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

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

Borders of Utah and Sierra Nevada
There is dispute between Louis and Fx over the borders of Utah (a canon article) and Sierra Nevada (a proposal). I believe the jist of the argument can be found here. Mediation has been requested, so please review both articles and the discussion between the two editors and help them come to a resolution. I would also ask that Louis and Fx please leave a short summary of their position here as well. Mitro 16:58, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to thank Mitro for setting this up and to reiterate what I have said already in that I am open to discussion. I have tried to lay out my arguments on the SNU discussion page, which I would suggest should be read as well as those on the Cascadia discussion page, where part of this discussion took place, as reference. This said, if I understand Louisianan's point accurately, its that some part of northeastern NV joined with UT at some point for some reason sometime in the post-war world. The problem is though there is nothing written in either UT or its history regarding this. I should note that if you enlarge and study the map of UT, it shows the inclusion of a small part of the state. Since a map in not necessarily canon without something written to support it, I took this to mean it was theoretical. I carefully did my research before writing my article on NV to ground it in reality and especially paid close attention to articles about the surrounding area. Understandably, since I could find nothing if anything, I set my boundaries for the eastern SNU by using the old state borders. Since our discussions began, Louisianan has now informed me of several other NV cities/towns which are part of UT which were not even referenced in his map. I am baffled and confused by the situation. How can one violate something not written? The only changes I can discern which would be made to accept my borders would be for a change to the UT and Cascadia maps. Suffice it to say I feel I have put forth a number of logical points supporting my thoughts and rationale in how I have written my article. I have gotten the distinct impression there is less of a desire to logically discuss the matter with me and more of a "because I told you so, you should do it" approach. I apologize for getting so lengthy is trying to lay out my thoughts.--Fxgentleman 01:34, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Spokane War
I have some questions in regards to the Spokane army and war. I am looking at the possibility Spokane could have sent a second military forces to attack Utah in addition to the one already detailed which invaded northern Utah. This one crosses into the SNU without clear knowledge of what is there, with the intention of cutting across the region and pouncing on central Utah in a sort of pincer movement. Once it crosses over, the Spokane army is surprised to discover the SNU and proceeds to sack and loot several farms and settlements as they move forward, before being engaged in several major battles with the SNU military who destroys them. Having read what I could find thus far, I am unclear as to what the actual size and strength of Spokane’s army would have been and what their technological prowess actually was. Did they use armor, such as tanks and armored cars, or were they on foot and horse? I gather they were a formidable force, but I am still kind of in the dark about the rest. If anyone can provide me any feedback on both my questions and idea, please let me know. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 16:37, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought about the size of the Spokanian strike force as to the precise number of people, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had rallied maybe 1,000 men for the primary force and a number of several hundred for the pincer movement you describe -- which I really like, btw.
 * Remember that with limited communication (telegraph) it's very easy for a small group of people (hundreds) to make a huge impact. I like the idea that you've set forward, and I could back that incorporation into the history of the SNU. Which cities were you thinking? I'm sure that Wells would've been one of the ones sacked and looted, although with Wendover being in communication with Fillmore, they may well have been evacuated to Wendover or even across the Mormon Sea to New Tooele. All the same, I really like the idea you've suggested so far. Louisiannan 22:42, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Spokane, someone needs to create an article for the Spokane.HAD 16:43, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1

New Map Time!
Its about time we got ourselves a new world map. We really need to start replacing our maps on a regular basis.Yankovic270 23:39, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Proposal overload
We passed the 60+ proposal line. If you get the chance, please review some of the outstanding proposals and move to graduate them if you think they are ready. Mitro 01:29, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Airships?
This might be a bizarre and perhaps far-fetched idea, but I think airships might have some form of popularity in the post-DD world. Why? Well, from what I've gathered they're capable of carrying decent-sized loads of cargo or passengers, they're more energy-efficient than conventional aircraft, and they can cover more direct routes than ships. Of course, there are downsides; complexity of flying and landing is a significant factor and a problem if they are used for aid transportation to underdeveloped nations with barely-trained ground crews, and the fact they are slower than aircraft (though faster than ships) is another problem. Nonetheless, if they could be built in the early 20th century that means most nations with decent industrial economies should be capable of building airships and blimps; and being less fuel-thirsty and complex than airliners makes them fairly viable for exploration and transportation.

Of course I could just be having a flight of fancy (no pun intended). Am I on to something here, or is this just another bad idea to be ripped apart by the community like Empire of Greater Germania? Fegaxeyl 12:21, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well there are three main types of Airship, Two of them are easy and quick to make and a third that can carry far more passangers/cargo but takes longer to build and relies on a supply of Helium and Hydrogen. I think the first type (Non rigid airships) would have probabley made the quickest comeback as they are esentialy oversised hot air ballons with some motors mounted on a gondala these would posibly have been used for travel or reconisance in the early days after doomsday but would have fallen out of popularity later as they are un able to carry much weight. The second type (Semi rigid airships) would have also made a comeback quickly after DD as all that is required to build them is a basic metal industry, they have a rigid keel and can either by inflated like a hot air ballon or with Hydrogen/Helium, they would probabley still be used by nations without kerosene or Helium/Hydrogen or those with very little industry. The third type would be the most usefull, these fully rigid airships have a full frame and can carry lots of passangers and cargo but can take nearly two years to build. I think though Fegaxeyl that you are on to a very good idea here, Kerosene (Aviation Fuel) is hard to refine and Airships would provide a good alternative. I do think though that propeller driven aircraft would also have made a large comeback following doomsday as well.Vegas adict 13:12, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh no...doesn't this TL have enough AH cliches? :-) Mitro 14:16, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

I on the other hand love the idea. Needless to say airships are going to be much more practical than jet aircraft in Virginia.

Yankovic270 14:26, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * We might have to many AH cliches but in a world where the infastructure for jet aircraft doesn't exist (Much) airships do make a logical and sensible choice as passanger and transport vehicles.Vegas adict 14:28, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of Airships and Piston engined aircraft experiencing a resurgence. Jets are expensive and are the mainstay of 1st world nations like the SAC, USSR and CANZ.HAD 15:49, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's cliche but it makes sense. Go ahead and write something up, whether a page of its own or a section of the Science-and-Technology page. Just keep them sensible and play up the affordability angle. The idea of ÜBER-airships would not fit this ATL. (Anyone ever play Red Alert II? ;)) Benkarnell 16:15, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with so-called "Über-airships" being implausible, but roughly 1920's era zeppelins would be well within the technology levels of the timeline. And they would be safe too, because after the post-Hindenburg modifications to its design the sister ship the Graf Zeppelin had a long and illustrious career.

Yankovic270 16:22, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

So Goddyear Blimp and (mini) Helium Hindenburgs as opposed to Kiriv Airships, right?HAD 16:33, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I believe helium blimps are more expensive to produce than a hydrogen airship, so a small survivor state stretched to the limit might actually be more interested in a hydrogen model. Hydrogen airships got a bad rep actually after Hindenburg. The fear over them was a little unfounded. Mitro 18:25, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hydrogen is easier to refine than Helium as wellVegas adict 19:24, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually had a dream last night that I was in the world of 1983DD and was piloting an airship. The airship, for whatever reason, had no floor, and I kept dropping stuff and worrying that my passengers would fall. I wasn't worried about myself, for some reason. Benkarnell 23:36, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to dream a better dream Ben, misquoting Les Miserables asides. But its a pretty cool mental image: Commonwealth Air Force F-18s alongside a zepplin, updated Lockheed Constellations (the best piston liner, in my opinion), sharing the skies with SAS 747s.HAD 17:33, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea, but they would most likley be expensive so nations should have very few.Baconton 23:45, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, having that dream was my signal to take a couple days off from work here. But I'm ready to get back in the swing of things again. I'm not an aviation expert, but intuitively it seems easier to build an airship from scratch than an airplane - a benefit for small, isolated communities cut off from their old sources of manufactured goods. And actually, it would be next to impossible to make new planes without bauxite. This map shows the score there. ANZ, South America, the Caribbean, the WAU, and Greece have decent access to bauxite among the world's major powers. The need for bauxite could help explain Siberia's push into Manchuria and the Uralian frontier. For the North American and Middle Eastern powers, airships might make better sense than new planes, for which aluminum is difficult to obtain.
 * Also, airships are one of the only AH cliches] we haven't incorporated yet ;). We may as well embrace them. Benkarnell 04:24, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Another 1983: DD mention
Towards the bottom of this page from tvropes.org - BrianD 05:07, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's very cool.--Vladivostok 06:04, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah that was me. I also added to two other articles. Mitro 12:08, May 10, 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).

Kabylie
Is an article about a countrie wich gain independence from Algeria after it was given to Greece by The League of Nations, then a dictator modernized the small countrie.

VENEZUELA 23:35, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Per the scenario I listed earlier on the New Vegas discussion page, this is a nation consisting of parts of Nevada and adjacent California which I have been working on. I hope to proivde a map soon. However, I don't want to accidently encroach on New Vegas in regards to borders. When I originally envisioned this, I had loosely used Route Six to define the southern border, imagining everything south of there was of little concern to this nation. I welcome comments on this article, which I will add more to as time allows. Thanks..Fxgentleman 05:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the page? Benkarnell 16:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Baconton. Mitro 14:30, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty empty. The idea's OK in theory, but I think we at least need to clarify the extent of the destruction in Crimea. Two missiles actually seems sort of light for such a strategically important region. Sevastopol was one of the main naval bases in the USSR. Overall I hope this is not the last Russian statelet to appear. We have so many in the US. Benkarnell 22:05, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the part of them colonizing parts of Turkey is pretty weak. There are too many minature empires in this TL already. Furthermore wouldn't the Turks have something to say about Crimean colonies? Mitro 14:40, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * We already know that blown-up Greece has taken pieces of Turkey, so it must be in awfully bad shape. It's actually very consistent if blown-up Crimea takes pieces as well. Benkarnell 19:14, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but I think Greece and Crimea's geography plays a role in that. Greece in many ways had a larger area of survivors to pull from. Crimea itself is relatively compact and even just two nukes can cause major damage and chaos to the small peninsula, preventing any future colonization unless it is part of some plan to flee to a better area.
 * I'm curious about how the Crimean Tatars are doing post-Doomsday. Mitro 19:33, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please edit my article.Baconton 23:49, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Its already canon that Sevastopol was hit on Doomsday. Doing some research on Crimea I would also say that Kerch, Yevpatoria, Krasnoperekopsk, Dzhankoy and Armyansk, are all potential targets. Thoughts? Mitro 18:59, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed "Lost colony" in the former South Carolina
Following up on the "discovery of two communities in the western part of the state by the WCRB, I have written an article to account for the lack of contact of those people with the larger community in the upstate. Since I have the explorers of from Piedmont "missing" them in 1991 (partly because they only went as far as the outskirts of Columbia on the Broad River), I postulate that they were largely "relocated," if not wiped out by what we called "Hurricane Hugo" in 1989. I call the "colony" the "Peedee Nation" in honor of the almost extent Pee Dee tribe of Native Americans that lived in the area. One of the "borders" of the nation was the Great Pee Dee River.

