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

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

Proposition
Discussion moved to Talk:Second American Revolution (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 17:23, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

East Britain name change
East Britain is going to become the Kingdom of Newholland, after the local name for southern Lincolnshire. Is this alright with the community? The poeple will be called Newhollanders or Newhollandish not Newdutch, don't worry. Mumby 16:47, April 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this going to be a present day change, or does it go back to the founding of the nation? Either way, it is alright with me. The nation has been your project all along, but if the change is foundational, a lot of changes will have to be made in all the articles up to this point. SouthWriter 03:05, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

It really sounds much too..... unwieldy for a name of a nation. And it's not like your population is from that area anyways, for the most part, so I find it doubtful that they'd like it. Though, I guess I'm alright with it, despite my dislike of it, so long as you introduce it now and not try to backdate it. Lordganon 06:14, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

I agree it sounds bit unwieldy. I don't have a problem with it, but something tells me the name will get contracted by locals for ease of speech. At least in southeast Britain, with the good old Estuary accent, your country will probably be known as 'Newolland' or possibly even contracted to 'New'land' or 'Olland'. Fegaxeyl 07:12, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about backdating. East Britain is becoming Newholland as part of its 'deprovisionalisation'. They turned from a Provisional Government to a Kingdom, now they are pursuing a new national identity. And most people in the area refer to where we live as New Holland. And in nearby Spalding, a lot of the architecture looks Dutch. We even have an annual Tulip festival. Though altering the name to Newolland might be better. Explain it off as corruption of the language post-DD. If there are no more issues, am I good to go ahead? Mumby 08:57, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

If you use Newolland, and make sure it would sounds different pronounced than "New Holland," I guess it's ok. Lordganon 13:59, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Pope in post Doomsday world
''Discussion moved to Vatican review section. Lordganon 23:17, April 22, 2011 (UTC) ''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



Let me know if I missed something somewhere.

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Hattiesburg will be edited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No doubt, lol.

Map of Europe:



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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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


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


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

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

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



Current Map of Africa.

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

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

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

2011 Rugby World Cup
With the OTL and the TTL rugby union world cup starting in September, I need to start a page for it, with standings and schedules (or, fixtures and tables as our friends in England and Australia might say). I am proceeding as if it will be hosted in New Zealand ITTL, as it is in our own.

Australia, New Zealand, Tonga/Hawaii and Fiji will be four of the teams, and I'm thinking the UAR will be a fifth (as Argentina in OTL is an up and coming power in the sport). I need help from the editors working on the European countries - are there any countries from former England, Ireland and France besides Celtic Alliance that would likely be in this thing? I also am looking for opinions regarding whether New Britain would be invited or not.

The official website, for whomever is interested in checking out the teams, host cities, schedules, et al is here.

BrianD 04:43, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest using some of the Europa Games results in rugby when writing the page, with regards to the teams. As for the French, most of those nations are just too small and isolated - most otl Rugby players are from the Paris metro or another country anyways, lol - but a look of the otl team should give a clue 100% in that direction. New Britain has been invited back into the LoN, so I don't see why not. Lordganon 04:49, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the French teams, the Alpines, Celts, and Andorra benefit. Most homegrown French players are from areas under atl Andorra, lol. A distant 4th are the Basques, and even further past that Aver~ No one else has any of'em. Most of the guys are born after 1983, but trends tend to stay mostly the same, so.... Lordganon 04:57, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'll start there (Europa Games). What do you think about Japan, in light of Doomsday's butterfly effect on its rugby history, and union likely thought of as a non-American sport (considering Japan's anti-Americanism in TTL)?BrianD 04:58, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Noting as well that I based the Games results off of otl player areas and results as best as possible, mind.

Japan is by far the best team in Asia otl, and I believe that you're right with it increasing post-DD. No hope of winning, but....

Canada is also a must to be included. Fair portion of the otl US teams seem to be from Samoa as well, so that might be a plan too. The other nations in former South Africa should be considered, and Tonga probably wouldn't need Hawaii at all to qualify. Victoria would stand a very good chance at competing too, and doing well.

