caeruleus 05:55, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Me saying? What I have quoted is the current established fact. Until this article recognizes that or something else changes, there is no reason at all to graduate it.

And, as for the "review"? The info I quote invalidates the entire thing.

Lordganon 06:27, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * What LG has cited represents wide-spread utilization of communication in the southern hemisphere and even from the subtropical regions of the northern hemisphere. The communications from North America, though 'unexpected,' prove that they were operative via the communication satellites encircling the equator - one or two above Kenya, in fact. Furthermore, the fact that these particular incidents are mentioned only go to show the view point of the people involved (and the assumptions of the editors of the articles). Though the discussion is not in the "review" section, it does not mean that it is not an official process to which we need to pay serious attention.


 * The 'early warning systems' were well in place for the Kenyan government as the drought began with a failure of the "short rains" that began soon after DD (October - November, 1983). Since the government would be aware of the probable loss of the US and Europe via broadcast during the attacks if not after them, contingency plans would be made. Most of the yellow maize imported came from Thailand and the result of yellow maize being the main import caused those of means within the nation to ration other foodstuffs to compensate.


 * Without due consideration to the drought, though, the article does suffer from a loss of a good study in the alternatives the Kenyan government faced with a loss of both the US and European community. This is what this time line is all about. Though not directly affected by the nuclear war, the contacts that the Moi regime had were drastically reduced. And so, I agree that this article needs to include a paragraph of how the regime 'pulled this off' to remain stable. If that cannot be demonstrated, then the article needs to be revamped before graduation. SouthWriter 15:36, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

And now, we're off-topic. Sigh.....

Widespread? Contact in some form does not mean widespread, at all. The majority of this contact would be by ship, and minimal at best.

Actually South, they don't prove they were operative. Quite literally, there are only 4 places with any sort of contact in NA at that time - and that, with each other: Bush, Reagan, NORAD, and on a very low level the Wyoming remnant. Really, the word "unexpected" would much more so be due to their deaths having been expected. And those satellites would be unlikely - really, there are some EMP hardened sats up there, which both NORAD and the executives would have access on some degree to, though highly fractured by the EMP blasts and the ground/air bursts.

Bush and Reagan, having been airborne and in their EMP hardened planes, have functioning radios, at least to some degree. That's how they can be in contact. Between each other, it's pretty simple. Past that, the military satellites are still going to be functional at that point, at least to some degree. They would also have high-powered radios - though, their performance obviously hindered somewhat - along with, I'm sure, a few other toys we're not aware of.

NORAD is pretty obvious in itself, with the location, the story set up, and the radiation, etc. severely impacting things afterwards. But that is limited, too.

Got nothing for Wyoming, really. Where that is mentioned really needs something like "through NORAD" added to it, as it makes little sense otherwise. Proximity to NORAD, call it.

Really, those are quite reasonable. Contact between the four will be extremely sporadic, and static-filled, with little to no ability to reach beyond the continent. Sure, a few more sources may have heard them - but that means almost nothing, given codes, static, and that the further it gets, the more unintelligible it would be. That they talked to the ANZC at all through that atmosphere is a stretch, quite frankly.

Thailand. Something, as stated, only in contact with in mid to late 1984. And suffering somewhat in its own right.

No matter the plans put into place, you still have a massive food shortage. And no aid until it's more or less over, and even then in much smaller amounts than in otl. Millions will die.

As stated, my issue with this is that the drought gets a mention "in passing." Yet, it has so much more impact than that. Nor is it a "minor famine" like it says right now. It was more or less that otl - that it is going to be far worse here is a given. It's not so much the stability, in my mind, though that gets glanced over badly too, among other things that South has noted. As it stands, it's basically glanced over, being "swept under the rug," so to speak.

And that? We can definitely say is not right.

Lordganon 07:58, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Article by an anon. Only a single sentence, absolutely nothing else. Lordganon 14:34, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

No progress since I added this one. Yet, it's definitely an article to keep. Would there be any objections to putting it up for adoption? Lordganon 23:14, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Put up for adoption. Lordganon 01:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Adopted by Godfrey Raphael. Lordganon 01:28, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Has this been definitely been adopted? as it is still only one line?--Smoggy80 15:13, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has definitely been adopted. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I put it up for adoption again. I simply can't work on this anymore. Godfrey Raphael (talk) 01:50, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Hello, so I have decided to take on the task of becoming a care-taker for a Doomsday nation article. I see, from examples and those who have come before me, that this is a large task. Can somebody please give me a rough outline of what sould be included? So, History, Economy, Government, etc.?

Also, what are some current things in canon about Finland? My eventual goal is to work on Finland, then Iceland, then Sweden, and hopefully have some role in the Nordic Union. Obviously this is a bit far out, but what do we know about Finland right now, and what can I make up? Reximus55 (talk) 10:41, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Iceland is the project of another - but there is no Sweden article, so you could do that in the future.

Look at the Nordic Union, Karelia, and Soviet Karelia articles. You could glean quite a bit of history from those. Ignore the Åland article, most of it needs a great deal of work and is not remotely plausible.

Finland was not hit at DD. In the aftermath, Soviet troops fleeing chaos and detonations crossed the border, and were fought off.

Government, more or less like otl, with the parties somewhat up for debate. The Nordic Union has the president and PM of Finland listed on it - the next elections are the legislative elections in 2015, and the presidential elections in 2018. The president cannot run again, being in his second term. Parliament up to you, except the largest party is the Social Democratic Party of Finland.

Sauli Niinistö of Finland is the current President of the Nordic Union, elected in 2011 and up for re-election in 2014. Don't really have a backstory for him, but I've gone on the assumption that he was president of Finland before Martti Ahtisaari and was a member of Parliament and finance minister prior to that, so that'd be more or less his story.

Really, write something within those lines, and I'll advise you from there.

Lordganon (talk) 11:42, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

An article by myself. Caeruleus 19:12, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

This article is now complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 06:34, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

It is still ridiculously impossible. Simply put, it is not plausible that a bunch of breakaway states would agree to this when the major power is the one they split from militarily and the eventual goal of the organization is integration.

That is not plausible, at all. Some, maybe. But all, and many for reasons that make no sense locally? Not plausible.

And, you have no authority at all to include Zanzibar in this at all.

Lordganon 08:27, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

And none of that changes with Kenya helping to "convince" them, either. Lordganon 08:30, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

The current goal of the organization is economic integration, which is desirable to all the states in the region. The coastal states want access to the resources of the inland states and the inland states need access to the ports of the coastal states for trade. The ultimate goal of political unification is far off and may never actually happen. Just because it's a stated goal does not mean that's the reason they joined or that they expect it to happen. Plus, the EAC is a regional embodiment of PanAfricanism, an ideology that is strong among the regional elite. Even if the organization is particularly popular, the political elite in several of these countries would push for membership, like with the OTL EAC and other regional supranational organizations in Africa. Caeruleus 16:18, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Really? Pan-Africanism? Do you have any idea at all how inflated that concept is? It would seem not. And, for the record, the political elite in the area otl do not support the concept - that will remain true here.

No. The stated goal of it, as it says on the article itself is economic and political integration. Which is precisely why many of the little states will avoid it like the plague. Little nation-states, joining a political organization whose eventual stated goal is political integration with a nation that they revolted from - that just doesn't work. At all.

Even without that being the stated goal, that is just not plausible. A few of the remnants, maybe. But all of them? That doesn't work, at all. Have a good look at that type of thing, overall, and you'll find that many of them cannot stand each other. Either they hate the remnant of the nation they revolted from, or one another. End result is the same. Which you have failed to understand or include, at all.

As already established, the inland states have no need for the coast, and vice-versa.

Lordganon 05:36, September 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I went through and made some changes. Any continued objections? Caeruleus 03:16, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Better, but you still fail to get the point about the states on the lakes - more so, Lake Victoria. They have little to no need for the coast, at all.

This also cannot graduate, sensibly, until the nations do.

Lordganon 06:32, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

I edited the portion about the importance of the ports. If there's nothing else, this will graduate when the other articles do. Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

No, you removed it. That does not change the fact that they do not need them in any form, and that the article entirely fails to get that concept. Lordganon 09:50, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The article isn't about the ports of East Africa. Since including them as a reason for Tanganyika's economic superiority was overstated, nothing else needs to be said about them once that portion was removed. Caeruleus 13:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

You frequently use words like "inevitable." While the port sections were removed, the article still reads like that is the reason for joining. At the very least, no motive is given. It also still sounds like economic reasons are why things are happening, which as shown is not. the case. Lordganon 19:25, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Economic reasons are why things are happening. Lowering trade barriers and increasing cooperation will result in accelerated economic growth in the region, regardless of whether or not the ports are particularly important. That's the principle reason most of these states are joining. There are other reasons, like security aid for Kagera and pro-reunification leanings for Ruvuma, but the economic advantages remain a major reason for membership. Caeruleus 18:46, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

You are not getting the point. It still reads like pressure is being applied, yet there is no pressure to apply. And, again, the use of words like "inevitable." Lordganon 01:21, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * The inevitable comment is made in specific reference to the future direction of the TFTA, not the EAC. Other than that, there are no references to pressure being applied. Caeruleus 03:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what that word is in reference to, at all. You use other words that mean the same blasted thing throughout, as well. The whole thing reeks of it. Lordganon 06:43, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't reak of that, at all. Caeruleus 14:42, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oblivious, as usual, then. You are continually referring to future things in a definite manner that would be speculation. That doesn't fly. Lordganon 01:11, October 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. The only future things the article refers to are in the "Future Developments" section, which makes perfect sense. Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about. Caeruleus 22:33, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're failing to get the point. You are referring to things as definite. Doesn't work, or make any sense, especially in the future developments section. Lordganon 07:20, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

This could work, Mark as obsolete until made more plausable?--Smoggy80 15:17, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No, there's only small changes needed to it - which, as per usual, he's refused/declined to make. No need for that. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

An article by myself after the post-Doomsday Zimbabwe. Caeruleus 06:34, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

This article is now complete and ready for graduation. Any objections? Caeruleus 06:47, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

How on earth can an inland nation, more or less cut off from the outside world, especially one this poor, have any real increase in manufacturing abilities, or industry? Simply put, it won't. It would decrease. As in no fuel, or materials to make such things with.