I need to fill in the details, but it is assumed that the residents in the area between blasts just settled down and lived along the rivers. Unfortunately, few of them recognized the signs of a hurricane bearing down on them. [SouthWriter]

Okay, I have done some work on the rise and fall of this doomed nation. It wasn't the bombs that got them -- It was something a lot bigger -- Hurricane "Hugo" -- and a lot smaller -- influenza carolina. Together these disasters killed more people than were killed in all of Columbia on Doomsday. For South Carolina, at least, Doomsday wasn't the worst thing that could happen! SouthWriter 18:34, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Missouri
A proposal about my home state of Missouri. --Jnjaycpa 05:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Georgia
I just made a proposal about the Republic of Georgia, a breakaway Georgia that got independence from the Soviet Union on Doomesday. Fedelede 19:41, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would rename it to distinguish it from the former U.S. state of Georgia TTL. Georgia (Europe) (1983: Doomsday)?BrianD 02:16, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or when someone creates an article on the state of Georgia they could title in Georgia (U.S. state) (1983: Doomsday). We can also put a little blurb on the top of both pages telling people that there is also another Georgia in case they are confused. Mitro 14:19, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did a blurb as I don't know how to rename a page. Fedelede 21:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You make vague mention of military bases in Georgia being hit. Can you be more specific? I think Batumi would be hit. Mitro 16:05, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Both Ossetias
This is a proposal about the Republic of Both Ossetias, a republic that comprises all of Ossetia and got independence from Georgia in 1998. Fedelede 20:07, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't they simply call themselves the Republic of Ossetia? Is there really a need to stress that it includes both South and Nort Ossetia?--Vladivostok 16:37, April 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * A few things need to be taken into account. First off although I can’t pinpoint its location I believe that there was a nuclear bomber airbase somewhere in North Ossetia. Secondly I think it’s quite likely that more of the caucuses was hit as there were a few big cities and bases in the region.--ShutUpNavi 17:21, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

&
Me & Southwriter's proposals for the Dakotas. --GOPZACK 19:39, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to graduating North Dakota. Mitro 19:56, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * In the interest of full disclosure I want to add a small section to the North Dakota noting that Bismarck, Fargo and the southeast corner of the state is now a part of the . --GOPZACK 19:58, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Azokoatron. Mitro 22:35, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstarpool. Mitro 22:39, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Any chances for a speedy graduation? Arstarpool 01:18, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * 27,900 people living outside of a locale that was hit by several ICBMs. I'm sorry but that sounds very implausible. It would be incredibly difficult just to feed these people. Maybe if this state was moved to Umbria, I could believe it. Mitro 01:48, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is true. I think that Tuscany article has move a chance. --GOPZACK 01:51, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Perryz101. Mitro 22:41, April 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Any objections to graduation? --GOPZACK 20:01, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I really think this guy Perryz is taking this althist as a joke. He has stated multiple times the only reason he made it is because he wants to
 * create "one big republic" in Florida. I for one do not see why this nation would name itself "North Florida" if it had no knowledge of the republic in South Florida. And besides, he has already abandoned the article. I for one do not see it fit to graduate. Arstarpool 03:40, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I really think this guy Perryz is taking this althist as a joke. He has stated multiple times the only reason he made it is because he wants to
 * create "one big republic" in Florida. I for one do not see why this nation would name itself "North Florida" if it had no knowledge of the republic in South Florida. And besides, he has already abandoned the article. I for one do not see it fit to graduate. Arstarpool 03:40, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've taken over the article with SouthWriter. We've dropped the crap about making the grand "Republic of Florida". I have also acknowledged South Florida in the article. --GOPZACK 15:39, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Georgia (U.S. State)
I put a little bit up for the summary article on my home state of Georgia. I clicked on what looked like a live link at the new article on the former Soviet country of Georgia and got a blank slate! So there you go.

I have some ideas for south Georgia, and I have to build up some of the story for Toccoa. And of course, there is the failed provisional government in Athens to which to link the article. SouthWriter 03:08, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might like to know, that Jimmy Carter was not present in Georgia on DD. During my research I ran across articles which stated his sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, had died on 9/26/1983 in Fayetteville, NC from cancer. According the articles, Carter had been by his sister's bedside during the two weeks leading up to her death. The WCRB report on the Southern US stated Fayetteville, NC was hit on DD. Of course this does not preclude the chance, as you said, the Secret Service got him out in time. Even so, they would have to get him to GA to establish a new government. Hope this helps. --Fxgentleman 16:50, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (1983:Doomsday)
An article by me --Fedelede 02:08, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Article originally created due to how long the discussion on how the history of 1983: Doomsday will progress. Mitro 14:19, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started working on this article. Thoughts are appreciated. Mitro 16:14, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to be studying for the IL bar all summer so I will not be able to finish my article. Feel free to adopt this, though I prefer multi-editor work. Mitro 23:15, May 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll over see it in your absence and insure that multiple editors can add content as they see fit. Best of luck in your studies! :) --GOPZACK 23:42, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Brian is trying to revise the history of West Texas. Mitro 14:19, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thoughts appreciated - this is still very much in progress. Some of the history touches more on the south Texas and north Texas states, and would eventually be moved if this is approved.--BrianD 23:49, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done - pending any further reviews and revisions by the community. BrianD 19:33, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to graduation? Please read over Brian's changes. Mitro 23:16, May 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * You did one hell of a great job Brian. I love it! No objections here. --GOPZACK 02:26, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind, as well, and especially given the recent discussions about the timeline, that this article now refers to several other nations in Texas I've retroactively added or changed.BrianD 15:48, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Perry. Mitro 15:57, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mitro, but Perry doesn't seem to know how this time line works. Even if he begins to put together an idea that goes along with canon, his grammar is not up to par. I suggested to him that he read it aloud after he wrote it, but I don't think it has helped. SouthWriter 05:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SouthWriter, I'm not very good with grammar, but I think when all the grammar issues can be worked out, it will come out good. I understand the timeline.Perryz101 23:13, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * A part of me just doesn't think it is plausible to have another large state in the Midwest. Especially when we have 3 other large states (Virginia, Kentucky and Superior) all in the same general location. Mitro 12:43, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * So the cities just get trown to Kentucky and Superior?...With these cities still living they would try and reform some type of nation. I don't understand when you say large, do you mean by area-power- or what?Perryz101 17:43, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I feel that we have reached the limit of large, organized nation-states on the North American continent. Creating anymore would be optimistic in the extreme. I also think this article conflicts with the assumption that the are between Superior and Kentucky is a wasteland populated by small isolated towns and nomads. Mitro 16:53, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just rereading the article I'm araid I am going to drop my support for it. The best that Indiana can do IMO is mayube a few city-states in places like Lafayette or something. --GOPZACK 18:44, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objections to marking this article as obsolete. Mitro 13:24, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly yall dont understand, If Indiana controls all this land, it dosent make it powerful, it just controls the land. Lafayette would of made contact with other cities by 1997. Why cant you have more nations, is it too much for this wiki?, I'm sure that in the real world they have to deal with new founding nations. You people are making this wiki more and more un-realistic.Perryz101 03:50, May 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just it, it is unrealistic for small survivor communities to control large areas of land, if for no other reason than in a postapocalyptic environment there is not much to gain by controlling it. If your people are safe and well fed, what would motivate them to engage the bandits and nomads and construct an infrastructure to defend a long border? And yes, there's a growing consensus that there are too many founding nations - far from a bombed-out wilderness, N. America is becoming a patchwork of healthy democracies. Which is not a realistic result of a devastating conflict. Benkarnell 13:13, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ben. Sorry Perry but as the article stands now it should not be graduated. Though you still have the opportunity of rewriting the article into something more acceptable. Mitro 23:47, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Anymore objections to graduation? Mitro 01:49, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

San Diego
Article created by WestVirginiaRebel, where he argues for survivors in the former southern California city. BrianD 01:35, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone think this article has merit? Should we graduate it, rework it or mark it obsolete? BrianD 15:26, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, i vote in favour of obselesence. San Diego would have been too heavily nuked.

Given its strategic value I would think San Diego would have received multiple strikes from high yield weapons like what happened in Norfolk-Newport News, VA. The massive destruction from the strikes aside, the fallout, along with that from other areas like LA, would sadly heavily contaminate the area. Any survivors would likely have fled across the border into Mexico. I can not logically see it substaining life, let alone a survivor nation. --Fxgentleman 18:46, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

The article it's self I have no trouble with but the whole idea of worshiping Lincoln as a deity I have trouble with. I don't see it catching on with 20% of the population. A fringe cult perhaps but not a major religion. Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of Lincoln the President but I just don't see a religion being formed around him. --GOPZACK 03:08, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

It's just because I realized that from what I got from church that God is a wise and incredibly loving enitity who knows how to be firm. That describes Abraham Lincoln to a T. Lincolnism is basically Christianity with a different face on God. If you ever read the bible you would know that the true face of God is never revealed. I stand by the new faith, as it is the quirk I gave it to make the country unique. And if a country could have a religion worshipping King Arthur, who may or may not have existed, then ol' Abe definitely deserves followers.

