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

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

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

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2

Question Concerning Strikes Against NATO Capitals
I have a serious question concerning Soviet strikes against the capitals of NATO nations on Doomsday. Are we considering it canon that the capitals of all NATO countries were nuked? I ask because in writing the article on Iceland I can not find any reason why Reykjavik would have been hit other than being the capital. The nearest major target was about 30 miles away. I noted the capital was listed in the list of strikes, but did not find it mentioned anywhere else. Could this issue be clarified for me? Thanks.--Fxgentleman 00:07, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Luxembourg, Luxembourg wasn't hit, so thats one surviving capital for you. Other than that NATO capitals were all destroyed. It's likely that the Soviet Union did bomb all the NATO capitals just for being NATO capitals, because than even one surviving capital could coordinate an evacuation and gathering of all surviving NATO personnel. I guess they assumed that the strike in Germany would have done some damage to Luxembourg, which it did, thus they didn't bomb that, but yeah, Reykjavik would likely have been because it could have pulled a 'Gathering Order' type thing and gathered all the NATO troops. Which would make Iceland the most fortified island in the entire world after Doomsday.

Than remember not all missiles were 100% accurate, and there could likely be a malfunction or a slight miscalculation and you have either a tsunami into the Atlantic Ocean or the missile just falling into Reykjavik and not exploding. Arstar 00:20, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Then too, Reykjavik is also listed on the Nordic Union page as being the capital of Iceland, so its a bit contradictory over if it was hit or not.

Lordganon 09:10, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback both of you have given me. However, I am now more confused as to what to do. I am willing to go ahead and write the article with no strike happening against the capital rather than going for the missed warhead option. Can any of the other older writers provide some guidance on this point? I would rather not have someone later say I am violating canon. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 01:24, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

I neglected to add something. Based on my research I have noted NAS Keflavik and two Distant Early Warning radar stations as being prime targets for the Soviets. My intention is to list them as being destroyed in the article.--Fxgentleman 01:29, November 16, 2010 (UTC) I'd avoid hitting the DEW sites, myself - they didnt hit the ones in North America, so it wouldn't make too much sense to hit the ones in Iceland.

Though, hitting Keflavik makes sense.

Lordganon 03:34, November 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know we recently had a conversation about the DEW sites and I'm still not convinced they'd be spared... for the most part that would not affect North American history as we know it anyway; all those stations were up on the Arctic coast. As for Iceland, I think you definitely need to spare Reykjavik in order to stay true to canon, though I agree that a Keflavik strike would be completely reasonable.  The DEW sites should be consistent with whatever happened in North America. In Iceland the DEW stations seem to be just as remote as in N. America, so they could (potentially) be hit and still spare the core of the country and its infrastructure.  The closest one to the capital was west of Keflavik.
 * There was also a DEW site in the Faroes, only 12 km from the capital; this has implications for Faroese history. Benkarnell 15:39, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Adoption box
'Hello? Is anybody there? Anybody at all...' is what is currently in our adoption template. Is this a quote from anywhere in particular, or just someone here came up with? Either way, there is a slightly... moving quality to it. Fegaxeyl 16:16, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is from the nuclear holocaust film "The Day After". It is the last line said in the film by a character calling out to the world looking for a response. Mitro 16:20, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I haven't watched that yet. Fegaxeyl 20:12, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

OTL: NATO and Russia to cooperate on missile defense
Another major milestone in world turning its back on the Cold War. Interesting news for those of us who are interested in that kind of thing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11803931 Benkarnell 23:00, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bulgaria articles mention the collapse of Yugoslavia but not much more than that. The Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia articles are better to work from in regards to the status of Serbia.Oerwinde 17:08, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Is my article ever gonna get graduated or what? Ownerzmcown 17:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I offered you some help but you respectfully declined, however my deal is still out to make it slightly smaller and more realistic. It's your choice. Arstarpool 20:03, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have gone for that deal myself, Arstar, especially with how it sounded.

Owner, you have to account for the existence of Serbia somehow. Maybe say something like Serbia left their southern areas undefended while attacking into Bosnia, and Macedonia took some areas over, and having the border fairly fluid today?