You ignore entirely why the white population was leaving. And what would happen to them, being forced to stay.

That population is 100% unrealistic. Not only is that almost higher than the population of the entire country otl, but also ignores one simple fact: AIDS exists, and would be far worse.

Lordganon 08:22, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Small scale growth in industry, through the replication of existing industry, is possible even in relative isolation, though Zimbabwe still had access to the outside world through Mozambique. While the basic technology wouldn't have advanced much, if at all, since Doomsday. They have access to native and neighboring supplies to expand existing industry. I will clarify that section.


 * Actually, the population is fairly accurate. The OTL population doesn't include refugees that reside outside the country, most of whom fled during the 2000s with the economic chaos in the country. I accounted for the death toll during the two civil wars, kept the White population, and factored in the lack of refugees. I will revisit the figures though.


 * White Zimbabweans left because they lamented their loss of political dominance and feared what could happen. While low-level racism and civil strife existed, the mass, state-driven discrimination they feared didn't occur until the late 1990s OTL with the land seizures, which didn't occur in North Zimbabwe. Being forced to stay, White Zimbabweans would contribute to the nation regardless because their own prosperity depends on the prosperity of the entire nation. I'll also clarify those passages though.


 * As for AIDS, the first case of AIDS in Zimbabwe was in 1985, after Doomsday. With the collapse of global trade and travel, the virus would spread much more slowly. I will investigate more about that first reported case and AIDS's expansion paterns. However, the AIDS epidemic wouldn't be much worse because even in OTL, the problem was largely ignored until the early 2000s and Zimbabwe's health care system collapsed in the mid-2000s. Caeruleus 13:24, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

First reported case. In a time that AIDS cases went unreported, and almost nothing was known about it. By the end of the 1980s, 10% of the population of Zimbabwe had it. I suggest you look into how long these things went unidentified. The first recorded case in Africa - in retrospect, mind, from persevered samples - was in 1959. It's believed that one may have happened in the late 50s, too. I'm sure you can guess how rare preserved samples are. Spread to NA in about 1970, and existed in West African ports at that time.

To think that it was not present in Zimbabwe in 1983 is very foolish on your part. And without campaigns in the area against it and methods - imported methods - to help prevent it, it's going to be as bad or worse.

Your population is horrifically out to lunch.

How on earth do you get the idea that they have contact outside their small area of Africa? Mozambique barely has any in 1987. And you think Zimbabwe has it in 1985? That's not possible. They would literally be lucky to maintain what they have. Expansion just isn't possible on any real level.

And you assume that the white population would be all right? And that there would be no refugees? You have a Civil War. Do the math.

The violence against the white population likely would not get so bad, true, but as I said, they were leaving for a reason. And you, for some reason, think that would just go away. Simply put, it won't. And it will get worse, too, in the aftermath of Doomsday - who do you think will be blamed for it, and will get it by extension?

The idea that they have outside contact in 1985 is not possible, at all. And you should know better than that.

Lordganon 23:19, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll look into AIDS and add something about it.


 * "...horrificially out to lunch." I've got to say that's definitely a new phrase for me. Care to explain what specific problem you have with the current population numbers rather than making blanket opposition statements with no detail that make no sense, even if they are rather humorous?


 * Zimbabwe had native industrial capacities before Doomsday and had become largely self-driven in terms of industrial growth due to the isolation of Rhodesia. While the technology used would not have progress significantly, physical expansion of existing industry is well within the realm of possibility.


 * I never said the White population was "all right." The article states that they remained within the nation and contributed to economic growth. There would be issues, but the White population would have no where to flee to and would be too small to mount any significant military or political resistance. Ultimately, they would acquiese like the remaining OTL White population in Zimbabwe. And just because Westerners caused Doomsday doesn't mean the White Zimbabwean population would face massive retribution for it, especially since Zimbabwe never got nuked.


 * Like you said, the current Mozambique article makes no sense. They lost contact with everyone, even their neighbors, when they weren't even nuked. While I wait for someone to fix the article, I will continue on the reasonable assumption that regional communication would be minimally affected and communication with other unaffected states, like Nigeria and the Gulf States, would be reignitiated shortly after Doomsday. Caeruleus 00:39, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

I never once said that Mozambique made no sense. How many times to I have to tell you to actually read things, and to not put words into my mouth? Jeez.

You really do fail to get the point. Contact between South America and the ANZC is barely functional in 1987. Nor is either in contact with the Gulf States at the time. And you're trying to say that this inland nation has contact with all of them, plus the Gulf States and Nigeria, in 1985, through a state fighting a massive Civil War? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? That is not remotely plausible, whatsoever. So long as you say things like that, there is no way this can ever graduate.

You have almost an extra three million people in Zimbabwe than in otl. I've already given ample reason why that makes absolutely no sense, but I'll repeat myself: Racial tensions, Civil War, refugees, no medicine, AIDS. As stated, out to lunch.

Expansion of industry? Not happening. An increase in goods made in the home? Maybe. But Industry? Just not possible. You have no fuel but coal, remember. Or any real natural resources besides a little coal, some diamonds, and some agricultural products.

You have a Civil War, to some extent caused by problems stemming from DD, and you think the white population would be not blamed? And that they wouldn't get attacked, even without any blame? Get real. Both would happen. This is a country where they had only just finished a different Civil War in 1980, against whites. And you're saying that they would be contributing? They can still flee south to the Pretoria area, under the remnants of the SA government, or more likely, die. There is a reason why Mugabe was able to do all of the garbage he did otl. And atl, it is still there.

Lordganon 07:08, September 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved back the date of contact/trade with the wider world. That was somewhat implausible. As for the population, you're still not understanding why it's so high. OTL Zimbabwe has a population 12.5 million plus 3.4 million refugees who aren't counted in the national population figures and largely fled after the economy began to collapse. That makes the total number of Zimbabweans about 15.9 million OTL. You also have the white Zimbabweans population, another 300,000 people, who never left the country. Neither the civil war, racial tensions, or HIV/AIDS would cause, even collectively, substantial declines in the population, which is why the population is what it is. I've accounted for everything and the population of North Zimbabwe will stand at 11.1 million.


 * White Zimbabweans are not going to just stop working or work. If Zimbabwe suffers, they suffer, so of course they're going to contribute. As part of the negiotiations with the former Rhodesian government, the early Mugabe government agreed to actively work to maintain racial stability, for the good of the country. Also, state-sponsored racial discrimination didn't begin until the late 1990s when the economy was already declining and most of the Whites had already left. The post-Doomsday Zimbabwean government would have an economic interest in maintaining racial stability because of the skills the White population possess. Additionally, Mugabe was assasinated in 1991, which weakened ZANU and the strong authority figure who was necessary to lead efforts similar to the OTL land grabs and subsequent rise in racial tensions.


 * As for industry, I've clarified what type of industrial expansion would occur, but some type of expansion is assured. Coal is the only fuel source you need for industry in the country and most of their industry is low-tech or labor-based, which doesn't require any technology that was not natively available. Pre-Doomsday Zimbabwe also had one of the best established industrial infrastructures on the continent, whihc would give them a strong base from which to expand. Keep in mind, the level of technology most of Zimbabwe's industry uses is still at the 1980s-level. The resources to physically build the factories and such would also be available, either natively or from their more stable neighbors. 128.135.100.102 21:03, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, I'm not a bloody idiot. I know about the refugees. You, however, are failing to get the point.

The population is too high. You have a few losses from fighting in a civil war. No refugees from fighting, no AIDS/HIV deaths, no racial tensions, and you're even adding medicines to blunt the impact that would not exist. None of that is possible or reasonable.

The drugs used to deal with that virus were developed in labs, or had the related effects discovered in labs. Largely, these were in nuked areas. At best, that tech will be at about a 1990 level. And, with a global cutoff in contact, its spread outside of Africa has been curtailed, drastically, which when combined with the destruction of cities, where most of those afflicted were, and the likely - rapid, too - fate of anyone surviving the blasts with it in the Northern Hemisphere. Simply put, outside of Africa below the Sahara it's not a major issue.

Those afflicted with it in this area are not going to last even as long as in otl. Deaths are going to be major. And given that the reasons for it spreading in this area in Africa are cultural in nature, there will be just as much problems with changing that as in otl. More hospitals and schools? Maybe a few, but thinking that a large number is possible, or would actually help to the extent you say is just not possible. The number is barely going down otl, with a ton of outside money and aid. Here, that's not happening. And, 1981 recognition of it? Ha.

The SA border guarded? That has no net effect on them leaving, really. They are still going to keep fleeing. And, after the start of the civil war, they are going to flee in droves. They are in a position of wealth. Guess what happens to those people in Civil Wars?

Yeah, Mugabe did say that. And you believe it? He only kept that around for aid. Once that started to slip, so did the policy. Think about it. Note, too I never said state-sponsored.

You also fail to think about a Civil War. Massive fighting, lots of military and civilian dead. But, a ton of refugees too. Those near the front are going to flee. Agricultural production - which goes down overall anyways, lack of fertilizer, etc. - will drop drastically. That is always the case in such a conflict.

Note, I said a little coal. Nor do you at all mention that the industry is virtually the same level as at DD. Expansion past that, not happening. Stability by modern times, somewhat possible.

The majority of this applies to the South as well.

Simply put, you are failing to take into account everything that impacts this area and the people. You have dropped the population by nearly a million, overall. Needs closer to two.

Lordganon 07:32, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I will take another look at the population figures, but there won't be any major decrease in the population. The deaths from AIDS won't be that major. The issue was largely ignored until the late 1990s, even with the presence of medicine. Up until that point, the lack of drugs would neither hurt nor help the infected. Also, the total number of infected is about the same as OTL. The only difference is that South Zimbabwe has a higher infection rate while North Zimbabwe has a lower one.