Yankovic270 03:46, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * This smacks of Russian Buddhists that another alt-history group toyed with once-upon-a-time, but they're just so out there - beyond the pale, really, that I don't know if Lincolnists or Arthurians could survive any better than Russian Buddhists did in the other alternate history. As much as you'd like to keep it because of a quirk, I don't know that people would give up their old religion for this new religion just because of Doomsday. I'm not averse to it, given a much stronger explanation - maybe that major religious leaders had visions, what-not - similar to the Jehovah's Witness or something. That would much better explain why it would take off so.


 * I'm more concerned, Yankovic, that you seem so ready to defy group consensus, something that is integral to the proper function of this and other shared timelines. I would hope you would reconsider. Louisiannan 05:28, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll chime in as the loyal opposition here: I think that strange things can happen to small groups living in isolation. I'm actually surprised there aren't more weird religious cults out there. I agree that a more sophisticated explanation for the origins this one is probably needed. Benkarnell 13:20, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Danke Schon Ben. I just need a prominent local religious leader to have a vision. I also need some one to write the vision. I'm not one who can write religous material.

Yankovic270 15:17, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for cults popping up after doomsday but not on such a large scale like in Lincoln. & by making Lincoln "god" wouldn't that piss a lot of Christians off who believe God sent down his son Jesus for a time but God himself other wise was never like you said "revealed". That could spark religious tension & such plus I doubt your leader Dave Heineman, a methodist, would drop that faith and become a "Lincolnist". --GOPZACK 19:59, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem per se with somebody there worshipping Abraham Lincoln as a deity. It's 20 percent of the population that I have a problem with. Personally, Lincolnism as a philosophy, that could be held by anyone of any religion or no religion is more realistic. In fact I could see this as some sort of humanist movement, their argument being no one knows if God exists or not, but everyone knows Lincoln did, and we know what he stood for; and that his principles are ones that everyone can follow and adopt, regardless of humanist or Lutheran or Catholic beliefs. This could still allow for the monuments to Abe Lincoln that Yank's established as being around the city of Lincoln. I would also take issue with Lincoln's hostilities towards PUSA Nebraska - how strange for peaceful people to be so bitter at Scottsbluff for taking their "territory".--BrianD 23:44, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I can live with the hostilies being removed, but I remain firm on the Lincolnists. I will not remove Lincolnism from my article. I want them to be an actual religion, not a philosophy. What's the largest percentage of people who could be Lincolnist? And I will not accept 5% or lower.

Yankovic270 02:07, April 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yankovic, you're always doing that! "I will not accept less than..."... this isn't an auction! Brian, I still think that having one's civilization destroyed might lead people to unexpected devotional and cultic practices. This month's National Geographic has an article on the growth of the cult of Santa Muerte in Mexico. Now, most images of people worshipping Santa Muerte simply look... creepy to most people, but it is a real phenomenon that has been expanding rapidly in Mexico as social and economic conditions have taken a turn for the worse. Think of how much more psychologically and spiritually damaging the nuclear war must have been - on everyone in the world, but on Americans especially. That really is a dimension of this ATL that I think we haven't explored enough. Worshipping Abe Lincoln? Hardly implausible, especially for a people craving some piece of the USA to hold on to. If you ask me, Lincolnism ought to be the tip of the iceberg. Benkarnell 03:02, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ben. I still don't quite get it, but you've helped me understand this a bit more. Maybe the nuclear war made Lincolnists forsake their former faith in God, and Lincolnism filled in the gap? (I wonder what effect this is having on the Protestant and Catholic churches there?). And, I also wonder if there is a (small) humanist/atheist contingent that adopted the Lincolnist principles w/o embracing him as a deity. BrianD 03:09, April 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the Catholic Church in Mexico has repeatedly condemned Santa Muerte, and according to the article, they've persuaded the Mexican government to revoke her status as a recognized religion. Probably Lincoln has similar tensions.
 * Just as a general thing: I really do think that we have sometimes ignored the psychological side of things. When I look at North America, I'd expect most people over 25 to show some symptoms of depression and PTSD, for example. And this would have serious effects felt throughout society. It might help explain why Americans have been so unwilling to "pick up the pieces", and why Uyghurs and Manchurian Chinese were so nonchalant about the rump Soviet government taking over. Benkarnell 03:29, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * There probably are tensions, but in reading the article it seems as if the government accepts the new religion. The depression/PTSD discussion is worth a thread of its own. BrianD 03:34, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree Brian, depression/PTSD must be discussed in greater depth. However in regards to this article I can not drop my objections without a sharp reduction in Lincolnism, the end of great hostilities with the NAU over territory. Both sides should meet and determine a border and end this "viscous argument" as its called. GOPZACK 15:44, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to accept a reduction in Lincolnist ranks of 5%, but no more than that. As I said before I am perfectly fine with the hostilities being at least toned down to a minor dissagreement, if not completely eliminated.

Yankovic270 16:13, April 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * sigh*... If I may quote Ben "this isn't an auction!" 15% of the population is still too high Yank. This is a fringe religion that should be counted as a part of the "Unknown (14%)" area. GOPZACK 19:47, April 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am glad that someone gave a psycholgical reason for the religion of Lincolnism to exist. And Louis? Until now "group consensus" was that everyone was basically fine with Lincolnism. I don't know why it became an issue despite being given the green light from the community. By the way, Zack? The demoralizing effects of Doomsday are probbably strong enough to make people flock to the new religion.

Yankovic270 15:43, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to speak for Louis but I think he like me just missed the Licolnsim portion of the article. This seems to happen rather often as I've observed. As for flocking to a new religion I doubt they would make one up based on the worshiping of a former President. Some may but it would not be a major religion. --GOPZACK 20:46, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea of a Lincoln religion does not seem that crazy in light of the huge traumatic stress caused by Doomsday, but I also agree that 20% of the population adhering to it is going over the top. Most likely they are a small cult. Mitro 02:34, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree Mitro. --GOPZACK 19:45, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Hey Yank, making it a philosphy doesn't necessarily mean it can't also be a religion. Look at Buddhism. Its nontheistic, Buddha was a guy who did awesome stuff and should be emulated, and the whole religion is based on achieving the things Buddha did. Buddha isn't a god. Altering Lincolnism to make it a similarly nontheistic religion would make it more realistic and possibly more acceptible.Oerwinde 07:33, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Oer. Its nice to see that someone gets wanat I was trying to get across in Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln is an American Buddha in this timeline. Does that answer the naysayers questions?

Yankovic270 20:31, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. That still doesn't address why 20% of the population would follow it and as far as I can tell you have not altered the section on Lincolnism to conform with Oer's suggestion. Mitro 20:41, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Oerwinde's suggestion: make Lincolnism philosophical, not deistic. I have to side with Mitro on the percentages. BrianD 20:48, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still agree with Mitro 20% is to high whether it be a philosophical or deistic. GOPZACK 23:45, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Were making progress! Down to 10% still too high. If we are comparing this to Buddhism which represents about 0.7% of the population in America in OTL then 10% is still to large. I'm think more around 1% or 2% tops. Only 1% of the population in OTL Nebraska considers themselves "Other religions". --GOPZACK 19:47, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

WCRB Report on Transportation
A WCRB report on the situation of Transport infastructure across the world including details on AirshipsVegas adict 17:47, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

May I ask who marked this page obsolete, and for what purpose? Arstarpool 01:02, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was due to the "Plausibility Singularity" debate we recently had. HAD 15:24, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar, I'm afraid you didn't really get a chance to defend your creation. But I think consensus is that we're rapidly reaching the point (or have already reached the point) where any more nations in North America just keeps it from being true to the timeline. On its own, I think, nobody had any problems with the Commonwealth. But taken together, I think there was just too much near the West Coast. Benkarnell 15:37, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should graduate it quickly, and place some sort of block on building nations in the West Coast of the United States. It would be a shame to see an otherwise perfectly canonj-worthy nation go to waste.

Yankovic270 16:01, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for speedy graduation. Can we get a show in hands?

P.S:

Ben, when saying the short version of my username, it's said, Ars, not Arstar :) Arstarpool 23:11, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't graduate articles by vote. Furthermore I am with Ben, the west has gotten way to crowded and probably has fallen into the probability singularity. That being said maybe this article could be graduated if it is reconceived as one of the many city-states that ruled over Northern California and Southern Oregon, but managed to avoid coming under the jurisdiction of the MSP. Mitro 23:26, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know things aren't graduated by vote, but it would be better to see who would support this article becoming canon. And Mitro, the area is not as near to the MSP as seen by alot of you guys, and the location was changed several times to be sure that it could be made canon. Arstarpool 20:44, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think he means, shrink it down a bit so it's more of a single settlement, or a confederation of small settlements, rather than a modern republic. It could still call itself the Commonwealth of California. IMO North America ought to have a lot more "nations" that are governed at the local level, than modern territorial states. That's how my only contribution to the continent (the Yukon) works, along with the first North American survivor state we discovered (the MSP). Benkarnell 21:15, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the map the Commonwealth is at the southern border of the MSP, unless that is wrong. Mitro 00:02, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Confederate States of America
Intended mainly for historical purposes (although Toccoa is available for development, and I placed some small survivor towns along the Alabama/Tennessee/Mississippi border).BrianD 00:10, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

A small article associated with the article. --GOPZACK 20:08, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Zach, I clearly said on the Activity Feed page that I claimed the Muscle Shoals CSA:

Confederate States of America (1983: Doomsday) created by BrianD 20 hours ago Waynesboro is in the Muscle Shoals CSA. That said, if you can come up with a proposal for Waynesboro that works with what I come up with for this version of the CSA, I'll work it in...please keep in mind I came up with the proposal for these towns, and I've already made a claim on them for subsequent articles. BrianD 20:23, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm terribly sorry about that, I did not see the original post when it was created. I hope you don't take this article as a slap in the face but rather me failing to read the fine print. In any event I hope it can be incorporated somehow. --GOPZACK 20:34, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * De nada. Take a look at the Muscle SHoals CSA article below.BrianD 00:32, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm temporarily suspending work on this article until the framework for the "new" CSA is formed then me & Brain will work to make articles for the now independent city states of the CSA. --GOPZACK 19:43, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

CSA (Muscle Shoals version)

 * A proposal for a "good" Confederate States, having dissolved in 1999 due to political squabbles (not violent war or racism), and potentially set for a revival as they learn of the outside post-DD world around them. I hope I am understanding the states rights rationale correctly. BrianD 00:32, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a constitution for the country. BrianD 15:44, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done. Ready for approval or disapproval. Given the recent discussion of the timeline, and some of the premises behind the article (southern pride, restarting the Confederacy as a non-racist, democratic confederation of states in post-war America, politics leading to its dissolution), I am especially eager to hear feedback on this one. BrianD 15:51, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Vegas. Mitro 20:00, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 20:00, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to it being graduated? Any issues you may have will be dealt with. I just need to know what they are.