Lordganon 00:11, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Serbia would crush Macedonia. I think it more likely they have their OTL borders.Oerwinde 17:09, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Belgrade was nuked, refugees were pouring across the border, and Serbia was fighting wars to the north. Assuming Macedonia was stable at the time, they could have fairly easily seized areas of southern Serbia, such as southern Kosovo and surrounding areas. But, once the Serbia situation is clarified, this should be graduated. Caeruleus 03:10, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've changed the map, I believe all things are in order and my article should be graduated. Ownerzmcown 00:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Good for changing the map - but the rest of the article has not been edited, as per suggestions on the talk page. In light of the situation in Yugoslavia, it makes no sense and still needs to be changed before it can be graduated.

Lordganon 00:35, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Look, one, the list of things on the talk page has gotten to long under the Serbia section and I have too short of an attention span to read it all, and two, can you just tell me what to change here? Ownerzmcown 02:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, though I don't see how the list I left is hard to find, lol.


 * Remove the part about the Yugoslavian collapse - never really occurred that way.
 * Have them run into Serbian troops while attempting to get deeper into Serbia instead of local warlords.
 * A sentence about something along the lines of Serbian troops never knew they were more than rebels or Croatian forces - both would likely be present in parts of the area.
 * Come to think of it, have the original goal being a strong monarchy - not constitutional - but made that way in a compromise with the locals.
 * Have them take over parts of southern Serbia, in the process of gaining Macedonia that were relatively undefended.
 * Able to keep these areas due to Serbian preoccupation elsewhere at first, and then later on due to the defenses.
 * Contact with Serbia would be by 1989 at latest, but more likely than not prior to then.
 * Contact with Croatia and Bosnia about the same time.
 * Knowledge of Greece would be gained as well, though for other reasons - Macedonian designs on Northern Greece, call it - contact not made until 1995.
 * The Civil War could be seen as a Serbian attempt through dissidents to regain annexed regions too, and only a failure in the end because of the Turkish troops loaned to them.
 * The collapse of the Kosovo state mentioned in the Serbia article would allow parts of that province to be taken over. Call it to prevent the Serbians from taking it all. May not be canon, but makes sense.
 * Remainder of story holds up, so long as whatever refers back to earlier, edited details, is changed as well.
 * Remember, the existence of Serbia would mean that intervention against Greece would be suicidal - especially with a vengeful Serbian state to their north.

The majority of these will need to be done - but it would better if all of them were.

Lordganon 02:51, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, one, I'm not understanding what you mean when you talk about the Civil War, two, what do you mean by that last part about Greek intervention, and three, when would they probably make contact with Greece, in your opinion? Ownerzmcown 01:12, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

According to your article, there's a Macedonian civil war from 1997-1999. The last part refers to discussions on some talk pages about possible Macedonian attacks on Greece during the Sicily War.

As for contact with Greece, I would say limited contact, either with Heptanesa or Mount Athos, at some point in the late 1980s, with full contact sometime after 1992, when you encounter the Turks. Given the original areas of expansion, I would say that Mount Athos would be the more likely. I'd keep the current year - 1995 - for official relations, like it is now.

Lordganon 01:43, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Is this now archive worthy?HAD 16:17, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Owner will get it done eventually, but as of yet there are still objections.

Lordganon 16:35, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Its been a month and it seems that Owner's interests have returned to the map games so is someone interested in adopting it and fixing the issues? Arstar 07:02, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to partially adopt this thing to get it done, if no one objects. (No response from Owner, gave him a day~)

Lordganon 07:34, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm back, now I've made the changes, and what else is left? Ownerzmcown 20:27, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

See the note I left on its talk page~

Lordganon 20:32, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've made the final adjustments, is there anything else? Ownerzmcown 14:37, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've made the real final adjustments, what else is left? Ownerzmcown 23:04, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Now that LG has made the final grammar changes, I believe I am finished. Ownerzmcown 20:28, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well LG, you have the most vocal about this article, is it ready for graduation? Mitro 21:04, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

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

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


 * That, or this could be a totally dysfunctional organization of rivals. (OAS, anyone?)  Benkarnell 15:15, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

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

I am willing to adopt this country. General tiu 14:53, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Jnjaycpa. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2jec010 (UTC)
 * This has been a proposal since August. What are we doing with this article?  Mitro 18:20, October 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Like many of Jni's articles, it seems fairly abandoned. If it's still around when I'm done my current projects I'll deal with it. Lordganon 03:29, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Most of the former Yugoslavia is already canon, except for this article. What is going on with it? Mitro 04:13, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to adopt this thing to get it done, if no one objects.