 * White Zimbabweans are not going to flee to a collapsing South Africa where Whites are being slaughtered by Blacks and vice versa. The fact that there's a civil war has little to do with the White population. They are a non-factor in the war and the war actually would make their presence even more beneficial due to their technical skills. The racial tension would be an issue, but racial violence would only occur if the government allowed, even if they didn't sponsor it as you said. The government would have a vested interest in maintaining racial harmony, which even existed OTL despite the White flight.


 * Refugees will exist but they will be internally displaced persons (IDL). ZANU supporters in the south will flee north and ZAPU supporters in the north would flee south. The percentage of the population near the border is fairly small, in the few hundreds of thousands. Most of these would simply flee deeper into their respective countries. They wouldn't have any options to flee anywhere else anyway. Botswana is sealed, Mozambique and South Africa were in a state of civil war, and Zambia is too far away. Very few of the refugees would end up leaving the region.


 * Zimbabwe, before Doomsday, was agriculturally self-sufficient, including with regards to fertilizer due to the isolation of Rhodesia. Also, Zimbabwe produces enough coal to meet all its needs plus it has a hydroelectric power plant. Electricity would not be a problem for the country's industry. I will go into more detail about the state of the country's industry though. Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Ignored. And with medicine, many died. Here, little to no medicine. Easy math to do. Figures are double, minimum. Same goes for the infected. Without the contraceptive campaigns of otl by aid groups - note, too, that the locals will not do this on their own, culturally - it will be higher than otl.

Collapsing stopping them? Not likely. At all. And, that ignores the Pretoria state. You also failed entirely to understand the point of a civil war. Everyone is fighting, and chaos ensues in any areas with it, especially, and a bit everywhere. They can, and will, be targets. The racial equality stuff was a ploy to get aid. Nothing more. Here, they have no reason to do so except a slight economic reason. And how long will that last? Not long. Especially in a civil war. Seriously, actually look at what happens in those. While the government will likely try to stop them, and denounce them, there will be mobs, etc. Whites will die, and the rest will fear for their lives. They will not sit around. Simple. Many will flee.

Really? You think that will be all that happens, only internal refugees? There is a Civil War. A heck of a lot more will flee elsewhere, being unable to get to the area controlled by their factions and facing death, etc. by staying where they are. Doesn't really matter what the situation elsewhere is, much. The place where they are is bad. No matter what, elsewhere may be better. It's an easy choice, repeated through history. They will leave. Simple. Even the Civil War in Moz~ may be a better situation. Even if not, it beats being killed by your opponents.

Civilian death tolls along fronts are sky-high. But, you never even thought of that.

Isolation? I suggest that you have a better look into that. They were largely isolated. That is one heck of a difference. They were agriculturally self-sufficient, true, but in fertilizer? I doubt it. Everyone can produce some, true enough, but the South African Government was, in fact, still involved with the Rhodesians, and they got supplies from there. You are exaggerating their industry.

That Dam is on the border with Zambia. It may remain operational, true, but not for long. It's called the situation in Zambia, plus parts - or the lack thereof. The coal is in the "south", and the power plant? Not even under construction in 1983. So yeah. One heck of a problem.

As I said, the overall population needs to go down another million. And you need to look at what actually happens in Civil Wars, especially in Africa.

Lordganon 11:07, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose this one, as per the reasons above - plus this Zim is too much like OTL Zim today. It needs to look more realistically like the Zimbabwe of 1983, plus all the stuff that blows up when the country goes to war. Read up on the unrest of the 1980s, leading up to Robert Mugabe's massacre of the Matabele. Things were seriously going to hell in a handbasket anyway. This would be far, far, far, worse. Also keep in mind that the whites aren't going to lie down and take it peacefully, either. In 1983 there were still up to 190,000 of them left - nearly all the males with the best military training in Africa (Rhodesia conscripted all her white men between 16 and 60, and as of 1979 Salisbury had the best disciplined army on the continent). And in 1982 half the police reserve, nearly the entire air force, and up to a third of the army reserves were still filled with the same disgruntled servicemen who were ready to kill Bob when he was elected. --Emperor of Trebizond (talk) 23:29, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

I've split up the Zimbabwe article into the two states, North and South Zimbabwe. Caeruleus 15:25, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Are there the same problems with South Zimbabwe as north Zimbabwe?--Smoggy80 15:19, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

With Zimbabwe being under three years old on DD is it not possible that racial problems kicked off (what with Mugabe being in charge in OTL and ATL) and the white settlers may have tried to head for South Africa (hearing of South African Union or even New Britain, not making it and setting up south Zimbabwe (or even renamed it New Rhodesia) in the 1990's.--Smoggy80 18:27, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

or more likely that it collapsed and split along the lines of Mashonaland, Matabeleland, Manicaland and Masvingo, as these have a great indivduality from each other--Smoggy80 18:37, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't have the numbers to do that.

I think, quite frankly, that you're exaggerating the different groups. Zimbabwe's never really had much trouble, in that regard - its problems, the black/white bit aside, has been political in nature. Not that there wouldn't be some problems, but fairly minimal, I'd expect.

Basically, overall, these two articles just kinda ignore the deaths the effects of DD would cause, what a civil war entails in that regard, refugees and the chaos they bring, and that HIV/AIDS would be far worse. It amounts to some of the text, and lowering the population to a plausible level.

Lordganon 07:27, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

A proposal for the sub-unit of Denmark and member of the Nordic Union, by Brad30977. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Graduate as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:27, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Again, no content at all. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I am planning on adopting this page to get it up to stub quality. Arstar 22:14, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Then follow the protocol. Because declaring that certainly isn't. Lordganon (talk) 23:30, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Yank's proposal - it'd be with Fx and Caer as well, I figure - for the remnant state of the former Iraqi government. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone planing on working on this one? Arstar talk 20:04, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Fx and Caer have both said they are working on this one on several occasions. It will get done, when their schedules allow. Lordganon (talk) 06:53, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I figured as big a nation/state as Jamaica is, it needed a page. Suggestions are welcome. --SouthWriter 22:48, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Wait,is Jamaica independent from the ECF, or is this a member-state article? Just wondering, thanks. Arstar 02:51, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

....It says in the first sentence that it's part of the ECF. Lordganon 14:53, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Is this ready to graduate as a stub? Arstar 21:23, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

I got it started, Arstar, but the history only goes through Doomsday. Someone needs to look around the ECF for clues as to what happened after that. As it stands now, though, I guess it could be a stub. I think the Info box is up to date. That should help. SouthWriter 21:29, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the infobox is up to date, and the pre-DD and DD history is there, but.... there's really nothing else. Really probably should not graduate, even as a stub, yet. Lordganon 01:06, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to graduating this as a stub? Lordganon (talk) 10:14, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Central African republic
Their isn't any information on its history after Doomsday and its pre-doomsday history is more interesting then expected though it would be a good article to make. Brad30977 03:44, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I (accidently) started an article in the same region. Obviously, if you want, I'lll delete it, but I would prefer a merging or some other arrangement GunsnadGlory 19:21, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Ignore all my posts about this please. GunsnadGlory 21:32, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I think that My Central African Republic article is about ready for canon, but if their is any changes that need to be made first please post, thanks. Brad30977 02:07, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

You need to clean it up a bit, in general. Turns of phrase, spelling, etc.

The changes to the climate were not immediate - no real changes were seen for more than a decade, outside of the nuked areas. And the direct effects of the bombs in that regard would have been minimal, at worst, here.

It really just goes from 1988, to the present. You really should add some things in there.

Adding some more information to the main page would be a plan as well. Have a look at other articles to get ideas. Government would be a part, mind.

Lordganon 04:16, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

almost there? Brad30977 19:35, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Same points, minus the history one, still apply. Lordganon 20:49, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Coulee
An small nation between Victoria and Paso. By Enclavehunter

As I'm noted on the talk page for the page, this is not plausible. There is a whole section of history that you have missed of the region. Have a look at the Utah article.

What it amounts to is that this area is so close to Spokane, that the regime there would have destroyed it - especially since the dam would have been a target for them.

Lordganon 02:31, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I know. I changed it around to say it was an destroyed nation, does that still go against plausiblity. Enclavehunter 02:37, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed, does it still look like its talking about an surviving nation. Enclavehunter 15:28, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

The history, not so much.

Th rest still should get toned down - really, knowledge of this state would only be known from the memories of those few who fled or managed to survive, and what explorers encounter at the site.

Also, somebody needs to find the site to document it. Pasco or the new USA would be the ones likely do it.

Lordganon 21:35, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Though the dam might be considered a good target for acquisition, it does not follow that the junta would be interested in it. The dam is over 100 miles down stream, 80 miles by air and by road it is about 88 miles, much of it on State Route 2. We know the junta has secured control of Spokane and Coeur d'Alene and would travel south to Lewiston and then into land controlled by Utah. They are said to "hold their own" against rivals, meaning they hunkered in until they needed resources. At that time, from what has been written, we know they headed south, not west. Lewiston is 106 miles south of Spokane, and en route to their big target: Salt Lake City (as per the "History of Utah" article).

This is not to say they would not expand west, but only to say that they need not have done so. The population near the Grand Coulee dam was not very big, and it had a good chance of surviving. I am not sure if the area would be a haven to refugees from the big cities, or if they would be able to support them, but it is no less plausible than many city-states that have survived. This is only my opinion, and not meant to challenge anyone's authority on these matters. This is a collaborative effort, and the community has not spoken on this situation. It could go either way as far as I'm concerned. I am just another voice in the wilderness. --SouthWriter 02:25, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

You've entirely missed that they did go as far west as to secure the Tri-City area fairly early on. They went even further west than this site, even.

And given that this is a good target, for multiple reasons, there's really no doubt that it would have been taken.

Lordganon 03:39, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there was a presence in the Tri-City area, for a line says that the area was under that "nation's" control. The Tri-City area is far to the south; downstream, in fact from both I-90 (from the north) and Lewiston (from the east). Like I say, it could go either way, but there are limits to where the small army of Spokane could go.