Yankovic270 01:25, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Jnjaycpa. Mitro 20:00, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Vegas. Mitro 20:00, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

and
Series of Cleveland related articles. Mitro 20:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

After a lot of discussion, article was finally created. Mitro 20:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking this could be similar to those timelines where after the Americans get independence, the USA promptly breaks up and the newly independent nations expand westwards. Similar idea here with the independent countries on the East coast and expanding westwards. Its just in the British Isles in a post-apocalyptic world not in America post-american revolution. Bob 11:03, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me although Woodbridge first intends to expand into Norfolk. If/when the OBN becomes canon it could get an entry in the Geopolitics article Verence71 11:21, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Vegas. Mitro 20:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Zack. Mitro 20:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm holding off on this one until North Florida is canonized. --GOPZACK 02:15, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstarpool. Mitro 20:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Dsiplaced holiday makers
Hi everyone, I am a perpetual traveller, currently living in my 4th year abroard (I am in Japan from Australia).

I have just made a proposal section about displaced holiday makers. It occurred to me that there would have been literally a few million people stranded very far from home. Invariably many would have perished on Doomsday, but a few would have survived - how would they have contributed to the new republics/city states etc? Would they try to go home? How would they react when they find that home no longer exists?

Some particular examples I was thinking of is a teacher abroad, on a school excursion say in Japan.

Or someone simply on holiday, say in Hawaii, Florida or Europe, but not near a major city and survives.

What you all think?


 * I have not been able to find the "proposal section" you mentioned. However, there is already a proposed article called American diaspora (1983: Doomsday). This is a place to place all those Americans stranded in foreign lands. I suppose other "diaspora" pages would be appropriate for any and all nations that have populations dispersed around the world, even if only temporarily, on Doomsday.


 * If they are in a bombed nation and survive, their story becomes personal. If they are abroad in a safe country, but find out they can't return (or at least not easily) they become part of the story of that nation and those places to which they can travel from there. Articles in this wiki do not have to be "encyclopedic," though most are. We need some personal journals and human interest stories about surviving Doomsday. SouthWriter 02:25, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I renamed it Displaced holiday travellers (1983: Doomsday). I just didn't think makers made sense. Mitro 02:39, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

South Carolina
I have started the South Carolina reference page. It is a place to place short descriptions of 1983 DD articles about the state. SouthWriter 02:00, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Ii found it SouthWriter, I borroed a bit from your page on the Piedmont Republic just to get it started will change latter if ya want. i just wanted to get some sections started. and to go offtopic 4 a bit all you airwolf fans check out the airwolf wikia i am working on. the link is on my talk page here. Wingman1 02:34, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

An article to document the Somali Civil WarVegas adict 21:02, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The vote from the poll above resulted in the war still being ongoing. Mitro 23:11, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Rheghed co-operative
Rheged (1983: Doomsday) a group of inter-trading independant survivor townships based in the former English county of Cumbria--Smoggy80 15:28, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a template page for the next generation of 'smaller, reasonable' nations that will probably ensue after the massive debate going on right now. I like the article. Fegaxeyl 15:24, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Empire State
My idea for a dictatorship in the former state of New York.

Yankovic270 02:59, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Can you link up to it Yank? --GOPZACK 23:50, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Give you an inch --- :-)

Is rural New York good soil for a dictatorship ??? SouthWriter 21:40, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Kansas
I am presently trying to build up the Provisional United States as it now stands. This is the start of the article on Kansas. SouthWriter 21:40, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Wyoming
And here is the article on Wyoming. I have not necessarily "adopted" the PUSA, but I have started these articles to allow others to fill in the gaps. SouthWriter 02:47, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Kootenai
Here is one of the "Hunkins' states." I decided to go with the "appease the natives" approach. The creation of the two states is designed to reduce the chances of another "Indian War" like that with the Lakota. --SouthWriter 23:33, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Absaroka
Here is the other Hunkins' state. This one involved relocating the "reservation" from near Billings to the border with the Republic of Lakota, but it was deemed necessary to assure peace with that nation. --SouthWriter 17:11, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to a quick graduation? --GOPZACK 19:48, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Northwest Alliance
A survivor state in the Canadian Northwest Territories. Will be fleshing it out over the next few days. --Lordganon 3:13, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think that may just about do it. Thoughts? --Lordganon 00:28, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

A small article on a city state set in Hugo, Oklahoma. I believe small communities like this will be the only "new" survivor states found in North America. --GOPZACK 20:10, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * The incompetence of the WCRB, or to be fair, the inadequacy of the WCRB, might be "finding" North American towns for a long time. We need to take a good look at those FEMA maps, discount the tertiary targets, and see what we've missed. The Dakotas were surely neglected for quite a while. Lower Minnesota (south of the Missouri) could easily survive along with northern Iowa. There is some hope for Northern California outside of the MSP. I think that most of Oklahoma is salvagable, and not as little isolated "states" (By the way, why does "Hugo" get a whole county, while Broken Bow is relegated to the district around the lake by the same name?) - It's bed time -- if I'm getting up for Bible Study in the morning! SouthWriter 05:04, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you South, I'm going to revise the map so Broken Bow has the whole county. --GOPZACK 17:32, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

: Your Opinion?
what do you think about it? please do not lie, be honest. BlackSkyEmpire

Really? Socialism in Georgia? Thats as realistic as a secular Iran or something. It's not a sensible or plausible idea.HAD 18:28, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

A state based around my home county of sussex and the Isle of WightVegas adict 18:04, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to graduation?Vegas adict 17:29, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I support it being graduated but I think we should hold off until we sort out the future of this TL. --GOPZACK 22:22, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

A newly discovered city state in central Germany.Oerwinde 06:40, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Union of Rickadanian Communist Republics
Can I create a nation about the size of, say Moscow times 3 called the URCR (Union of Rickadanian Communist Republics)? (Thanks in advance) Killerz505

Gott im Himmel! I am getting flashbacks of the so-called "Empire of Greater Germania". I don't want to ruin your day, "Killerz505", but this proposal seems too implausible to be possible. I don't even need to read an article to know that.

Yankovic270 19:50, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast Yank, He said 3 times the size of Moscow, not 3 times the size of Russia. Thats not implausible, the question is where would this nation be and how could a nation 3 times the size of a city be a union of multiple republics. Don't be shooting down ideas out of hand.Oerwinde 09:16, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Oer. Where on earth is Ricadania or whatever anyway? Thats not a particularly Russian name. At all.HAD 16:45, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Sport in the British Isles
Just a thought about proposed sporting competitions between various British survivor states Verence71 19:56, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia
Another nation I wrote about in Southeast Asia. Post-DD history is for anyone to fill in, because I don't want to contradict anyone's plan for the nation. --Yankovic270 23:55, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

My proposal for the island nation of Maldives --GOPZACK 19:35, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

''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.''

Original Author Update
First off again, I'd like to say how proud I am to have been the inspiration for this monumental series on my althist. It's really amazing, given I did nothing more than extrapolate a bit based on what happened with Colonel Petrov. It's really amazing how that incident and "how things might have gone" has inspired so much great work and imagination from so many people. I'm glad to have "gotten the ball rolling" so many years ago.

That said, one thing I do find disturbing about all the Post-Doomsday articles and elements....a rather optimistic view of how things turned out the post-holocaust years. The rise of viable, even militarily strong American nation-states...as well as a "Well, wasn't that inconvenient?" attitude about the impact of a nuclear war on the world.

People, such an event would have been catastrophic to humanity. Setting aside America being knocked back to a population level LOWER than what it was before Columbus arrived...and the ensuing lack of agriculture and rise of diseases not seen since the 1600s....the effect on the rest of the world, even the Southern Hemisphere would have been tremendous. Even by 1983, the world was fairly "inter-connected"...the loss of American, Soviet, European, and Japanese industries would have crippled Australia and South America's engineering, construxtion, medical supplies, and more importantly...food production.

I'm sorry, but all this "Mad Max" meets "New World Order based in Canberra" stuff is EXTREMELY rose-colored glasses. The world would be knocked back in time CENTURIES in terms of economics and technology and political organization.

Sorry....just my opinion for what it's worth. 12.169.202.130 18:23, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Before I address the merits of your argument I have to ask: how do we know you were the original creator? Considering that I already had to deal with one person falsely claiming to be the creator and your IP address does not match with the one the original creator used, I hope you can understand why I am skeptical. Mitro 19:24, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear this as well. BrianD 21:42, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly can understand scepticism. Please check my IP address. There is also discussion on previous Doomsday Talk pages dating back to the original posting of it in 2007. Happy to have the webmaster confirm that.12.169.202.130 17:45, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I do not quite understand what you are asking me to do to confirm you are the creator. The original creator used the 70.150.208.34 ip address which is obviously not the one you are using now. Since this is a wiki there is no webmaster (and if there was one I doubt even they could be of help) to confirm that these two seperate addresses are used by the same person. To tell you the truth I am inclined to believe you are the original creator, based on a comparison of edits, but there is no hard evidence to connect both addresses to the same person. Mitro 18:06, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, home vs office....try this IP97.82.131.34 02:00, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Otherwise I don't know how to prove it. Suffice it to say that I heard about Stanislav Petrov on a news magazine show in 2007ish and thought it would make a good althist, using a combo of "The Day After" and a little "On the Beach" (though I noted in my discussion, that it was no rip-off of OTB, but simply logical that Australia would pull through.).