Lordganon 07:33, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Now that I'm back on the site, I would also be willing to adopt Serbia. Ownerzmcown 20:10, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

That is way to late and all of us will most likely be gone by then. I chose 2011 because it is far enough away and unification has been a planned thing since the 90's. And actually, couldn't they be an "exclave nation", a nation with no access by land but all share sea access? Nevertheless I will make a couple of modifications to the date so that they all unify at the same time. Arstarpool 03:19, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * We must stick to plausibility we may not be here in five years but he have to keep this timeline in good shape for the next "generation" of contributors. An exclave nation would not work in this environment. In Texas reunification works because the nations are almost beside each other, the three Florida's are spread out and in three separate corners. Maybe a partial reunification could work. --GOPZACK 03:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Was thinking about Ocala, 93 Highway, would of Gainesville visted them?, in fact its quite large, wouldent it become some type of city state?--Sunkist- 03:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ocala is only 30 miles south on Fla. 93 ( I - 75 ), so there is no reason why the two cities could not have not only known of each other, but Ocala could have been a city of North Florida. If so it would probably be the southernmost town or city of North Florida. Highway 93 Conecting_Florida.png/or I-75 take turns toward bombed areas somewhere south of Ocala, though. The roads east out of Gainesville sneak between bombed out areas to conect to both St. Augustine and Daytona Beach. If we wanted to put the capital in a centrally located city, Lakeland, a small town which had to deal with refugees from both Tampa and Orlando, would be the best choice. It is about equidistant between Gainevile, Daytona and Ft. Myers (junction of state highway 35 and I-4), but may have suffered as being isolated and overwhelmed. It's survivors probably ended up in South Florida, but some would have certainly gone north towards Ocala.
 * To the right is a map showing the probable roads used between the states. (SouthWriter)
 * Guys are there any objections to graduating this page? Arstarpool 04:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry, Astar. No reason has been given why St. Augustine should be the capital - South Florida is indeed the strongest of the three nations, with international relations to the Caribbean. First Coast (aka East Florida) probably has connections with the Bahamas and perhaps Bermuda (though probably only through the Bahamas). North Florida (aka "Gainesville") has the University of Florida and possibly the remnants of the original state government, making it an obvious center of governnment as well. First Coast was a late comer in the development of this whole idea of a combined state and should not take the forefront (it is also manifestly weak, being in the midst of so many nuclear strikes). SouthWriter 23:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry, Astar. No reason has been given why St. Augustine should be the capital - South Florida is indeed the strongest of the three nations, with international relations to the Caribbean. First Coast (aka East Florida) probably has connections with the Bahamas and perhaps Bermuda (though probably only through the Bahamas). North Florida (aka "Gainesville") has the University of Florida and possibly the remnants of the original state government, making it an obvious center of governnment as well. First Coast was a late comer in the development of this whole idea of a combined state and should not take the forefront (it is also manifestly weak, being in the midst of so many nuclear strikes). SouthWriter 23:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

While it may be the only port on the Atlantic, the other side of the peninsula is close enough so that such an argument means little.

Besides, it is also the weakest of the three. If anything, the strongest is the state in southwest Florida. Which is much more likely to be the capital - besides, it's also where the LoN is active.

Lordganon 07:30, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't mind what city becomes the capital, St. Augustine could be..the Croydon of Florida ( Indiana's first capital ) it can be the face of Florida and have its historical meaning, but with out being the real seat of the government, and have one of South Florida's citys host the government...being like Indianapolis.--Sunkist- 08:26, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Even then, the other two nations both would have like seven times the population of First Coast - each. The Corydon comparison isn't really applicable - at least when it was made the capital it was in the most populated area of the state, while St. Augustine isn't.

Lordganon 08:50, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I've given up trying to change people's minds when they disagree but technically St. Augustine was the capital back in the day, of Spanish Florida, and it was one of the first colonial settlements on the East Coast. Arstar 00:10, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Airways (1983: Doomsday)
article by me (under construction)--Owen1983 14:22, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

You should probably have the approval of the caretaker of New Britain before continuing with this.