Would these men, organized as they were for survival, actually want to take over the whole state? It is more likely that they would wish to seize what was easiest to get to with the most supplies they could plunder. Grand Coulee does not have much, but the Tri-City area was worth the trip, as were the twin cities of Lewiston and Clarkston (aka the city-state of Lewiston).

What are some of the multiple reasons for the taking of Coulee Dam? The water is down stream from Spokane which is on the river! The do not need the water. The EMP has made the electricity useless, so they would have a lot of work ahead of them to salvage it for that. If they were forward thinking enough, that may be a plan, but we see from the record that their main efforts went to the south to control people rather than rebuild renewable resources. These are warriors, not engineers.

Just saying. My opinions are only my own -- for what they are worth. Consider the options rather than making up your mind first. It adds to the creativity without destroying plausibility. --SouthWriter 05:02, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Th Tri-City area was wholly under their thumbs - as was basically all of eastern Washington. It's a far shorter trip to the area around the Dam than to these areas.

Coulee is worth raiding - and small enough that it wouldn't survive the experience.

Spokane is on record as wanting domination over all. The Dam is the largest one on the river system, by far, is a good position in general, has some functionality for power down the road (and possibly some small methods without actual electricity at the present, maybe like water wheels), better spot for agriculture, and a source of "workers" too. And they'll know its there, too. For that matter, it could even, in theory, be useful as a weapon (not that it would have made any difference, but it could have been)

Plus, it's just so close to Spokane that in general it would have been raided, at a minimum.

You can't say that they were "warriors," either.

Lordganon 07:51, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Good points, Ganon. It would be an excellent base of operation. With the water it was a good spot to support agriculture. But given their bent on conquest, I doubt they'd be setting up slave labor farms at such an early point. However, it was closer than any place they conquered apart from northern Idaho. As I wrote in the Lincoln (USA) article, the white supremest groups apparently worked together by the time of the Spokane War, but they could have been 'rivals' for a time, as the Utah article states. This only illustrates that there are numerous scenarios that could effect the time line. I am not sure if there is any record of the warlords' intentions, though. All the record has is what they did and who they controlled.

Nothing has been written beyond what I wrote in the Lincoln article concerning the rise of the Order and the Aryan Nation (using historical figures actually operating in history). Their stated purpose was to change "the region" into a bastion of white America. They knew that they could not control "all" of the nation. When the state of Lincoln was enlarged (first on the map and then in the text!) it incorporated what had been "Spokane" along the eastern Washington state line.

I borrowed the idea of "warriors" from the first paragraph of the "History of Utah" article and I used it in a figurative sense to make the point that rebuilding an hydro-electric plant was not something they would do. I am sorry if I confused anyone with the choice of words there. As survivalists, they could indeed be inventive and as warlords they were able to convince knowledgeable scientists to provide expertise under threat of great bodily harm. The History of Utah article states that they had early on developed alternative fuels to power their commandeered military vehicles.

Again, the dam would have had strategic significance if the long-range plan was to take the whole state of Washington, but the record shows that they instead chose to go south in an attempt to take the smaller state of Idaho instead. Long range plans changed even further as they dreamed of taking northern Utah. This delusion of grandeur was their downfall (though the resistance in Coeur d'Alene would probably have succeeded in time). Sure, we can add more gore and conquest to the time line, or we can go with what has been written and work around it, as Enclave originally envisioned. Though I have written in the greatest act of terrorism (1-1-1) and the greatest natural disaster ("Hugo" in eastern South Carolina), I remain an optimist.

We could call it an oversight on the junta's part, or perhaps they feared the contamination downstream of the nuclear blast over (or on) Fairchild AFB, but given all the varables, it is a possibility that the dam to the west was not a priority and never taken. The fact that the nuclear strike was between Spokane and Coulee, and very close to Spokane, is also a factor that needs to be considered. Given a choice, the warlords would expand away from, not across, the contaminated area in their "back yard."

That is enough of what I think. Are there any other opinions besides those of Ganon and myself out there? We'd love to hear from you. SouthWriter 15:53, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

The Supremacists, however, were not the only faction. You can add to that the militias in general from the region (truly, there is an insane number there, and not all of the racist type) remnants of the base, and the residents of Spokane.

Even the racist types would be survivalists, in this area.

The record shows that they went in all directions. Not just south.

Fairchild isn't close to the river. And it's southwest of the city. Nor would it's radiation have gone in a direction to interfere. Hell, it would have had that effect on them expanding in any southern direction, lol. But not this way.

There is absolutely no way that this could exist, still. It's a big, fat, target.

Lordganon 20:56, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

If as you say there are factions at home, then it would stand to reason for them to be fighting at home for supremacy. The "militias in general" in the region would not be the ones raping and pillaging small towns. It is already accepted canon that there was resistance but that the Order and the Aryan Nation had the edge and control of the Spokane region.

The recorded regions affected are the Lincoln, Pasco, Leavenworth, Lewiston, and southern Idaho on the way to Utah. Except for Lincoln all these places are indeed south of Spokane. Spokane is called a nation "in southeastern Washington" on the Washington article, and that it raided "as far south as the Great Salt Lake." There were "rumors of threats" as far away as Victoria, but no record of such advancement in that direction.

Okay, Ganon, you have had your say, and I have had mine. I say leave options open, you say it has to be the way you say it is. Let some one else have a word here. This is, after all a small city-state of recent consideration. SouthWriter 02:29, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Christ, South. You failed to note most of that, once again. And so much for "enough" of what you think.

These are anti-government militias - and they are from the area you claim that the supremacists came from. Moreover, it is not one group but several involved here. And arguing that they would magically stop at the borders of Idaho is crazy.

The simple fact is, the raiders destroyed a massive area - and this is a massive target in it. These people are dead.

Everyone can have words here. Don't know how on earth you can at all imply such a thing isn't true.

Lordganon 05:10, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

First, I do not appreciate your using my Lord's name in vain, Ganon. "Enough of what I think" is a way of turning the floor over to the next "speaker." I was going to just post the last sentence of the previous post, but felt you had challenged me so I posted more "thoughts." Of course, you are perfectly in your rights to respond to what I said, but what I was "implying" was not that others can't have words here, it was that no one else is having a say.

As for the regime in Spokane, I would say we should let the readers decide the extent of the destruction of the area. I have listed every mention of the regime I could find with links. The nearest thing to declaring this "massive destruction" is mentions that the regime's armies were more powerful than those of Utah in the Navajo Nation article (my apologies for leaving that out above, it confirmed the southward movement).

The "anti-government" militias you postulate are not based on facts so much as hype. The only anti-government movements in the 1980's were those I mention in the Lincoln article -- racist, anti-semitic white supremacists. To discuss the pro or cons of militias here would be a violation of the "No Cross, No Crown" rule, but assuming that conservative gun-owners who wish to protect their rights would become bands of raiders is stepping beyond reason in my opinion.

I did not claim or argue that they would stop at the border. In fact I stated that their target, according to what has been written, was the Great Salt Lake area. The whole picture of what "Spokane" entails was an impression created way back in May of 2009 when Louisiannan created the History of Utah article. In February of 2010 I asked on that talk page for verification for the strength of the Spokane "hoodlums" as I called them. Louisiannan graciously explained that the war began in Idaho and went south along the border with Idaho, perhaps to provide support for the "stranglehold" they had on the folks in the region around Spokane. I invite readers again to look at the primary documents before making up there minds on this.

So, is this to be just a forum for the Ganon and I to bash our heads against one another, or will there be another voice? All I am doing is presenting options here, based upon what has been written so far in the time line. If Enclave is satisfied with the concept of the destroyed villages, I'm fine with that. It would be a small thing for the regime if it was in the early days, though I doubt if they would kill everyone (they would need someone to take care of the dam if nothing else).

Any other thoughts from the community at large? SouthWriter 19:21, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

You having an issue with my use of a word is not my problem in the least, South.

That statement in the Navajo says nothing about their methods. Far more telling are the outright statements in the Utah history, and your own Lincoln article that indicate the terror and devastation they wrought.

You are incorrect about the identities of those groups. Only a decade after Doomsday did such groups become the largest in number. Prior to that they were outnumbered by the others - and those largely consisted of anti-tax groups. Add to that other varieties in general, and the supremacists are a minority. Plus, the survivalists in general.

The border - as in the eastern border of Idaho. Sorry, I thought I made that clear enough.

Louis' statements on that page have nothing on the extent of that regime. But what they do say is more telling - as in they've gone so far that ignoring the site of the dam, so close to their base, would be impossible.

For the love of.... South, you seem to be forgetting that the dam is no longer functional. Why would they need someone to take care of it? Add to that that dams of that magnitude are designed to last at least half a century - and usually at least one outright. And even the article - unfinished, obviously, right now - says that there was survivors.

There is no way that this place would have survived the Spokane regime.

Lordganon 00:11, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of unfinished, what else do I need to do on the page. Enclavehunter 00:18, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm....

Well, as I've said before, someone's got to find the place (either the new USA or Pasco, at a guess, though I wouldn't rule out a Victorian flyby). Past that, a "former nation" infobox, and some more information in general both about the state, and what happened there - i.e. what Spokane did with survivors, and the site itself. Plus what it's like today.

If you have a look at a few of the other "former nation" articles you'll get some idea of what I mean.

Also, might want to change it so the deputy made his way to Pasco after the end of the Spokane War, along with prisoner-soldiers from the Spokane militias. That'd be in line with people from Pasco, at any rate, and probably make a bit more sense.