 * Well, I certainly don't see any reason not to believe you... are you interested in joining our collaboration more fully? If you're concerned with where your creation has gone, you'd be better able to change things if you were actively involved. You could even get yourself a username so we had something to call you... Benkarnell 15:27, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Deus Ex Machina sound good for this guy?HAD 17:10, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have an account...just never log in. This is me. Gblack61 19:33, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I have a problem with the extrapolation of "Doomsday"...it's just too optimistic. You've got a "League of Nations" and a world in the Southern Hemisphere back to practically 1980s economic and political levels only 20-25 years after nuclea holocaust. Plus some of these "American republics"...which would take CENTURIES to re-form, given the ecological damage and collapse of civilization.Gblack61 19:33, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is that if you are the original creator (Which i will asume for the purposes of the conversations) you never stated how badly the world was nuked. This isn't fallout where every city in the world was nuked, it was a series of co-ordinated military strikes. However i do feel that you have a point with the american republics, certainly in america which would have been the USSR's main target there was no chance of things reaching a stable level. If this was inteaded to be a timeline in which the world was ment to be nuked back to the stone age then you should have made it clearer and i'm sorry if we'v interpreted it wronglyVegas adict 19:57, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, But QSS/QAA (is it that way round?) makes that impossible to change.HAD 20:07, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, But QSS/QAA (is it that way round?) makes that impossible to change.HAD 20:07, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

NAU Treaty?
Do we have/should we develop a page for the North American Union Treaty? Louisiannan 20:31, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I never actually thought what the treaty would look like, but after seeing South's version of the PUSA constitution I think we should consider what the Treaty would read like. Mitro 21:07, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Might this be of use? Louisiannan 22:25, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Disregard for the Cooperative Nature of the Timeline
More and more it seems to me that contributors to this timeline are taking a "this is mine, screw you and your suggestions" attitude. If this is how the timeline is developing, I'm just about ready to pull out. This doesn't jive with QSS and QAA - and I don't want any part of it if that's where we're heading. Louisiannan 19:57, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Louis what exactly has happened that makes you think this way? Mitro 20:09, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * The debacle between me and Fxgentleman about Utah and Sierra Nevada, the snit between GOPZack and Black Sky Empire about creating the "Socialist States of Georgia", the whole issue of Superior and its 100,000 man army, and so on. It just seems to be getting worse - everyone's carving out their own little sphere of influence and giving the finger (or two if you're British) to those who have any sort of comment on the subject to the contrary of the author's imagining. It was all I could do to stop myself from destroying Utah under a massive earthquake and subsequent flood of radioactive water, and France capitulating to a sneak attack of the Sicilians for the last few days. Louisiannan 22:11, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear Louisianan feels our current disagreement over the eastern border between the SNU and Utah is a disaster. I have been patiently waiting since the request was made for mediation and had not said anything further since. I realize I have only been a contributor since last September, but I have always done my best to conduct myself in accordance with the decorum of the room and I believe my writings support that. As to our difference of opinion, I have already laid out my arguments on the SNU discussion page in a logical manner. I must confess surprise when another writer implies I am being uncooperative and trying to subvert canon history to ensure the storyline I envision. Especially, given I read said relevant articles before penning my own and did not find any written reference to the history I am informed I am not adhering to. As I have stated before, if I have missed something, please show me where it is and I will do my best to try and adjust my article. Having said this, I don't know what more to say in response. --Fxgentleman 22:58, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

I to am sorry Louis that me and Black Sky Empire's disagreement over the viability of socialism in Georgia has been a contributing factor in making you feel this way. With that said I am baffled that a discussion about socialism in Georgia would make you feel the way you do. I do not have object to the idea of a city state of some kind in Georgia its the embrace of socialism and communism, (the ideology of the nation that destroyed them) that troubles me. There are a few other sections in the article itself I would object to but I would hardly call that giving the finger. After all we do ask before an article is graduated something along the lines of "Any objections to graduation?" You have raised objections, I have raised objections and I'd hardly call 95% of these debates "snits" or "debacles" or "giving the finger". --GOPZACK 23:27, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Louis and Fx, I have started a discussion near the top of this page about your dispute over the borders of Utah and SN. I feel that bringing this to the group's attention and letting them decide is the proper way to resolve your dispute.
 * That being said, there are a few comments I wish to make regarding what Louis has said. One of the reasons I prefer this wiki in discussing alternate history instead of the larger forum of AH.com, is that I like the way people treat each other here. Generally there is an atmosphere of cooperation, probably brought upon by the nature of "anyone can edit" idea that is inherit in any wiki. This cooperation has attractted people who are more likely to be polite and respectful of others when disagreements and dispute arise.
 * Recently I too have felt that this has not been the case. I hate to bring up my pet theory, but this probably is the result of the inevitable plausibilty singularity, especially in regards to North America. As more nations are entered into canon, arguments over implausibility/plausibility or the TL being a dystopia become more heated.
 * This brings me to my next point, which is that I feel that the TL has become to optimistic. Correct me if I am wrong Louis, but I think this fear was also present in your comments (especially in regards to your comment about Superior's military). Part of this may be that people are inadvertedly treating the TL as an RPG and want their pet nation to be as strong as possible, even if it means stepping over the limits of plausibility. I first noticed this when discussion of the Saguenay War was still popular. It seemed that everyone wanted their nation to be involved in it, without even considering whether it was plausible.
 * That probably is not the only reason, however, that has caused this problem. I think Ben put it best when he said that we are no longer looking at the TL as whole when we graduate individual articles. We spend so much time trying to make sure each individual article is perfect that we don't stop to think whether it fits into the general themes of the TL itself. We now have someone claiming to be the creator of this TL saying that it is to optimistic, and though the jury is still out on whether he/she really is the creator, a comparison of their writing styles makes me feel that he/she may be telling the truth.
 * I have no substantive suggestions to make to correct some of these issues. Since I am going to be gone most of the summer I realize I won't be much help. The only thing I can suggest is that we remember the cooperative nature of this TL and work as a group to discuss our issues. Since this project owes alot to its "parent" the Ill Bethisad project, I reccomend checking out the The June Revolt article, which shows that every issue that arises in a project can be solved by group discussion and consensus. Mitro 17:26, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at that June Revolt artical actualy shows me how things can go badly wrong in a colabarative project. The best thing about 1983 Doomsday is that anyone can come along and make an artical about somthing, Im my opinion the main problem is this obsesion with creating things neer where you live or in the same country. To me part of the chalange of writing an AltHist (Or Artical for one) is going out and researching what your writing about, I had only visited Ethiopia once and had never visited Eritrea, Somalia or Sudan and to me that makes an AltHist more fun.Vegas adict 18:43, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, all. I have more-or-less been on the sidelines the last two to three weeks, largely because I wanted to form my thoughts as this "crisis" began to brew. I told Louisianan via e-mail that I'd get involved in the Sierra Nevada dispute but never did, and I apoligize for that. It's pretty clear this project is at a major juncture, and there are a whole lot of factors pulling it in different directions. To wit:


 * Firstly, everyone should read MeatballWiki's short page "Crossing the Tipping Point", which describes a moment of crisis in a community in which oldtimers and newcomers are at odds over the future of the project. This happens to all communities that reach A Certain Size, both online and in Real Life. And note that while that page appears to be a decade old, nobody has been able to give a good solution to the problem. Ill Bethisad decided to go with "HardSecurity" - its Wiki has not been open to the public since the "Revolt". And clearly, it's less chaotic, less busy, and people are more able to take time to get things right, rather than try keeping up with constant growth. On the other hand, it's a lot less lively than it once was, and there are lots of areas that probably need work, but have lain untouched for several years.


 * Here, there is a clear "generational" conflict between (roughly) 2008-9ers and 2009-10ers. The 8-9ers, broadly, do not like seeing the formerly barren world of 83DD fill up with thriving, verdant states. As the third or fourth contributor to this project, and as somebody who still wishes Prussia and the new USSR were not so big, I'm clearly in that camp myself. The 9-10ers, meanwhile, are fine seeing new states in just about any place not actually inside a blast zone. We have different ideas on not only what is possible for 83DD, but also on what is desirable. It's a fundamental disagreement, and you can see it toward the bottom of, where SouthWriter razzes me a little for being so gloom-and-doom.


 * Both the 8-9ers and the 9-10ers have truly legitimate feelings and motivations. We who joined early had a completely blank slate with which to work. You who came later wanted the same creative freedom. In a sense it's not fair that a democratic republic in one random corner of the US (say, Upper Michigan) would be accepted easily, while a republic in another random corner (say, Nevada) would be slammed by the Establishment, simply because one of them came along first. And once a new page is created, it's very hard to say no to somebody who has put a lot of work into their creation. I have to admit that my first inclination upon seeing the Sierra Nevada page was to say, "No way, it's empty woods and deserts" - but seeing just how much time and energy FXG had put into it made me back away without saying anything.


 * In the other direction, we early writers naturally feel upset when things we created are called into question. A month or so ago someone floated the idea of de-canonizing my Panama Canal page, and I admit I became positively pissy about it. But it's not just our words that we feel protective of - it's also our unwritten assumptions and ideas about the shape of the 83DD world. The self-identified creator above expressed dismay at the high populations of the US and Europe not necessarily becasue they contradict his/her original words exactly, but because they are so contrary to his/her underlying concept for the setting. The US was originally described as a wasteland, and we've had to add a whole lot of "except for"s to that description.


 * Showing my own bias, I'll echo Vegas's concern about a "hometown syndrome" affecting some of the newer pages: everyone wants his or her own backyard to be part of a happy, stable community. But I think our conflicts are much deeper than that, see above.


 * I think we, as a collective, have done our best to try and keep up with 83DD's growth. We started the system of formal proposals quite early as a way of putting up an additional gate before adding something to the project officially. But a look at our enormous backlog shows that even this system is no longer ideal. I mean, I haven't read most of the pages on that list. Have you?


 * So what now? We have put a number of possible solutions out there, none of them very pleasant. Louisianan has said he considered dropping from the project and taking his creations with him. Mitro's much-discussed postulation of a "plausibility singularity" was an attempt to slow down or stop growth... one that IMO would never succeed because we'd still have a proposal for a new American republic every two days, only this time we'd respond to each with "Plausibility Singularity, goodbye", making both the newcomers and ourselves rather upset. I don't think any of us joined up so we could slam newcomers with barrages of pentasyllabic words, all the while sitting on the proverbial front porches of our own creations ready to shoot anyone who comes too close.