Lordganon 00:30, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Owen has been banned, is anyone interested in adopting this article? Or else I am going to obsolete it. Mitro 14:23, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do it!HAD 16:17, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Doomsday in the United Kingdom (1983:Doomsday)
article by Smoggy80 I like it --Owen1983 16:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for anyone who is writing a former UK DD article to help fill in details--Smoggy80 17:25, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Me & South's proposal for the American Shadow Government post-Doomsday. --GOPZACK 02:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is going on with this article? Little work has been done, are there plans to move it toward graduation?  If not is someone willing to adopt it?  Mitro 04:18, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

A page about one of the associate states of the. --NuclearVacuum 19:29, September 27, 2010 (UTC)




 * I have been doing some research on Long Island attacks for this timeline. Granted I am very peaceful and would never think to attack anybody, I find FEMA's map of New York targets rather, overdone. According to this map, Montauk is attacked, which is not of risk or value to an attack. In my opinion, the Soviets are wasting good bombs on Long Island. Following some links given here, I have found a likely list of the primary, secondary, and tertiary targets of New York State. From what it mentions here, no part of Long Island is a primary target. It does say that the New York City area is a target, but it mentions that area "west of Stony Brook" would be attacked. It was mentioned here that the tertiary targets would be the least likely to be attacked, which could be a savior for LI, as the Brookhaven National Laboratory is listed as a tertiary target, but I think it would be better if it were left out, since New York City would be a better target. Another area I would like to bring up is Fishers Island, which is an island in the Long Island Sound which is only seven miles from New London, Connecticut (which would be attacked). So it would be in the direct line of fire, so it would be a no mans land, this would also make the islands of the Northern Fork quite inhospitable, so sadly they would be gone. I made this map to show a possible scenario for the attacks in the Long Island region. It may need some work, but this is just how I see it. --NuclearVacuum 14:41, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Aerospace corporation located in the Commonwealth of Victoria.--Oerwinde 06:52, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Waterloo Cooperative
Finally got around to doing up an article on Kitchener, different name though after finding out the region is known as the Region of Waterloo, also I couldn't find the demonym of a resident of Kitchener and Waterluvian sounded cool. Oerwinde 08:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Made this page a while back and South started expanding it. Arstar 09:18, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objections to passing this as a stub for now? Arstar 05:20, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * We should pass stubs only if the subject of the article is firmly encased in canon. Let it remain a proposal until you or South are ready to return to it again or put it up for adoption.  Mitro 16:36, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Chad-Libya War
A war occurring in Africa. CheesyCheese 12:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote on the talk page for this, it is not plausible as written. Read the history of Greece and Egypt and go off of them, not that Libya article, as it goes against what is in the other articles.

The two Chad sides were equal in strength, and the French forces would run out of supplies at the same time the Libyans would. Makes no sense for them to leave like this, or for the Libyans to not crush Chad without them.

A draw, with the boundary at the 15th parallel, and the northern state controlling parts of southern Libya as well would be better.

Lordganon 02:04, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the page so the boundary between the two nations is at the 15th Parallel. I also wrote that contact was lost with Tripoli after Doomsday instead of a nuclear strike, as on the Egypt page it is written that contact was lost with Tripoli after Doomsday. CheesyCheese 20:13, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Much better, though it would likely make more sense for both the French and Libyans to stay put.

Lordganon 03:37, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The main reason Libya invaded Chad was to take control of of the Aouzou Strip. Because Libya was attacked, the Libyans retreated to the Aouzou Strip to make sure it was safe from attack.

The French did not want to help Chad retake the northern half in the real war, and the fact that GUNT and Chad were equal and could not take each other's land, the Libyans leaving, and the nuclear attacks would make them leave. CheesyCheese 15:56, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Libya wasn't attacked on Doomsday. There's no reason at for them to have been.

Thing is cheese, why would they leave with nowhere to go to? The most they could do is retreat to the Central African Republic, which would make very little difference.