Lordganon 00:51, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

No work done on this one in forever... Enc, you going to work on it? Lordganon (talk) 10:11, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Tamanrasset
Nation in Southern Algeria/Northern Niger/Eastern Mali--Smoggy80 11:36, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Open for adoption--Smoggy80 18:25, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

has been taken by Brad30977--Smoggy80 15:33, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Is this ready for grad? Arstar talk 01:22, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

No. There's little content - only a poor history is here. And there's things in it that make no sense, such as the rep from Kab~ coming. Lordganon (talk) 07:21, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I will try to resurrect this article into something along the lines of the and. Godfrey Raphael 13:40, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

There are assumed to have been three bombs that took out Nellis AFB, N. Las Vegas, Las Vegas and Henderson. This is not quite the same as the utter destruction of NYC and DC. You can assume some survivers, for a while at least. The Sierra Nevada article says at least 10,000 came north. The obsolete "New Vegas" article may help as well. SouthWriter 21:42, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

In most situations there will be survivors on the outskirts of large cities. Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Nellis AFB sit in a valley surrounded by mountains. The area is essentially flat with the few tall buildings concentrated in downtown LV along the strip even today. Although I don't consider myself an expert, I would expect there would be little to stop the blast waves from each of the three one megaton detonations as they roll back and forth across the valley. I don't know what the area was like in 1983 but I have visted it many times since the early 90s (family lived there) and have seen the layout and roads close-up. That is what fuels my pessimistic outlook for survival.

The 10,000 survivors I referenced who went north came from communities outside the valley expected to covered by fallout from the LV strikes and those in Southern CA. This said, there is always a small chance someone could survive the attacks and escape, but I think it would be slim. That said, I am curious to see what the writer comes up with. He asked me back in March about the article and I gave my go ahead as long as it is plausable. --Fxgentleman 00:47, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Something which the environment of the area, in general, would make worse. Lordganon 01:09, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I've given Las Vegas over to Enclavehunter. I've almost run out of ideas for DD, so I'm glad he took this off of me. He's the new editor of LV. Godfrey Raphael (talk) 11:37, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Article by Gatemonger. Feg 17:09, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Article currently covers mostly post-Doomsday, someone else might have to add pre-DD if that's neccessary. But I'm proposing this article. 77topaz 05:10, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

...None of that is possible, realistically. 77, you really should look at the timeline and nearby articles, some more. Also, there is almost no warning. Lordganon 07:39, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Better now? I've made the shelters into having being built there by a corporation for "testing purposes", which was overrun by civilians. 77topaz 07:52, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

No, that still makes no sense. As I said, have a look at more of the timeline. Lordganon 08:35, May 13, 2012 (UT

There are/were no shelters, there are no records of any being built/already existing on DD, why would there be? they are small islands in the middle of nowhere--Smoggy80 12:34, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to putting this up for adoption? Lordganon (talk) 10:15, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

See also. 77topaz 22:34, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

There is no fallout in the area at all, and thus no damage from it, no strikes even remotely nearby, no dead from radiation, no shelters on St. Kitts and Nevis, and almost no dead. Lordganon 03:25, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

New London
Figured it was time to start this page, give me couple of days to get the bare bones in then comments and suggestions will be greatly recieved.--Smoggy80 17:19, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Took longer than expected, but the bare bones of an article are in, i've tried to link it to the already canon information on the UK and Celtic Alliance pages. Any suggestions greatly recieved--Smoggy80 20:08, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

I've spent all morning creating a gnarly image of a massive refugee camp - you better like it on the article, Smogs! Feg 09:57, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

All I can say about that picture is fantasic! any more you want to add, feel free!--Smoggy80 15:35, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Sopron Frontier
Here is a proposal for an autonomous Sopron territory in the fringes of the Alpine Confederation. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Sopron_Frontier_%281983:_Doomsday%29

Would this fit into the timeline?

Mdc 1957 05:56, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I understand the effort, and your willingness to contribute is great, but this is not at all accurate. Said it when your deviaART first came to our attention, and it remains true.

So, to answer the question.... no.

Lordganon 06:30, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thank you very much for clarifying it. Still, when did you learn of the DeviantArt page?

Mdc 1957 06:38, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, I forgot to mention that I used this page (http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Hungary_%281983:_Doomsday%29) as the basis from which the idea of an Alpine Sopron came from.

Mdc 1957 06:47, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

We first learned of it not long after you started writing them. Lordganon 07:06, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Right. That helps clarifying things. Though would that link be sufficient in working out the details for Sopron (and eventually western Hungary) if ever it's considered. Mdc 1957 07:13, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

You could likely fix the article. Lordganon 07:47, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Though if it's possible to leave Alpine influence in western Hungary open? Mdc 1957 08:01, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

There is no question of Alpine control in western Hungary. Lordganon 08:07, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I see. Currently working on the revisions now, though it would help to see your inputs just in case (if you don't mind). Still thinking of keeping the idea of Sopron as the main base of the Alpines' Hungarian zone. Mdc 1957 08:14, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's their main base inside of former Hungary - however, there's little more than that. No established territories, etc., there. The areas of Hungary amount to little more than military control.

The references to Austria are not true - even in the beginning it was the two states, together, moving in. Past that, the rest of the Confederation wouldn't hold those attitudes as described.

No real EMP damages, beyond 20~ miles of each strike.

Alpine troops would have taken control of the area of Sopron almost immediately following Soviet attempts to invade Austria at DD.

Have to say that almost all of the Esterházy family would have been killed in Munich, Vienna, or Budapest. Unless you can find out for sure where some of them were at the time, it may be a plan to remove that.

Lordganon 08:56, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I see. I'll make the necessary adjustments. Though I've also heard that the Esterházy family also had some holdings in Eisenstadt if I'm not mistaken, so chances are someone at least remotely linked to that line would have survived.

Also, I think it's mentioned in the history that garrisons did cross over into Sopron almost after DD and were in part responsible for its existence (it helped that Austrians were the closest to respond). In addition, I thought of giving the impression that although it's a joint Alpine affair supported by the respective governments (though not necessarily the public in Switzerland or Liechtenstein), the Austrians would have more to gain and be more sympathetic. Also I was trying to reflect the public sentiment of attempting to control what would likely be percieved as little more than wasteland. Sorry if that wasn't very clear.

Mdc 1957 09:11, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

With people, the rule of thumb is unless you can prove outright, or have a very good idea, that they survived, they died in the fires.

The Austrians, following the destruction of Vienna, received a lot of aid from the Swiss. Their troops would have been present. This is all after fighting off the initial Soviet invasion, of course. The troops there at the present wouldn't be mostly Austrian, either.

Really, moving into Hungary would have been supported by the people. Remember, the citizens of the Confederation suffer from extreme guilt over their actions in the 1980s, with regards to turning away refugees - a necessary move at the time, but by no means one people were happy with. This is something their actions afterwards support, with the actions in Bavaria and Italy, among other places.

They really didn't perceive it as wasteland at that time - moves since indicated that areas to the east largely were, true, but that wasn't until the 1990s. By that point much of western and central Hungary had been depopulated by raiders.

And when you add that the Confederation really isn't into expansion.... well, they aren't going to move out there.

Lordganon 09:28, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the "glorified refugee camp" view in Switzerland and Liechtenstein at least reached its peak in the early 1990s, having long faded away by the present (and that's not counting the cases of denial that might still persist among some Alpines). Also, I sort of put into consideration distance and proximity for the predominant Austrian military presence. After all, Sopron is surrounded on 3 sides by Austria.

That said, however, I'll make the necessary corrections.Mdc 1957 14:11, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that that view never existed.

Moreover, there's no such authority in the area. It is military jurisdiction, and no "region" actually exists. Never has.

Alpine forces did not go on an offensive - they merely crushed the attempted attack on them.

In the aftermath of the battles on the frontiers, they moved into the surrounding areas to process refugees, areas which later became most of what they took control over when they closed the borders. They'd have had control of the area within months of Doomsday, if for no other reason than to process refugees and keep a buffer zone between them and spreading chaos to the east.

All the asides need to go. And, as I said, the parts about the nobles should too. Moreover, there's no "alpine support" for such a movement.

Lordganon 07:26, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

I see. Will make more edits. However, some of the details were meant to fill in the blanks that weren't necessarily explained in the Alpine Confederation and Hungary articles. Also, it was meant to be a public reaction that would have likely existed even for a short time (after all, there's still bound to be some degree of resentment and suspicion of newcomers despite the aforementioned guilt complex).

Also, after several years, would it make sense that there'd be more to the buffer and frontier zones than merely military installations? As an added clarification there's no formal support from the Alpine authorities; doing that would logically bring it into dispute with Partium and to a degree Transylvania. Informal support on the other hand isn't officially sanctioned. Indeed, it could be read simply as local propaganda if you wish.

To be honest, I was hoping to give at least a portion of western Hungary the same sort of improvement that happened in Post-Doomsday Britain or France. Though that said, I will likely remove the nobles among others. Apologies for the winded explanation.

Mdc 1957 07:45, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

True me, that's not winded. You've not seen some of the debates around here if you think that was at all winded, lol.

The area has a tradition of aiding others. Plus, there wasn't ever any bad reaction to the refugees - just the overall situation.

No, not even "informal" support. Informal or not, it's still support, and that's not something that would happen. The AC is very connected to the Transylvanians and Partians, after all.

Even though the" buffer" zones in the east are not under any governmental structure, there are still going to be civilian governmental units, i.e. Sopron and other settlements having governments. But, there simply is nothing beyond that.

The article alone is improving things, quite frankly. Just needs to not make it out to be something it isn't, if that makes any sense.

Lordganon 08:22, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. If it helps, I mentioned that the Sopron Frontier Territory does have a civilian government, except that even in 2012 the Alpine Military still has considerable influence and a number of military installations along the border. It's not going to be independent or in any position to significantly expand (given limited resources) anytime soon. Also, the "support" should be stated as being largely sentimental than overtly political and more on being recognized as a legitimate successor alongside Partium rather than in opposition to it (though there's bound to be dispute should it really enter the political table). Just hope to give things a bit of a change (and perhaps more detail)rather than leaving western Hungary as is. I hope it clarifies things. Mdc 1957 14:21, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

...Not quite what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that it's neither an actual governmental region, an autonomous area, or any such thing. It's simply territory under the control of the Alpine government.

No, not even "sentimental" support by the authorities.

As I've said, there really isn't much left in most of Hungary - this small Alpine-controlled area is basically what's left in the west. Its fate, in the long-term, would be membership in the confederation. Basically, you can't make it out to be something it's not, however much you may desire to do it.