 * Another solution often proposed would be to pick up and move to a different site where traffic would be lower and we could take time to sort through the TL a little better. I have a feeling that we would lose a large part of our contributors if that happened. I was part of an alt-history project that relocated (twice), and it died pretty fast after the relocation. Notice that nobody's done a thing since March, and even then we were down to maybe five users from an original group of a few dozen.


 * So I really don't know where we should go from here. 1983DD, as it is, is definitely not what anyone wants. "We" wish the newer re[publics would wither up and go back to being lawless wasteland, and "You" wish "We" would stop hampering your creativity with constant whining about refugees and bandits and infrastructure. I honestly can't think of how to resolve the impasse. I just hope we can come up with something better when we're done - and do it without getting emotional about it.


 * Sincerely, Benkarnell 16:33, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have observed this conversation, and several others, and have interacted (and been questioned by) members of both camps! This project is beginning to be frustrating, in regards to the two camps that Ben has so well defined beginning to conflict with one another, and trying to keep both in mind while creating articles.
 * It's also frustrating when you call for feedback, and one camp responds and you hear next-to-nothing from another camp. So when I create, say, the former CSA as a country that fell apart in the late '90s due to political squabbling, and the latter camp is enthusiastic, and I hear nothing from the veterans, I'm thinking 'when is the shoe going to drop' or 'hey, the vets don't really care, or this is fine with them'. Then the shoe drops, and you have people saying we've gone too far and been too optimistic. I probably went too far in the optimistic direction, rewriting Texas after SouthWriter said the two Texases should have reunited in the mid-90s...and now I've put Texas on pause because I'm not sure if that really fits the vision of the timeline or if it's gone too far. And while I would love to get feedback on the various Texases and the CSA and other articles I've created, I'm not sure if doing anything more is even worth it until all this is resolved. I might change my mind tomorrow and work on more articles, but my frustration will still be there.
 * This is something that may be served by having one person, or one group of people, clearly define the guidelines. Because if you go with group consensus, I'm afraid there never will be consensus. It's hard enough as is, especially since the originator nor the early editors ever laid specific guidelines beyond 'everything in Europe and the USSR and the US is desolate'. I'm not sure what the answer is...maybe we should split the timeline? With one timeline going back to the original vision, and another a less severe version of it? One with a balkanized North America with a militaristic Virginia on one side and an outlaw groups of city states overseen by the ANZC and SAC on another - and another timeline with 3,000 miles of dead cannibals and radioactive dead zones between the MSP and the Atlantic.--BrianD 17:23, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Forking and nominating "benevolent dictators" are other suggestions in the Meatball Wiki article, and I don't think either is very satisfactory. Forking the project would firstly be a very drastic move that can't but end in mutual resentment. And secondly, it would be horrendously artificial, since it would be quite clear that both forks diverged from the same world. Would people be allowed to participate in both? No, there are a lot of reasons why forking the project would not go well.
 * In theory, we appointed some leaders a long time ago. I'm one, and so is Mitro. But newcomers naturally question why certain people get official rights, and in the end there's either a return to consensus, or the imposition of harsher, most un-wiki-like leadership - something that runs counter to both me and Mitro's style, certainly.
 * The best thing might be a mandatory pause - no new ideas until we get some serious things sorted out. There must be a way to forge consensus on, for example, the population and industrial capacity of affected areas. If we can nail down some of those parameters, we can be much stricter in enforcing the rule of QSS - if it's written, abide by it. If we had followed that from the beginning there would be less talk about "Why did the explorers miss so much when they wrote their reports" and so on. Benkarnell 17:37, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

If I may clarify my pet theory, the “plausibility singularity” was never meant to be a solution to some of the issues affecting the community, though it appears to have evolved that way. Originally it was just a prediction of an upcoming event where more articles would be marked as obsolete instead of being graduated due to conflicts with canon and plausibility. Now the term is used, and I am partially at fault, as an excuse to mark an article as obsolete because some people feel it contradicts the assumptions of the TL. Again that was never my intention, but it has happened and I apologize.

Brian, if I may address your comments, I do not thinking splitting the TL is the right thing to do. For one thing it will hurt both communities and would no doubt lead to bad blood between everyone. IMO, we need to be uniting the factions, not separating them if we want to keep this TL alive. I also want to say that the veterans don’t feel that the former US should be empty. We always assumed that there were nations and communities that might have formed out of the old US (and Canada for that matter), but no one had written about them yet. I think our greatest concern is there just too many of them now, especially ones that are highly advanced, to be plausible.

In the spirit of brainstorming, where any wild idea can be heard, I do have a suggestion that might solve the issues between the factions. I think every canon article should be considered “under review” by the community. With a process that might take months, the members of the community will review each and every canon article and revise and update them. Though canon will be respected, it will be viewed as being more flexible in the spirit of cooperation. This will allow the 8-9ers to prune or remove elements of the TL they find to be too optimistic, while allowing 09-10ers the chance to prune or remove elements they find to be overly pessimistic. As the discussion continues, the Timeline itself will be rebuilt from the ground up and be the main point of canon. Through discussion both sides can build and revise the themes of the TL (such as the status of the infrastructure in targeted states, affect of EMPs, population levels, etc.), making them acceptable to everyone. Meanwhile the Editorial Guidelines will be revised during this when issues come up. Of course during this time all current and new proposals will remain proposals until the majority of the canon articles have been removed.

A major problem I forsee with this suggestion is that no ones wants to see their hard work torn to pieces by others. During the reviews, people may become upset by how their work is being treated and leave, or get revenge by being unnecessarily judgmental when someone else’s article is being reviewed.

Also the most important element of this TL that keeps us here and attracts new people is that it is fun. Reviewing each and every article and arguing with other editors instead of creating new content might quickly turn into work and cause people to leave, or repulse new contributors.

Anyway, this is just a suggestion. Mitro 18:00, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Typical. I go on holiday for a weekend and civil war looms :p. More seriously, i agree with Mitros proposals on reveiwing all are articles and bringing those that are not up to our standards and/or inplausible in for editting.HAD 18:20, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ben & Mitro, splitting the TL is not the way to go at least for now. As for this review I'm not sure whether such a thing is a good idea. We are already fractured as it is and to go through each article in such a fashion would only create more fighting and bad blood. I know Mitro you mentioned this already but I just want to echo your concerns. So far none of these options so far are desierable. Such a review would lead to as HAD put it, a civil war. GOPZACK 18:42, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a a 09-10er this discussion seems to be getting a bit too heavy for something that was meant to be fun Verence71 18:47, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly didn't mean to create rigid categories within our community, only to try and define the problems that have been lurking here and there. I think that most people aren't totally happy with where we're at, and what we need is a way to get back on track, so to speak. Benkarnell 19:04, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that and I realise that my article on Woodbridge could be percieved as a bit optimistic and I'd have no objection to having it put under review. It wouldn't take that long as as it is fairly basic compared to some of the detail on other articles. I think your idea of a moratorium on new articles is probably the best way to go for now. Verence71 19:15, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to do anything to divide or bring more bad blood into the community. The dividing idea was one thought to please both sides, to give them opportunities to create. Collaboration and discussion would be beneficial, as would remembering that no one here is an evil ogre bent on destroying your hard work. We're all human beings, who have different ideas. We won't agree on everything but together, perhaps, we can come up with some really great concepts. BrianD 19:22, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may, I'd just like to give my two cents on this issue. I am the creator of much of what is being written about Siberia and of course I am not going to pretend that there hasn't been some disagreement on the entire article and maybe that is my fault. I'm pretty certain that there will come a day when there will be some sort of revision of the country, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
 * However, I do feel the main source of arguments has been North America. FYI, I have been on this wiki for quite some time, but mostly in the form of a reader and I have enjoyed all of the work done to it before I arrived. But just around the time I started contributing there has been a tidal wave of new articles, mostly in America, which I haven't hade a chance to read, even though I'd really like to. It's only natural that with 90% of the contributors of this TL being from either the US or the UK that this trend would arise. Thus, I believe that it would be best if some sort of project to revise some aspects of the TL started in North America. I admire everyones work and mean to disrespect no one, but since most work that could possibly conflict with the TL is in America, it is only logical to start there. Then we can move on to Europe and Asia and anywhere else that the nukes would have fallen.--Vladivostok 19:23, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest a qualifier: No new nations until futher notice.We should, until such a time as is deemed appropriate, focus on more specific issues, such as updating maps and images, Creating pages on things like the "Soviet Armed Forces" for example, updating pages like "Science and Technology" and on finally deciding on a plausible and sensible conclusion to the 2nd Scilly War and the Sangueny War. I also believe we should NOT split the timeline from the wiki, or in any shape or form. And their are still Nations from the very beginnings of this timeline that need updating, finishing or even beginning, the Alpine Confederation being a prime example, Transylvania being anotherHAD 19:30, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think instead we should say no new proposals for nations and try to finish looking at all of the curent proposals carefully. Also Ben i don't think the Backyard Syndrome (As i call it) is a new thing. People will allways try to make things neer where they live before looking further afieldVegas adict 20:32, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the most recent posts, I have come up with a new proposal that I think includes the suggestions that have been made:


 * All proposals on new nations carved out of the former United States or new article proposals dealing specifically with a current former US survivor states are to be put on hold. This will allow people to continue to create new articles that do not have anything to do with the former United States. Also we should still be able to move to make articles obsolete, even ones dealing with the US, because we should not allow unacceptable articles to remain with the other proposals for long periods of time.


 * All current national profiles for nations carved out of the former US, and any article(s) specifically related to them (i.e. List of Presidents of…) should be considered under review as per the Editorial Guidelines. They will be welcomed back into canon or removed from canon once the members of the community have a chance to weigh in on them.


 * While no other national profiles will be under review, editors are highly encouraged to bring up any other nations for review to resolve any lingering disputes that might still be simmering under the surface.

I also would like to make two new proposals that might be somewhat controversial:


 * The creation of a Nation Guidelines (1983: Doomsday) article. This article will supplement the current Editorial Guidelines and will act as a general checklist for graduating any new nation. It will be built by the community after discussion of various elements that usually cause contention among members (such as territorial size, population size, surviving infrastructure, energy concerns, etc.). Since the world is varied these guidelines would need to be general, but hopefully it could be used to preserve the overriding themes of the timeline.