Lordganon 16:24, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to having the French staying and the Libyans leaving for some time then returning. CheesyCheese 01:11, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart (1983: Doomsday)
My second foray into the lives of some people who would have survived Doomsday. I have asked Fxgentleman for some help, as Stewart would be currently living in Delmarva, and I do not want to contradict canon. Tbguy1992 03:48, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Originally created by Arstar, but I have put some work on it due to my knowledge of the area. Mitro 12:53, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Vegas. Mitro 14:41, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Originally created by Owen, but other editors have been adding to it. Mitro 14:41, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar on the state of California. Mitro 15:34, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objections to passing this article? Arstar 05:39, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:31, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought Illinois had been declared "full" a long time ago. Benkarnell 03:20, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, any objections to marking as obsolete? Mitro 16:17, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

''I do. ''This article has potential to be a rival turned ally for Vandalia. At least I only made it a county big. Plus i don't think Illinois is "full" just yet.

Yank 17:38, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you Yank. Most of the major population areas were destroyed on Doomsday.  Southern Illinois is under control of Kentucky.  The Quad Cities are expanding in the northwest.  Central Illinois is already written in as a lawless area.  Than you have the large state of Vandalia and the small community of Charleston.  Am I missing anything?  Mitro 17:45, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * O yes, and the wasteland that is the former Chicago metro area. Mitro 16:12, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Owen but improved by others. Mitro 17:32, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Is this article ready for graduation, or do the authors want to fill in a tad bit more? Arstar 05:41, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I would like to do a little more work on the article itself. I realize I'm not the original creator of the idea of Elizabeth City, but I would like to do some work on its early history and then run it by Brian for review.  Mitro 16:38, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Another Owen article that has been approved by others. Mitro 17:32, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should mark this as a stub?

Lordganon 21:24, November 22, 2010 (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)

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)

Article by me. Bob 14:23, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 04:23, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 17:15, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Per a discussion I had with Arstar some weeks back, I am going to be taking over writing this article. Just thought I would let you know.--Fxgentleman 18:59, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

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

Article created by SjorskingmaWikistad. Mitro 02:48, November 2, 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)

Lexington, Kentucky
Article I created, in consulation with Zack, that he and I will jointly work on. BrianD 03:58, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Jay Leno
Article created by Althistoryluver99. BrianD 22:46, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Sunkist. Mitro 14:57, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 14:57, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 15:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I plan on contributing to this page. Benkarnell 23:03, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

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)

Khanate of Khiva
An article about an extremely small nation that is located between Aralia and the Emirate of Bukhara. --Fedelede 18:26, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 14:47, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Sunkist. Arstar 02:01, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

IMHO this seems impossibly large to control most of Iowa, touching the entire western Lincoln border and slightly grazing the QCA one. What do the rest of you guys think? Arstar 02:01, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I left comments on its talk page~

Lordganon 02:05, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is that the author, Sunkist, doesn't get the concept of "dead space", that more than half of America would be uncontrolled territory, and that plopping large organized states because they simply fit isn't practical.

If it was smaller, than that would be a different story. Arstar 02:34, November 18, 2010 (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)

Made this a while back, would there be anyone interested in adopting it? Arstar 05:23, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article by me. Arstar 05:30, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article by a guy named Cali Boy 1990 who hasn't come on the site since early October. Arstar 05:30, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * His inactivity shouldn't be held against him. We should judge the article on the merits. --Zack 22:23, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys we have like 5 nations in California right now, though, whats your opinions on the plausibility of this article? Arstar 22:56, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys we have like 5 nations in California right now, though, whats your opinions on the plausibility of this article? Arstar 22:56, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

It's in a non-nuked area of the state, away from other survivor nations, and the region is very agriculturally productive, as well as having a lot of wooden areas.

A good spot for a survivor state, actually.

Though, given everything, I'd move we open it for adoption.

Lordganon 01:30, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

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

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 16:43, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Sunkist. Mitro 21:05, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

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

Since Arstar added the "review" template to this and neglected to add it here, I'll do it (>.>;). Seems to be an issue between this article and the Alpine Confederation in regards to the size and territory.

North of Switzerland, the boundaries of the Confederation, outside of a single sentence, have never really been fleshed out. Guess we need to do that now, lol.