Lordganon 10:49, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

With all respect, there admittedly wasn't much expounded. In fact, the existing material comes across as a vague blank slate for the most part. That in itself, along with the 29-year difference from Doomsday can open up potential ground for something more substantial. I'm willing to make that risk in providing that semblance of substance. Mdc 1957 12:53, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "with all respect" is just a way of trying to make something bad into something good. Never works.

I'm not saying you can't write an article on it, or that more substance isn't a good thing - but you're simply making the area into something that it's not.

Think about it, and revise it, but by all means don't leave it, lol. One of the best starts in a while on here.

Lordganon 09:20, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Though to be honest, there really wasn't much there to begin with in terms of both info and focus. So... why not give it a shot. Besides, 29 years is a significant timeframe for something to emerge. If it helps, I left in strong hints suggesting its more military purpose. Mdc 1957 09:43, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it not what the articles hint at, for it to be under such a structure doesn't make any sense, truthfully. As for the "hints" - no, it really doesn't help. Bring them out in the open. Remember, this is sort of like an encyclopedia, not some sort of classified or slanted report. The only way things are hinted at, normally, is if they could be deemed too "horrific." Things like massacres, Hitleresque actions, slavery, etc. If you hunt around, you'll see them, but they're not obvious. Lordganon 12:09, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. Wrong wording. The hints were already changed, but to be honest, the articles themselves don't really give much. Still, it's a chance to at the risk of incrurring further debate stir things up a little in a corner of the world that hasn't quite been given much attention. Mdc 1957 14:28, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Still barely any change to the hints :p

With regards to all of the "bracketed" sections you've put in - they should either be taken out, or actually written into the article.

Lordganon 10:39, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'll definitely modify the bracketed sections. Also, tried rewording the hints. Heh... 114.108.192.19 10:48, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, "hints" really shouldn't exist anyways.

But, overall, you still have it as an outright government - which wouldn't be the case. And the part about Alpine support, in any form, for the Hungarian nationalists needs to be removed.

Lordganon 12:24, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

National People's Republic of China
A small isolationist state located in western Hubei. Is currently attempting contact with Jiangsu, the ROC, Guangxi, Macau, Yunna, and Tibet. All necessary info in link.

Canuck2012 22:40, June 10, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

I have a whole host of objections to this listed on its pages. Lordganon 10:22, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Any problems with it anymore? The Royal Guns (talk) 19:23, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it still gives them tech they wouldn't have. Lordganon (talk) 07:44, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Ware Shoals
This is a community mentioned on the Piedmont Republic page. I created the page for Wingman1 who lives there and wants to develop some ideas for the town. SouthWriter (talk) 16:56, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks South, although i do live in Aiken SC now i do think of WS as my home.Wingman1 06:46, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Have to say, I really have a hard time believing that a place like this could exist more or less just outside of Piedmont as any sort of independent group like it sounds to be. Lordganon 12:27, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

What the Piedmont article indicates is that it is a collection of neighborhoods that are more or less competing for resources. Sometimes they might even co-operate! What we are trying to do is explain the course of events that lead to this. We only have to account for a period of about seven years (1984-91). After that it can become civiilized. SouthWriter (talk) 15:41, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

...Not quite what I was saying, South. What I'm saying is that it being outside of Piedmont, despite being minuscule and right next to it, as the page says at this time, doesn't really make any sense. Lordganon 08:50, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

it is right outside Piedmont, what i am proposing it Piedmont want them to join (exact timeing to be determend), and WS not wanting to at first with events hapening that change minds. (my plan it to use the distruction of the Mill with a responss by Piedmont with someform of aid be the tiping point that changes minds of the people in WS.To get WS to this point have them rather thand up front fighting be a bit more sly and make WS look like less of a target for the outlaws and raiders. ( after all it has been said that Belton SC was mostly destroyed by people escapeing from Columbia and Augusta, Georgia) not saying no battles at all but the ones that are fought the "bad guys" are dealt with harshly and swiftly.Wingman1 10:55, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Again: This place is literally right outside of Piedmont. Them not already being part makes no sense. Lordganon 09:43, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

so you are saying they all joined at the same time, or they didn't get to join AT ALL? I mean LG us Ware Shoals people can be stuborn at times (hell most of the times. lol!) but we do see reason sooner or latter. i am not keeping them out of Piedmont just giving reasons for the delay in joining.Wingman1 09:51, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

To quote the page: "...that have resisted incorporation by authorities in the Republic."

You're aren't getting what I'm saying. The page currently states that they are not part of Piedmont at this time. I'm saying that doesn't make any sense at all. They'd have joined long before the present day.

Lordganon 10:34, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

that is a good point LG. I might have to reword it a bit.Wingman1 11:57, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

LG made a good point, so I reworded the intro a bit South. Is it ok?Wingman1 12:02, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

As creator and caretaker of the article, I long ago asked Wingman, a local resident, for suggestions. He introduced himself when I wrote in Ware Shoals. I came upon the town the hard way (by river) without considering the distance by road. The fiefdoms (my creation) were what was found in 1991 and nothing more has said about it on the Piedmont page. I am open for it being incorporated any time since its discovery. What I am looking for is a good story based on more accurate information drawn from local sources. It has been 20 years since the expedition and a lot can happen.

Long story short, the truth trumps fantasy. All the article states is that in 1991 there was no incorporation. I can write in whatever fits best based on the facts.

SouthWriter (talk) 04:15, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

....Which doesn't contradict what I said in the least. Lordganon 09:19, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the incorporation date to 1995 (1990 would have been before the expedition!). Besides, the fire which destroyed the mill comes in 1993 according to the outline as presented. I may back up the story about Williamston County a little bit. Even though Piedmont is established, it is not so set that little things can't be changed. We just need to make sure that what little that has been written about it elsewhere doesnot conflict with these changes.

SouthWriter (talk) 21:48, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

that's kool it was a long night that nite, i dont know how i missed it.

if that's good for you.

definitely im sure i made mestakes in the outline and i am fine with you or any one sugesting changes to me.

Wingman1 22:05, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Wing, please don't insert comments into the posts of others like that. I've fixed it for you.

Far as I know, South, it isn't referenced anywhere else.

Lordganon 09:43, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

sorry about that LGWingman1 14:48, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Ambattur Rebellion
Proposal for an article on a civil war in TN. The Royal Guns (talk) 14:21, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

...What on earth? Guns, this has nothing to do with the Tamil article, now. Lordganon (talk) 03:51, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All I said was that it took place in TN? If you are talking about my edit to the TN article, that was just adding some clarification. As you said on Lesotho, a Civil war is something major in the history of a country- especially one that nearly succeeds. The Royal Guns (talk) 04:44, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Not only is the date wrong, so is the scope. This was not a civil war. Something we've been over with more than once. Not only that, but it came nowhere close to overthrowing anything. Lordganon (talk) 06:10, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

I'll fix the dates.

The reason it came close was because it happened so close to the center of government, not because the government forces failed to chop them down.

The Royal Guns (talk) 11:36, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

That is not coming close. Not in the least.

Better dates, but you're still missing that the scope is not even remotely reasonable. Nor is this non-existent group you've cooked up.

Lordganon (talk) 06:42, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

The CFA? They are't any sort of real group. Just a bunch of people who hated the government. And then met up. Kinda like a much more hostile, non internet based, Anonymous- not Anonymous nowadays, more like the days when they started.

I mean like, there was a chance, since they were so close to the government, that they might, despite being defeated in every "battle" sneak a sleeper through and get the Great Leader.

The Royal Guns (talk) 07:01, July 13, 2012 (UTC) The Royal Guns (talk) 07:01, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

...You missed the point. And what you describe is a "real group." Which doesn't exist.

...And that is not coming close. Not even remotely.

Lordganon (talk) 06:20, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

... I'll write an article on it, too, if thats what you're suggesting. Though I doubt it. Why can't it be a real group?

No, but, in a sense, since it was right in the capital... The Royal Guns (talk) 13:17, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is there is no movements in the area.

Something happening "in the capital" does not even remotely mean it came close.

Lordganon (talk) 03:07, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

There's clearly a movement. I think that is obvious. Some 20,000 people grab anything between an AK-47 and a stick and try to beat the brains out of TP Mohideen Khan.

Assuming the government was in the Chennai fort, the rebels would have only been at most 10 miles away. At least maybe 5. How close does it need to be? Next door? In the living room?

The Royal Guns (talk) 11:46, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

That is not a movement. Not even remotely. It's a rebellion. Note the difference.

It needs to have an actual chance of success, and be a threat. This is neither. And there is no way on earth the leadership stays anywhere near the rebellion.

And, for that matter, the train stop under the fort is called "Chennai Fort." The fort is not. It's name is Fort St. George.

Lordganon (talk) 01:34, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

An idea I've been toying with for a while. Another state in the general area will come soon. Fed (talk) 03:47, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't this country join the Republic of Spain? Arstar talk 04:01, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Map needs to be adjusted to match the Spain map.

Arstar, that question doesn't make any sense. Look at the map and government.

Lordganon (talk) 07:17, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Eh, LG, which areas of the map have to be modified? I'm not really sure. Fed (talk) 19:12, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Northern areas inside of Castile and León are a flat reach over the border, not a "spike" like that.

Far, far, too far south inside of Extremadura.

And it reaches slightly over into Portugal.

You can see the map on this page.

Lordganon (talk) 02:36, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Is the new map better? Fed (talk) 02:34, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Better, though still quite a ways off in the south. Lordganon (talk) 09:00, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Kerr
Page dealing with a survivor state mentioned in the North Carolina article. Survivor state exists around Kerr Lake. Critique appreciated. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 16:18, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

New country in southern Catalonia, based on the town of Tortosa. Fed (talk) 19:46, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

I feel that it's time to graduate AragonGoldwind1 (talk) 23:10, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

It's not ready yet. The article still holds inconsistencies, and needs a major cleanup. Lordganon (talk) 10:23, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

This site should have been out of reach of any detonations, althoguh I suspect that irradiated water would be an annual problem.--Salnax (talk) 14:42, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

A bare-bones proposal by me, about the National Guard training compound used by forces to train. Godfrey Raphael (talk) 14:06, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

So I've finally begun fleshing out this article. I hope to add more soon. Godfrey Raphael (talk) 10:19, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

(UTC)

Pet project I've been working on. Lordganon (talk) 12:11, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting but currently republican sentiment is starting to make itself know in Woodbridge Verence71 (talk) 17:34, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware. It's going to be included in the "present day" part. Lordganon (talk) 11:33, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Manchurian Territory
Article by Mscoree.