 * A new rule to the Editorial Guidelines that bars editors from creating nations that encompass their hometown. This will hopefully prevent the “Backyard Syndrome” which might cause some editors to create nations that are not plausible because they tend to have everything go right for their nation. This does not prevent, however, these editors from working on articles that encompass their hometown that were created by others or teaming up with another editor in creating a nation that encompasses their hometown. Thus their expertise in the area can still be used while the other editor(s) will provide a safeguard for over-optimistic articles.

Thoughts, concerns, comments? Mitro 21:04, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything except for the view of all American survivor nations and their associate articles. That would just further divide and disillusion contributors, present and future.


 * As for the "Nation Guidelines" I need to see that in more detail before I decide whether I'm for or against it. I love the idea of a ban on the so called "Backyard Syndrome" and I believe Mitro (If it was someone else I apologize), you had an idea that the WCRB would issue a report stating something to the extent of "No new North American survivor nations are expected to be found" thus closing the gate on large survivor nations while at the same tim keeping the dorr open to small city states and farm communities. I agree we have to cap the growing number of large establish survivor nations (hence why I now oppose the Indiana article). GOPZACK 23:54, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

When I chose to become a contributor, the last thing I envisioned was ending up in heated arguments with anyone. As I believe I stated to Louisianan, I am by nature analytical, which basically means I research, contemplate, and research some more long before I chose to write to see if my idea has merit or feasibility. I work in an atmosphere where this is an intricate part of how my colleagues and I perform our jobs. We debate our thoughts on a given assignment and make changes accordingly as a result of this interaction. I guess I tend to forget not everyone is like that. Even though I enjoy althistory, I have been disappointed at many of the stories I have seen on both the web and in print which included some fairly farfetched divergences and stories. I decided to join here after reading the site for 6 months because of what I saw as a genuine effort by writers and managers to ground these articles in reality.

I try my best to make sure what I write makes sense. I have never thought my articles were upbeat, such as saying 60% of a state died. I think Mitro made an excellent point sometime ago in that it becomes overwhelming at times when you stop and realize you are mapping out how people, albeit fictional, perished. It tends to get to me, especially since I was living outside of Washington in 1983. I have noted with some surprise though over the past months how some articles have become a walk on the far side of reality. There are just some parts of the world I would not have logically seen the war as leaving survivors, let alone being able to sustain a nation. Yet, I have continued to see nations pop up in these areas regularly. Another subject which I have found fascinating, has been the restoration of factories, electricity, telephones, TV stations, and even cinema in some regions at what struck me was an amazing pace. Heck, I am still trying to figure out how the loss of electricity would affect water and sewage treatment and if the telegraph would be better replacement for phones. I realize these are just my thoughts, so I am not saying I am right or wrong. I have made it a personal policy of mine to not change other writers article's, but to offer suggestions.

All of us, whether old or new contributors, have spent a great deal of time and effort in trying to write our articles and flesh out this ATL. Even though I am having a disagreement with Louisianan at the moment, I still think his article on Utah is pretty good. It would be a shame and a disservice to everyone's hard efforts if some kind of consensus could not be reached. Even though I put a lot of effort into my articles, I have no problem with someone's honest thoughts on what I have written. All I ask is if they feel there is a genuine concern over what I have written, they show me the civility of explaining what they feel the problem is and allow me to present my thoughts in rebuttal. If need be, I am not adverse to making changes if someone can show me my error logically. Hey, lets face it, none of us are perfect.--Fxgentleman 02:33, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

In principle I agree with trying to deal with the Backyard Syndrome even if it would cause me some problems. My home village is now part of Woodbridge so if I were to ret-con things so a plane crashed on the village on Doomsday causing massive damage and forcing the village to be evacuated would that be acceptable?? Verence71 09:08, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two reasons people write Backyard Syndrome articles. One is that they would like to see their hometown surviving and preferably doing well. But there is another reason for creating 'hometown states' - you have a far better idea at how people will react. I could write an article about some central African survivor nation if I wished, but I have no idea how they would have reacted to Doomsday, and if I don't know that I can't be as realistic as I would like. I wrote about Essex mostly because I know pretty well how people would have reacted and coped, even if it did turn out fairly optimistic.

By the sound of some of the arguments here we want the entire world outside of a precious few nations to be doom, gloom and cannibals. That's cool, but not very realistic: OTL Africa isn't all poverty and poachers; there are pockets of wealth, and liberty, and happiness, despite what all the charity adverts might tell you. If we're taking the approach of 'everything north of the equator is glow-in-the-dark wasteland' then I think we're being less realistic than we should be. People will survive, and people will build nations, some good and some bad. If I have any opposition at all to the number of survivor states we have it's only that we have a lot of 'Republic of...' countries. Fegaxeyl 09:30, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying "doom, gloom and cannibals" is over simplifying the other side's argument. Myself and others have never claimed that the entire world would be a scene from Road Warrior. I think Fx summed it up best that there are contributors on this site who feel that recent creations are on the "far side of reality." Nations are gaining abilities and tech with no explanation of how it is possible. We are not trying to turn the whole world into a post-apocalyptoic wasteland, I don't think anyone has ever assumed that Africa is nothing but "poverty and poachers," but we do believe however that places that were hit hardest on doomsday would not [EDIT] always be [EDIT] places of wealth, liberty and happiness. I really am starting to feel that this is the major issue between the two sides. Everyone is making assumptions about what everyone else wants and no one has asked them personally what their opinion is. It really is frustrating to have to constantly say "No, I never said that." Mitro 13:16, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * My main point, I guess, would be that liberty and happiness can certainly exist without wealth and technology. When you nuke a country "back to the stone age", the "cavemen" left behind might well be capable of governing themselves. But the loss of the modern infrastructure means they'll be doing it very differently than before. That's the basis of my Yukon contribution, anyhow. It's stable, free, and functional, but also very empty, primitive, and mostly wilderness. Population, a constant sticking point, should be based on the carrying capacity of the land itself - which, in our often-synthetic world, often has little to do with the current population *here*. Benkarnell 19:45, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point Ben. Mitro 19:50, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * The oversimplifying is deliberate, I should point out, though it was implied somewhere further up that at one point there were 'three thousand miles of dead cannibals between the MSP and the West Coast', which I picked up on. But this debate has made me feel a bit guilty about what I've already written... I'll go and shave off some optimism. (And I should stress I mean nothing with the "poverty and poachers" statement. I know it's not true, everyone else knows it's not true, but it was the snappiest statement I could think of to sum up what I thought was the 08/09ers' black-and-white view of the 1983:DD world.) Fegaxeyl 20:11, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is the problem I was just talking about. You are assuming some editors have a black and white view of the world without any evidence to back it up. Assumptions like those aren't helpful when it comes to discussing these issues, That "three thousand miles of dead cannibals between the MSP and the West Coast" never existed and I do not believe there is a single person campaigning for it now. When I originally joined this TL, yes the MSP was the only nation that existed in the former US, but that was because NO ONE had written anything yet. Here is one of the earliest discussion of American survivor states besides the MSP, dated April 2009. If this does not convince you the older members do not have a black and white view of the TL, than I do not know what will. Mitro 21:01, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, upon reading over some of the new comments, here is my updated proposal:
 * All proposals on new nations carved out of the former United States are to be presumed to be implausible, unless creating editors makes an exceptionally good argument and gets strong support from the community. Rule will probably be stated in the Editorial Guidelines.
 * Editors are highly encouraged to bring up any nation articles for review to resolve any lingering disputes that might still be simmering under the surface. A call to do so will go out eventually.
 * The creation of a Nation Guidelines (1983: Doomsday) article. This article will supplement the current Editorial Guidelines and will act as a general checklist for graduating any new nation. It will be built by the community after discussion of various elements that usually cause contention among members (such as territorial size, population size, surviving infrastructure, energy concerns, etc.). Since the world is varied these guidelines would need to be general, but hopefully it could be used to preserve the overriding themes of the timeline.
 * A new rule to the Editorial Guidelines that bars editors from creating nations that encompass their hometown. This will hopefully prevent the “Backyard Syndrome” which might cause some editors to create nations that are not plausible because they tend to have everything go right for their nation. This does not prevent, however, these editors from working on articles that encompass their hometown that were created by others or teaming up with another editor in creating a nation that encompasses their hometown. Thus their expertise in the area can still be used while the other editor(s) will provide a safeguard for over-optimistic articles. Editors who have already created nations encompassing their hometowns will not be affected by this new rule.

As you can see I removed my original suggestion of putting all American nations under review. Though I know some people fear this could lead to bad blood, I feel that unless we do some sort of review over the articles that are causing the most issues than we will be back to this point very soon. That being said people could just use the current review process already stated in the Editorial Guidelines, but I thought that most people would be hesitant to do so because of the fear of angering creators. That is why I originally suggested every article so all the editors who created an American survivor state (including myself) would be affected by the same rule.

One more thing. This discussion began not just due to the optimism vs. pessimism debate, but also because one editor felt that people are not as respectful to each other as they used to be. I have no suggestions on how to change that, other than to request that people make a greater effort to be respectful to each other when discussing our creations. Mitro 21:31, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * That archive's kind of funny in that almost all of those ideas have come to be in one form or another. Except for Quincy... may need to get on that ... ;). An "Avoid Your Hometown" rule is incredibly harsh. As FXG points out, it actually makes some sense to work on an area you are familiar with. And that need not result in implausible "wanking", as Marc's Saugenay might help illustrate. (Marc, or at least his family, comes from that area originally, though I know he doesn't live there anymore.) Carlos' early work on Colombia also shows that a local resident can bring a unique voice to an area. Maybe just a guideline saying, "The purpose of 1983DD is not to transform your hometown into the bright center of civilization. Chances are that the place you live is no better or worse off than its immediate neighbors. Keep that in mind as you develop it." Something like that. Benkarnell 21:52, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I support Ben's idea for the "Avoid Your Hometown". As for the rest of what Mitro said I generally support it. I would just like to clarify one element to the ban on new American survivor "nations". When you say "nations" does that include small farming communities and minor city states or just large nations like the PUSA, Kentucky, Virginia, etc?