Lordganon 07:14, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Swabia-Wurttemburg interpreted the borders the same way I did in my early Germany map. It doesn't conflict with Canon because it wasn't fleshed out. I don't see any issue.Oerwinde 10:05, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Owen has now taken it upon himself to "edit" the article, without permission. Could someone please get rid of all the horrid edits?

Lordganon 12:12, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

there is no issue then Owen1983 12:41, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

....how on earth do you get that? I only asked for a rollback because I have no desire to do eight undos myself.

Lordganon 12:45, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

This is my concern. It is canon that the Alpine Confederation controls the areas around the Rhine River. Now during the current revision I accidentally deleted the specifics but go into the history of the AC right before I started editing it a lot and you will see the exact boundaries. What I don't get is how come only recently was the [provisional] government of Bavaria formed from several small communities when this nation was there? Or better yet how could this state form if there was a very bad refugee crisis in the AC coming from Germany and Italy that they had no other choice but to take control of the lands? Arstar [talk] 01:12, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

The boundaries given in the history are far from exact, Arstar, especially given the loss of Freiburg. An island of authority somewhere in the region would make sense, given the large amount of non-irradiated territory, though the boundaries should likely be adjusted in the south.

Bavaria had more strikes, which also had the effect of isolated much of the area, making that situation plausible. It also has a much greater population as well.

Lordganon 00:45, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that why would the Alpines try to make some form of provisional authority in southern Germany if one existed already? The history states that during the beginning of the refugee crisis it got so bad they had to take control of the areas around them. No matter what, this would apply to much of Swabia-Wurttenburg in some capacity. Sure, in the physical sense, the land there was spared of nuclear strikes, but does that mean that for every plot of land that was spared of the physical effects of Doomsday would also survive the later on stages? Arstar [talk] 02:17, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

What you are missing is that the size of these areas, nor the cities in them, has never been clarified. The best reference says that they took control over areas around the Rhine river south of Freiburg - well away from this area - which would logically extend to the area right around the Bodensee as well. This means that most of the area controlled by this state would be outside alpine control.

The only area that the Alpines have done a provisional authority for is Bavaria. The existence of some sort of state in this area, especially given the late formation dates bandied about, is logical.

As far as I'm concerned, the southern parts of this nation should be either Alpine or uninhabited. But until some sort of boundaries are actually made for the Confederation - following a community consensus - this should not be done.

Lordganon 02:30, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

But why would they create a provisional authority, most likely a fund-draining process, if there was already a functioning government close to Switzerland? Or better yet, why don't they arrange for a unification between the Bavarian communities and Swa-Wurt? Arstar [talk] 03:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Bavarians are very.... independent minded. I doubt they'd go along with something like that (think of what would happen if someone announced Texas would be put under some other state government - the reaction would be similar) even given the situation in the area.

Call the creation of it as making the bordering areas more stable. Couldn't blame them for that at all.

The problem with this article is that no history has been fleshed out worth mentioning - we only have the current picture. Shouldn't be too hard to find out a way to make it possible.

Outside of Augsburg, there doesn't seem to be any Bavarian communities in that area - thus rendering it mostly relatively uninhabited, so they are basically fighting over nothing - but the net result is the distance between the two would render it impossible for one to rule the other.

Lordganon 08:08, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ahh...... much better. Now undo the rest of the bad edits please, lol.

Lordganon 03:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

So what is going on with this article? Do the objections still stand? Mitro 14:27, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - a fair part of the southern areas of the article do conflict with the Alpine Confederation. In my mind, I think Arstar should edit the article as needed, while keeping it canon, to bring it in line, since Jni hasn't and Arstar's the Alpine Caretaker.

Lordganon 03:34, October 16, 2010 (UTC) When I did up the original map of possible German nations, based on the Alpine article I had Ravensburg pretty much as the southernmost area of a Wurttemburg state. Maybe edit the boundaries to be more like that?--Oerwinde 08:08, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

So what is up with this review? It has been a month since there has been any discussion on it. Can it return to canon? Mitro 14:42, November 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless there area anymore objections, I am going to return this article to canon. Mitro 16:48, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1, Archive 2

''This subsection is for decisive and vital issues concerning the 1983: Doomsday Timeline. Due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now, each of these issues might have world-spanning consequences that affect dozens of articles. Please treat this section with the necessary respect and do not place discussions that do not belong here.''