Mscoree, we already have an article on this. You can find it here.

In lieu of that... any objections to marking this obsolete?

Lordganon (talk) 09:30, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

That article is for the republic. This article is for the region/territory. I saw the blank on the USSR template, and added it. Mscoree (talk) 14:24, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

If you look on the Union of Sovereign Socialist Republics template, you can clearly see that this article is listed under former territories, referring to the region of Manchuria itself, not the Маньчжурский Социалистической Республики, commonly referred to as "Manchuria". Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 14:28, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

The territory and the republic are the same entity, with different names. There is virtually no difference.

Just because there is a red link, does not mean that something actually goes there. Or that you can add something to the work of another. I've fixed the link to go to the proper spot.

Even more so, the content is not at all accurate. Not even remotely, truth be told.

So, once again: Any objections to marking this obviously inaccurate and superfluous article obsolete?

Lordganon (talk) 08:58, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

May I ask how this is obviously inaccurate? Also it is only superfluous if you let it. With this page people have the opportunity to expand and invent, telling tales that wouldn't necessarily fit in the republic page. But instead if you want to leave the area in the same basic shell it began, so be it. That is my objection. This page could have served much more, and detailed the historical significance of the territory, which placed into the limelight in the first place. Mscoree (talk) 14:37, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Also, even if they are the same 'entity', even though they're not since they're separate objects, then you might as well not have a page on any former nation. The republic is the successor to this territory. Mscoree (talk) 14:42, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Every paragraph has major issues, past the pre-doomsday history. I mean, you have it saying the the US nuked China, and that Aliyev was the first leader of the USSR - there's a ton of things like that, none at all true.

There is not a single thing that could not be said on the page about the republic - heck, almost all of the content you have is from there.

They are, in fact, the same entity - the name changed. That is not the case with any "former nation" - something that this is not.

Not an accident either, that the only article on a "territory" of Siberia was the Ural Territory - and that was merged into the Russia and Kazakhstan republics. Which is why it has its own article - it was in all manners a separate entity.

You are asking for an article to be made for a small portion of the history of an article we already have. There is no way that is not superfluous.

Once again: Any objections to marking this obsolete?

Lordganon (talk) 06:39, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

I removed two letters. All inaccuracy fixed. Also it appears your incorrect about the Soviet leader. Mscoree (talk) 09:46, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

...You're kidding, right? That is not remotely what I said. Look at what I wrote again - just about every paragraph has something wrong with it.

Actually, I am right about the leader - the USSR has remained intact, at least to some extent, since it was founded in 1917. Aliyev is not even remotely the first leader of the USSR - he is merely the first leader since Doomsday. Note the difference.

Vlad has now even told you that this has no point, and that his intention with the article was to use it with a war that he and Arstar have not at all finished - so it hasn't "happened" yet.

Again: Any objections to making this obviously superfluous article obsolete?

Lordganon (talk) 13:39, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, just one little nitpicky thing about the Aliyev issue: Aliyev is the first leader of the Union of Sovereign Socialist Republics. Obviously, he isn't the first leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Now, there is a continuity of government from one incarnation of the USSR to the next, but he is clearly the first leader of the "new" USSR.

With that out of the way, sure, mark it as obsolete for now. When I finally finish the war, I have no problems with anyone helping or editing the territory article, however. Vladivostok (talk) 08:50, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to waiting for Vlad and company to finish their particular story. I will help in any way I can on this article, and in the area until then. P.S. The USSR was actually founded in 1922. Mscoree (talk) 18:19, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Again, Mscoree: name change. Not hard to understand.

Vlad, the name is the only net difference, realistically. To call him the first leader of it is misleading.

Lordganon (talk) 09:58, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

It's a different nation. That's like saying Mao Zedong wasn't the first ruler of the People's Republic of China, because China existed before that. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are different nation, as are the two Soviet states in question. There leaders should therefore be listed accordingly. Mscoree (talk) 22:48, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Not even remotely a comparison.

That example in China is like arguing that the Russian Empire and the USSR were the same state. Not even close to being accurate.

And, on top of that, the ROC still existed.

Of course it's a different government in China. Literally no comparison.

Not the case whatsoever in the USSR between its founding and the modern atl state.

Lordganon (talk) 09:12, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I know that Mscoree and I sound like broken records, but think of it this way, whether the "new" USSR is almost the same as the last USSR, it doesn't matter in the slightest. The name changed, hence the title of the leader changed, making Aliyev and Tuleyev the first and second leaders of the "new" USSR. Of course there's a continuation of government, the Revolution of 1917 is still celebrated, alongside all other former Soviet holidays, but that doesn't matter when it comes to the names. Vladivostok (talk) 11:22, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

...The titles you have listed on the page are more or less the same ones the Soviet leadership always had, with small variations depending on which one was in power.

Vlad, the only net difference is really the name. A new state that does not make.

Lordganon (talk) 12:32, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, you misunderstood me. It is basically the same state, what I'm being nitpicky about is the numbering of the leadership. For example, Aman Tuleyev is the second General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Socialist Union, or the Union of Sovereign Socialist Republics. See the difference? It is all in the name, but a difference nonetheless. Aliyev is the first leader of the Socialist Union, there's no doubt about that. The Uyghurs, Mongolians and Chinese citizens of the Union all regard him as the first leader. Vladivostok (talk) 13:15, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

More like you're misunderstanding me, lol.

Vlad, the name of something can change all you want - that in no way, shape, or form makes it a new state. Same goes for the new minorities. 6th and 7th leaders of the USSR.

At best, saying in the article that he's the first leader is misleading.

Lordganon (talk) 07:23, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

I believe this article is ready to be canon. Mscoree (talk) 20:15, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Not even. You still entirely are failing to include objections raised. Lordganon (talk) 12:16, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is ready to become canon. Mscoree (talk) 17:32, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

...You have not done anything about the raised objections. Not a single thing has changed since you asked last time, Ms. Lordganon (talk) 14:24, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

You said that the other article couldn't be canon since it still had references to a strong Chinese army. This article has no mention of that, so what's the problem. Also I'm not going to change the thing about the leader since proposals are supposed to conform to the canon, not the other way around. Therefore I think this article is ready to become canon. Mscoree (talk) 12:43, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

Not even remotely the case.

Your base for this "article" is in events that are not canon. And, for that matter. you do mention the objections from the other articles in this one.

Still needs to be fixed.

Lordganon (talk) 14:32, September 10, 2013 (UTC)

I believe this article is ready to be canon. Mscoree (talk) 10:35, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

You have done quite literally nothing to fix the problems. Not anywhere close to canon. Lordganon (talk) 11:20, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Can someone else please review this and graduate it? Several experienced people have told me its fine, but when ever I ask for it to be graduated Lordganon copy and pastes the same message saying that there is a bunch of stuff wrong with it, which he apparently refuses to share (at least not clearly and in one coherent message). Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 14:14, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Bull. You've been told 'many times by myself and Vlad what the problem is. Extremely "clearly and coherently," for that matter. You just refuse to do anything about it. Heck, I have even restated the problem with it in this very section of the talk page. As recently as two weeks/four posts ago, even. You may not like the objections, but quit fibbing about not being told them. Lordganon (talk) 17:47, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that the article in question doesn't actually depend on the Operation article. Thius article is a result of the war that took place in 2012. The operation actually details the steps leading up to the creation of this, which is already canon. Mscoree (talk) 01:04, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does depend on it. Nor is that other article anywhere remotely close to being "canon." Don;t know why on earth you think it is. Lordganon (talk) 09:08, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

First Manchurian War
Article by Mscoree. Open to suggestions on Chinese history. Not sure if Imperial China plays a part at this time, for example.

I believe this article is ready to be canon. Mscoree (talk) 20:14, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Not even close. You still entirely are failing to include objections raised. Lordganon (talk) 12:16, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is ready to become canon. Mscoree (talk) 17:32, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

...You have not done anything about the raised objections. Not a single thing has changed since you asked last time, Ms. Lordganon (talk) 14:25, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

I believe this article is ready to be canon. Mscoree (talk) 10:35, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

You have done quite literally nothing to fix the problems. Not anywhere close to canon. Lordganon (talk) 11:20, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Bahamas
ECF Member State proposal by yours truly. Thoughts and objections? ^^ Regentage (talk) 20:47, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

No way they drop the crown like that. Especially not that fast. Quite frankly, there isn't any political groups there that come close to favoring it, nor is there support for such a thing.

Reg, they're going to know Andrew survived within a couple of years. Long before the thought of replacing it comes to mind.

I think you're overstating the food problem, too. There's a lot of boats there, remember.

Really not going to have refugees from the French islands - those islands went through things better than the Bahamas would have. Most of the refugees would be from Florida.

GDP probably too high.

They'd going to get some fallout from the strike on Santiago.

Lordganon (talk) 07:57, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I had forgotten Cuba. Attempted to address those concerns. Anything else? Regentage (talk) 22:36, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Bit early for any kind of agreement with Mexico. 1985 or so more likely.

The solar tech is too advanced. Otl, maybe. But far too much atl.

Doubtful that the ECE Stock Exchange would be here. Jamaica would be much more probable as to the location of it.