 * As for respect the best I think we can do is to issue a resolution calling on all contributors regardless of how long they have been contributing to be treated equally,fairly and with respect. This keeps new contributors from bullying the older ons and visa versa. GOPZACK 22:26, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's disrespect in that sense. Louisianan meant (I think) that he felt his work was not being respected - that newer members were either disregarding older material, or pushing for it to be changed. 69.246.210.209 23:22, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ben: Yeah it is kind of funny how so many of my original suggestions were turned into articles at some point. Two were created by me, two were team ups with another editor and three were created completely by someone else. As for your suggestion of the hometown rule, yeah that might be the better option, especially in the tips section of the guidelines.
 * @Zack: Yes I include small communities as well for two reasons: 1) there might acctually still be room for one or two more "large" states and we just can't see it yet and it would be unfair to arbitarily deny it and 2) we should not asume the size of the survivor state always affects its plausibility. I went to college in Peoria, IL. It was a mid-cized city in the middle of rural central IL. It had two large hospitals that pretty much served the entire region. Both had helicopters that would fly out to distant rural communities and bring back patients. Consider what would happen to similar areas like this after Doomsday. Cut off from modern medicine and having to deal with fallout, radiation and refugees, we are looking at places where deadly diseases could easily spread and wipe out whole towns. That being said their is no total ban. When I write up my next proposal I am going to borrow the procedure we use when picking featured TLs.
 * @anon: Yes that is true, however, Loius also metioned the discussion on the Socialist States of Georgia page and I just got the impression that he is also bothered as much by the tone of recent discussions as he is by the subject. Of course, I could be wrong. Mitro 00:50, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm bothered by is this: People aren't collaborating. They're not saying, "Oh - I see you've created this - well, let's find a happy medium." They're saying, "Well tough biscuits, buddy, it's my way or the highway - you can change because I'm NOT BUDGING!" It's not a team spirit. I'm fine with people "discovering" cities and such. I'm fine with people doing stuff on their own back yard. What I'm not fine is the attitude, mostly.
 * I think that we've hit a point of saturation in North America and Northern/Western Europe, and I don't know that we should have any more functional states, beyond that in those areas.
 * What it really comes down to is the new people to the timeline don't accept or maybe don't understand QSS and QAA - and for a project of this nature and size, it's absolutely critical that they do. If you'd like me to furnish examples from my experience with Ill Bethisad, I'd be happy to. Louisiannan 15:10, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think respect is definitely very important. For example when I have Woodbridge do something that could possibly affect another state I always ask the creator/editor of the said article if they are OK with it.

One question on the plans to deal with the Backyard Syndrome.... will it be retrospective?? Verence71 08:58, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think thats a bad idea. Mostly because I've put an assload of work into Victoria, and to bar me from being able to develop it further would not be cool, and I'm sure Smoggy, SouthWriter, and others who have nations incorporating their hometowns wouldn't be too cool with it either. I personally don't see why a hometown ban is necessary as long as we're more vigilant on the graduation process. Some things are getting graduated with little to no discussion within a couple days of being written.Oerwinde 09:05, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd think it would be a bad idea as well as my village is now a part of Woodbridge. It's not a major part but it is there :) Verence71 09:17, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd think it would be a bad idea as well as my village is now a part of Woodbridge. It's not a major part but it is there :) Verence71 09:17, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * The only problem that i have with the whole backyard syndrome and therefore hometown ban is that people know the most about the area that they live in, as in history, politics, etc. plus i back oerwinde's comment on the whole assload of work statement (however i would reword it as arseload as i'm a Brit :) ) --Smoggy80 18:28, May 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the exact quote, which I realise I misinterpreted: "One with a balkanized North America with a militaristic Virginia on one side and an outlaw groups of city states overseen by the ANZC and SAC on another - and another timeline with 3,000 miles of dead cannibals and radioactive dead zones between the MSP and the Atlantic.--BrianD 17:23, May 16, 2010 (UTC)". Also, thanks for bringing the archived discussion up; I'm now aware what you're on about. I'd just like to say with Backyard Syndrome - could it be justified? We're saying that the community will from now on only allow US survivor nations if it's absolutely plausible; shouldn't a similar rule apply to Backyard Syndrome nations, for fairness? Fegaxeyl 09:49, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * If a "Backyard Syndrome" ban is enacted it must be amended to exempt canonized articles made by folks who happen to reside somewhere in their nation.GOPZACK 14:13, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fegaxeyl's suggestion's on futher US survivor nations, as well as GOPZACK's ammended "Backyard Syndrome" Idea. HAD 15:02, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am strongly against any rule that bans people from contributing to any part of the TL. We should write a warning and a guideline, but not a ban. IMO. Benkarnell 15:23, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Howes this for a plan: on the mainpage headline thingy, someone posts a WCRB message about it being unlikely that any futher US Surviror states will be found. We will elaborate on this and the Plausibilty Singularty and the Backyard Syndrome on the Editorial Guidelines page and see how things go from there. HAD 15:27, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think small city-states like my article are still likely to be found but I agree that larger ones being found are unlikely. --GOPZACK 15:38, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the sugestions made by HAD are good ideas and i'm fine with them, Just as a point I to am partialy guilty of the "Backyard Syndrome" having included my own county in Southern England and to start with i wanted to have my own town of Crawley as the capital but i soon realised that there was no way the inhabitants could have survived the falloutVegas adict 16:01, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I acknoledge that my articles can seem overly cheery, but I think there would naturally be areas that would recover faster than others. These areas were mostly unscathed, and so would economically develop quicker than other North American states. While its true that I used my hometown of Niverville in Manitoba as the capitol city for Assiniboia, but that was because of proximity to the first Prime Minister (my grandfather). With most cars down because of EMP it wouldn't be very plausible to try to get him to Brandon when a perfectly good community is just a few miles from his farm. I don't think I suffer from "Hometown syndrome" after all I don't live anywhere near West Virginia, but my favorite nation is still Virginia. And I created article for many of the nations in Indochina.


 * Yankovic270 16:16, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * So who wants to post the headline, then?HAD 16:45, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys I don't think a backyard ban is justifiable, I think we all just need to be a little more susceptible about them. I think Ben's original suggestions of just one line in the tips section of the guidelines warning people about this is all that is needed. As for graduating states of any size in North America, no I don't think a ban on large states is justified because they are just as likely to be plausible still as small states are just as likely to be implasuible. I think simply requiring to gain at least three supporters without any objectors before graduation, just like what happens at the featured TL page, will provide another safety net to catch implausible articles.
 * Also, though my suggestion of putting all North American states under review was shot down, I still think some sort of review needs to happen to solve any lingering disputes that people are afraid to bring out in the open. I suggest that all editors who have been active on the TL in the lasd 30 days be contacted and encouraged to bring up any article (not just ones in North America) that they feel are contradictory or implausible per the Editorial Guidelines. No one might do it, but at least we gave them the chance to do so. Who knows it could become an annual thing, a way to look back at what we have done in a yeart and whether we have gotten off track.
 * On another note, I think discussions like this are a good thing. I was part of an organization back in college that would have discussions like this when things were very stressful. Everyone would gather in one place and get a chance to speak for as long as they wanted without any interruption or question. Anything said in the meeting never left the meeting and there would be no consequences for what was said. It helped clear the air and get everyone working together cooperatively. Mitro 16:50, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree Mitro. Perhaps this should be preserved somewhere away from the archives on it's own page.HAD 17:02, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm. Even that plan has its dangers. We're a consensus-based community, and that means things will happen all the time that I, personally, would rather happen differently. The Rule of QSS is, I believe, the best guide: if it's been written and accepted, you're obligated to accept it without complaining. New work ought to be judged based on its conformance with already-accepted material. We have done a poor job, overall, of following that; hence the contradictions between the Timeline and some of the newer pages. But now they're written and accepted, and what we should do, I think, is harmonize them if we can. The Timeline gives very low literacy rates for "the Wilderness", for example, and this has been called into question - we need to abide by it. Meanwhile, certain survivor communities are described in rosy terms - maybe we can clarify that these descriptions apply to, say, the capital but not the periphery.
 * I know I've been guilty of stirring up discord by whining about pages that I disapproved of, but the community accepted. It was a bad thing for me to do, and I don't think would be healthy to do it en masse. Benkarnell 19:22, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro I like your idea of asking people who have been active in the last 30 days on their talk pages if they have an objections to certain articles. Who shall begin to contact folks regarding this idea? I agree also that the "backyard syndrome" ban idea is extreme and unnecessary.I do agree with ben we must reach a consensus as to how we go forward.GOPZACK 19:36, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at all that has been posted this is my sugestion on what we do: Vegas adict 16:07, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The creation of a Nation Guidelines (1983: Doomsday) article. This article will supplement the current Editorial Guidelines and will act as a general checklist for graduating any new nation. It will be built by the community after discussion of various elements that usually cause contention among members (such as territorial size, population size, surviving infrastructure, energy concerns, etc.). Since the world is varied these guidelines would need to be general, but hopefully it could be used to preserve the overriding themes of the timeline.
 * Place a message on the main talk page that reminds editors to keep to QSS and that US Surviver states are unlikely to be found.
 * Remind authors that if they and a set number of other people agree that an artical is not apropriate to the timeline they can ask for it to be reviewed.
 * Place a warning on the Editorial Guidelines stating that the purpose of the timeline is not to make your hometown all powerfull.

I think that is a very sensible and well thought out plan, Vegas.HAD 17:08, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben, I think the review process can be used to "harmonize" articles better than attempts now. Like what happened Prussia, it brings to the attention of the community articles that are extremely out of sync with the TL but were approved by the community anyway. By placing it in the hands of individual editors and following already established procedure, we can do said harmonizing and attract a larger group of editors while doing it. Mitro 23:06, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents
the reason why this occured is a dispute between fx and louis i think this matter needs to be resolved on user talk pages rather the discussion pages the reason being disputes like these dont do 1983dd any favors but I am not in favor of ignoring them becuse 1983DD is a callab and attitudes like this is mine and screw you are damaging to the ATLOwen1983 13:20, May 18, 2010 (UTC)