With the former USA, the vast majority of players seem to be from major centers, tiny city-states, or areas where nothing is established. The new USA claimant and Superior are the only ones with one from their territory. When I was compiling lists of sports teams in surviving areas atl from prior to DD for my records, I did notice that Delmarva, Kentucky, and East Tenn. had decent-sized rugby clubs, as well a pair in the new USA and Superior, that survived. Funny enough, Victoria is the biggest inheritor of the American players from otl, lol.

Hope that helps.

Lordganon 05:25, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

It does help, LG. Thanks for your time!

Where did you see Kentucky and East Tennessee as being rugby hotbeds? IMO, American football would be much more popular in both countries. Not to say union wouldn't be played at all, but there it would follow a distant second to its gridiron cousin.

You are co-caretaker with Arstar on Superior and if you say there's rugby there (and want them in the world cup), that's fine by me. Victoria would probably have established the sport, and Mitro (I believe) established it in the MSP (due to Australian and Argentinian influence).

I want to look at the OTL history of rugby in Japan before trying to outline its history in TTL.

Looking back at the rugby page, I had a combined Samoa/Hawaii team and Tonga/Fijian team in the Six Nations. Tonga and Fiji undoubtedly would be separate teams; Hawaii, with under 100,000 people right now is considered a long-term project for the Oceanic powers in terms of developing the sport.

I'll look at the southern African nations and the English nations. I would like to hear Smoggy's input on this as well. BrianD 06:21, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Never said hotbeds, lol.

But they had clubs - private clubs, mind - at Doomsday that would have survived in some form. East Tenn and Delmarva are maybe a bit of a stretch, as they were in Knoxville and Annapolis, respectively, though you should have somebody from those groups alive still, especially in Delmarva, all things considered, but Kentucky, the new USA, and Superior all should have something, in part due to the presence of the Lexington Men's Rugby Football Club, Gentlemen of Aspen RFC, and the Traverse Bay Blues, respectively. And those are the only rugby clubs I could find with only basic research, lol.

Truth be told, the city of Victoria and its suburbs, by that same token, has 4 surviving clubs of this nature, including the oldest one on the continent west of Montreal. Combined with others I can't find anything on in its territory and survivors from the mainland, rugby should do pretty well there, lol.

Lordganon 13:33, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I'm going to have some free time next week, so I'll likely work on this then. BrianD 15:07, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I added a brief write up on the Rugby page. BrianD 17:58, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Works, though maybe add something on those who barely missed qualifying/being invited, like Superior and other such states? Lordganon 10:07, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

2014 Winter Olympics
We haven't yet specified a site. There is a reference to Nordic Union being the favorite for the second post DD winter games; any objection to formalizing this?--BrianD 18:31, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

None here. They're the most likely candidate by far anyway, given what all the other more northern countries have been doing that would mean their choice would be too controversial. Lordganon 16:55, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Then Nordic Union it is, unless anyone else has any objections. BrianD 00:31, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * How about Trondheim, the more-or-less capital, as official host city? Benkarnell 15:08, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Works for me. BrianD 17:45, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Lordganon 10:06, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Maine
MAINEiac4434 asks on the Aroostook talk page about the status of several communities, including Bangor. I looked on the Aroostook and Maine pages and saw no mention of it (though I looked at the FEMA target map for the state and saw Bangor listed as a target). What to do? Bangor's survival, aside from giving an editor a base to build a state government from, would have ramifications on the region.BrianD 00:43, April 21, 2011 (UTC)U

Upon looking further on the Aroostook page, it turns out Bangor fell to warlords similar to Augusta, and faced a "Liberation" similar to that of Augusta (found this in the "Liberation of Augusta" section). However, there is no mention of the other towns I brought up, which included Lewiston-Auburn (the "twin cities" of Maine, separate OTL but, assuming they somehow dodged the bullets of a Soviet bomb and warlords, safe to say they unite for the good of their citizens), Kittery, Orono, Freeport, Old Orchard Beach, among others (complete list of the 49 most populous areas in Maine here). What of them? MAINEiac4434 01:35, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

I remarked on the Aroostook talk page, and then re-read the Aroostook article. Bangor was mentioned as being "cleaned up" after the "Liberation of Augusta." I assumed the governor and his caravan had been destroyed by the raiders in or near Bangor. Arthur Smith (Samantha's dad) suggested the new governor go to Houlton rather than Bangor, thus saving the second caravan. SouthWriter 01:42, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

As I noted on the Aroostook talk page, anything south of Oxford was irradiated, and anything south of current Aroostook territory devolved to warlords. Note that despite the cleaning out they do not control the region, either. Lordganon 06:29, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

=CURRENT ARTICLE PROPOSALS=

Please list any and all current article proposals and their discussion here. If the proposals only involves a specific section of the article, please state that. Also remember to use  when reviewing new articles. To graduate an article, move to have the article graduated and if no one objects the article will be considered canon (see the for more information on this process).