Lordganon (talk) 11:36, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Updated. Fixed those concerns, reduced solar power. Other concerns, anyone? ^^ Regentage (talk) 18:17, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

The solar parts are better in size now, but you still need to make them happen later on. Lordganon (talk) 11:04, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Good point. Pushed those dates back. Further thoughts, all? Regentage (talk) 19:44, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

Still have references to the original government you had. Also, what military forces are stationed there? Lordganon (talk) 12:42, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

Although I am still adding to this article, I believe it is ready to be graduated. Mscoree (talk) 13:15, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in terms, I'm afraid.

Also, bit fewer people. Loads would have died since DD. And there's only been one, maybe two generations since then. Closer to the 1982 population. Or lower. Food wouldn;t have been a problem, if you don't mind fish, but medicine, luxuries, all only found off island.

I'll decrease the population. What else do you think needs to be changed? Mscoree (talk) 00:58, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

An Assembly-style government was already in place by 1983.

Would be pretty much no food shortages.

Would be virtually no refugees. Island is much too far from Africa, or anywhere else for that matter. Definitely no "Mayotte Model."

Nor would there be looting or other crimes like that.

Concept of a navy is vastly overstated. No need whatsoever for one, or something like your "Relief Act." The idea of "building a military" would not occur to them, because it would not be needed whatsoever.

Contact with the French Pacific territories would be by 1984, at the latest.

Original population was actually right, imo.

And, for that matter, that infobox needs to be changed to the one used in all of the other articles.

Lordganon (talk) 09:05, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

By assembly government I meant a national government that doesn't answer to France, so basically the same. The RTFA didn't even exist until 1999. Maybe they contacted them before that, but they didn't join until the 2000's probably. So basically waht you're saying is they're very well off; no food shortages, starvation, or any other problems, despite being dependent on France for food. What's wrong with the infobox? Mscoree (talk) 14:22, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

That applies for Mayotte too. Mscoree (talk) 14:26, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

"Assembly Government" is the exact type of government put in place prior to 1983. It does not mean "national government."

Quite literally the only thing they need to do - not that they would do it for years anyway - is change the titles used by those in government. That's it.

True, the RTFA did not exist until 1999. But that is not even remotely the point.

What you have written says that they were not in contact with the rest of the RTFA prior to 2000. That is quite literally impossible.

Réunion would have been one of the founding members of that government in 1999. Not "contacted by them in 2000."

They are, in fact, not dependent on France, let alone anyone else, for food.

As for the infobox, compare it to any other article in the timeline. They are not the same, and need to be. Change the template to the correct one.

Lordganon (talk) 14:31, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly does the infobox need to be changed? I think it looks fine. According to the actual, canon RTFA page this island was not a founding member, but New Caledonia and French Polynesia were. I apologize, when I was referencing the dependence on France for food I was thinking of the economy of Mayotte (sorry there';s a lot of conversations going on here), who doesn't grow enough food to sustain itself. I agree that Réunion would be a bit better off than that. Mscoree (talk) 17:49, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Because it does not match any other one in the timeline. Rather obviously a different one, at that.

What the RTA page actually says is that it was formed after those two areas joined together. And there's a difference between the "Sixth Republic" and the RTA. Moroever, no founding members of the RTA list exists there.

Not true with regards to Mayotte and food either.

Lordganon (talk) 09:35, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think that this article is ready to be graduated. I am still in the process of updating and adding some information, but much of the content is there. Mscoree (talk) 14:20, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Umm what? That template doesn't exist.

What do you mean by template? The link to the article works fine. Mscoree (talk) 00:59, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Mayotte already had an assembly by 1983.

Would be no rioting or looting.

Would be far less refugees than you have coming. Madagascar didn't suffer much, nor did the Comoros, and Africa is too far off for many to get there. You vastly exaggerate the situation in Africa, as well.

The island would have already known about the blasts, through communications from the French government before the strikes. Comoros would have been the ones learning of it from them, not the other way around.

No need for the police to do any of that, because there would have been very few refugees.

Supplies would have been fine. Not "running out in 1984."

Again, no "policy" would be wanted or needed for refugees.

Contact with the French territories in the Pacific would have been made by mid-1984, at the latest.

Something would need to be added about the new regime in the Comoros, too.

And, for that matter, that infobox needs to be changed to the one used in all of the other articles.

Would do you a world of good, Ms, to do research, both with regards to the DD articles, and "real" sources. The lack of it is, quite honestly, readily apparent.

Lordganon (talk) 10:14, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

I do believe I did research this topic quite well. If you have knowledge of any RTFA-related pages please link me to them. Mscoree (talk) 18:13, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

...Seriously? Disturbing that you think that.

Sorry, but it is very obvious that you didn't look at much of anything. It's readily apparent that you know little about the government and economy of the island, and the post-DD situation in both the Indian Ocean and Africa. The logic you're trying to follow is a "fail," too.

Lordganon (talk) 09:39, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

The official website of the Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques disagrees with you. As for Doomsday pages with RTFA information that you apparently have knowledge, again please link them so that others can benefit from them. Mscoree (talk) 19:33, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

Supplies? Fish. But medicine and all, would have run out.

And the infobox, too... use Nationinfo, not InfoboxNation.

Apart from that, can't see anything wrong here.

I didn't use InfoboxNation, I used NationBox, a custom one I made that combines elements from both. Mscoree (talk) 23:41, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

It's still weird, and not as good.

NationInfo: Infobox country: NationBox: (The one I used) Mscoree (talk) 14:22, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Advantages: Has space for timeline and OTL equivalent. Simple looking.
 * Disadvantages: Can't fit some objects, such as national anthems. Has always permanent links, which sometimes cause naming erros.
 * Advantages: Has space for anthem. Professional looking (used on Wikipedia).
 * Disadvantages: No space for timeline and OTL equivalent. Even more links.
 * Advantages: Has space for timeline and OTL equivalent. Has space for anthem and other objects. All links can be turned off if you don't want them or haven't made the page yet. Has previous and successor nations spaces built in.
 * Disadvantages: Still under development. Not approved.

Not true... NationInfo has spaces for anthems, maps, etc. Is WAY, WAY more comprehensive than Infobox Country... or as far as I can see, Nationbox.

Here's an excellent example of a Nationinfo.

That's not what I meant by space. I mean the large object. Mscoree (talk) 14:09, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Still, as far as I can see... Nationbox does nothing NationInfo does not. Everything on the Mayotte Infobox could have been done with a NationInfo, and it would also align with the rest of 83DD. It's more than tradition, Ms, though Tradition does play a big part in it.

No such reference on the site of the National Institute, despite what both you and wikipedia's "source" - not that that link there actually goes anywhere - claim.

The island does import some food, true - but by far most of the imports are fuel. It does, however, also export a lot of food - somewhat comparable to the imports, actually. Add increased fishing, and it's more than good. Potential imports from the ANZC or Africa only make that better.

Told you where to look for such articles that have information that either is directly on it, or impacts it in some way.

Almost none of your "advantages" over the nation template actually exist, barring you screwing up the article name. Change it.

Lordganon (talk) 09:49, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources backing up your claims? I believe it's important to cite sources for articles when writing, which is why I ask. Preferably one better than the Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques. Mscoree (talk) 16:57, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Ooh! Ooh! Pick Me! Pick me!

How about Canon? According to the ERS page, Mayotte survived the war fine (this page is actually already canon, just not yet what you wrote).

Now, your link (or rather Wikipedia's) for the Institute actually goes to the page for the island of Reunion, not that of Mayotte. So I think we can safely say that you really don't have any sources either.

The Comoros? Those came off amazingly from DD, BTW. I put the finishing touches on that myself, though I believe some anon wrote most of it.

Now according to the Wikipedia page, the island exports food- imports it, too, but not of the vital kind, I'd imagine; when you have that many fish around... but who exports fish? Better question; what non-landlocked, non-desert state IMPORTS fish?

I never even posted a link, I just referenced a national institute responsible for collecting data on these topics. Mscoree (talk) 23:12, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't find anything there, so...

Google "Mayotte" and "imports" or "exports." Simple, and not something I should actually have to tell you, imo.

The Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques doesn't have any data on their site.

Lordganon (talk) 07:56, October 17, 2013 (UTC)

Infinite Recursion
Another Rock Band. Who says you can't add more to this universe?

The Griffin's Doom
OH HEY LOOK ANOTHER ROCK BAND!

Sealand
So Oct (despite having been told that we've been over this, it doesn't work) has decided to make this page.

Course, he mentioned that it was abandoned after DD and now is basically in ruins.

No. Obso or somesuch.

Pretty much - it's not possible.

Any objections to marking this obsolete?

Lordganon (talk) 06:06, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal by Daeseunglim for a old power plant. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

And related article on its military. By Daesuenglim. A proposed tiny nation state in northeastern Pennsylvania. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

By Matt121 ??? Matt125. A rehash, more or less, of content found on another article - call it the content being moved and somewhat added to. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

By an anon, somewhat redone by Vlad. State in Afghanistan, referenced elsewhere. Article matches what is known elsewhere. Would there be objections to graduation as a stub? Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

By Guns. A small state in the northeastern Congo. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

By Lukesams. An article on the fate of the chain. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Originated with Von. General article on Music post-DD. Any objections to graduation? Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

By an anon. An article on a atl Althist book, which somewhat describes otl. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

By Ms. Wholly unnecessary article on Manchuria. Any objections to marking it obsolete? Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Originating with Lewody1. Article on the otl - and in atl, former - Queen of the UK and her fate after DD. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

By an Owen clone originally. Article on recreational activities post-DD. Currently up for adoption. Any objections to graduation? Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Article by Eric4e. Article name is pretty much self-explanatory. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Article by Oct/OM. Name is self-explanatory. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Article by Matt121 ??? Matt125. Not worked on in a year, needs a lot of work. Would there be any objections to adding an adoption banner? Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Article by Zack. Not edited in a long time. Doesn't work, either. Any objections to marking it obsolete? Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Article on the two Congo nation-states, started by Guns. Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Started by Enc. Article name is self-explanatory. Would there be any objections to graduation as a stub? Lordganon (talk) 07:26, October 26, 2013 (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 review 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 marked as obsolete. If consensus is that you are wrong, however, the review template will be removed without having to change the article.

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES=

Archive 1, Archive 2

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