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


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


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

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

Would there be any objections to graduating this as a stub? I realize it's nowhere near being done, but it's definitely not something that we're going to mark obsolete. Lordganon 07:54, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

None.BrianD 16:06, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

Anyone interested in adopting this? --Zack 15:55, March 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * If no one else is interested, I'll adopt it since I'm already the caretaker for the ANZC. But...if anyone else is willing to adopt it, go for it! BrianD 19:00, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to graduating this as a stub? I realize it's nowhere near being done, but it's definitely not something that we're going to mark obsolete. Lordganon 07:54, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

None.BrianD 16:06, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what are we doing with this one? Lordganon 18:42, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this as good a place as any to say hello. So hello. I used to write here under the name of HAD, but various things meant I lost acess to that account. So, in short: it's good to be back.Francis C 20:31, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, HAD/Francis C! BrianD 23:25, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Life gets in the way, and all that Francis ("the editor formerly known as HAD"). We all understand. Welcome back. And, no, we haven't worked on your article - 'cause no one wants to admit nukes still exist! SouthWriter 00:45, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

the editor formerly known as HAD. Nice Prince reference :) As for the nuclear devices, I'd suppose that the states that pocess them would be predomintly in the southern hemisphere, while the nothern hemisphere states have a few spread between them. Francis C 19:44, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Considering the nature of this article - in that it is one that will be forever updated, to a certain degree - would there be objections to graduation as a stub? Lordganon 07:58, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

None. BrianD 16:07, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

List articles


Would there be objections to graduating the Egypt and Cleveland list articles? Lordganon 07:59, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. BrianD 16:59, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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

So what are we doing with this one? Nothing seems to have really been done with it. Lordganon 18:40, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Considering that this is mentioned in other places already, and seems to be an established organization in a few articles, would there be any objections to graduating it as a stub? Lordganon 08:02, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

None. BrianD 17:00, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see no reason not to graduate this, as some sort of history article. Would there be objections? Lordganon 05:14, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Armachedes.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superior Election Articles

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

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

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

Article created by Pita. Mitro 17:22, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Given the nature of this article, would there be any objections to graduating it as a stub? Lordganon 08:03, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 17:23, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

So, what's going on here Smoggy? It looks like we could graduate this to some degree. Lordganon 05:16, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Would there be objections to graduating this article, given that it is something that will never, given the subject, be entirely completed? Lordganon 08:04, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would there be any objections to graduating this as a history article? Lordganon 08:06, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Article by Pita. Implausible and contradicts canon. Pita has abandoned it so I am marking it up for adoption. Mitro 13:40, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

With the Pita's permission, i adopt the article. --Katholico 03:38, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that i finish with the article. Any objections? :) --Katholico 02:32, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

An article created by me about a mafia-controlled, short-lived breakaway state in northwestern Colombia. Fed (talk) 01:24, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Zastava Arms
About the major arms company in the Kingdom of Macedonia, mentioned in the main article and in the military page. Ownerzmcown 14:20, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to graduating this article? Lordganon 08:07, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Novgorod
Survivor-state proposal by yours truly. Lordganon 14:10, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

All done. Objections? Lordganon 10:34, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

None. BrianD 17:00, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History article by Smoggy not previously added to the list. Any objections to just graduating this one? Lordganon 11:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

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

War in Scotland, largely written by Smoggy and not put here previously. Given that it has ended, I see no reason to not just graduate it. Any objections? Lordganon 11:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

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

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

(Discussion moved)

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

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

~smoggy


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

Ahh, much better. People will actually notice this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

And, name ideas for the top 2:


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

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

Thoughts?

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Thoughts?

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


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

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

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

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

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

Anthony is good. Very modern. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:22, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=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.''