Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

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

Useful Resources:

A website showing potential nuclear strikes within the US can be found here. A map showing likely fallout patterns across the USA.

=GENERAL DISCUSSION= The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve article proposals Structured into rough sections for easier navigation.

Countries/Regions/Politics
Archives: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Let me know if I missed something somewhere.

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Hattiesburg will be edited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No doubt, lol.

Map of Europe:



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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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


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


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

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

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



Current Map of Africa.

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

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

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

Concerns Regarding Warhead Strength & Need to Standardize
When I first started writing my articles, I did the best I could in calculating the size of the potential warheads Soviet forces might likely have used in a 1983 attack. Recently, I obtained a copy of a book which breaks down in detail what type of weaponry was being used by nations across the world in 1983. One of the areas I found very interesting, details the delivery systems in use at the time for the US-USSR arsenal, how many missiles each side possessed, and the type/size of the warheads involved. I have tried to incorporate this into my articles for accuracy. This said, in reading the numerous articles, I have noted when we describe the warhead size used in attacks, we tend to be all over the place. Given they all basically came from the same location, this does not make sense. I think we should consider trying to standardize the warhead strength based on what actually existed at the time and the delivery systems likely used against the US, primarily subs and ICBMS, rather than what we wish it to be in order to make our story work. I do not believe this would require major rewrites of articles. I do feel this would add to and enforce the realism we are trying to bring into our work. Attached, are the pages listing the USSR strength: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/File:1983DD_USSR_Nuclear_Arsenal.PDF

I have also been pondering a few other thought on this subject. I believe warheads, such as one megaton and larger, would have been used for major urban targets, areas where several targets were clustered together, or hardened sites, such as underground missile silos. Also, although I don't believe the community ever discussed this in regards to the US, I feel there would have been at least two waves of strikes. The first from Soviet subs, the second from missiles inbound from the USSR. Given the hypothetical commands would have been given about 8:45 PM EDT, subs firing from our Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf coasts, could have hit targets beginning as early as 9:00 PM or just after. Such targets would have been primary or deemed important enough to strike quickly. The second wave would begin arriving at about 9:30 PM and begin hitting targets, likely hitting targets again already struck in the first wave.

Please let me know your thoughts, since I feel this is something important enough we should all discuss, given our debate on trying to be accurate in other areas such as the Panama Canal discussion last year. I am placing my thoughts here since I don't know if it should be listed in the Fundamental Issues section. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 01:59, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Given the nature of the attacks, both the subs and the silos would have gotten the order to fire about the same time. The (random) staggering of the attacks as seen on the Associated Press copy of them is pretty well disorganized because of this, and there is no real set time for most of it, or waves.

As for the warhead strength, that is what has been going on in more recent articles. In most cases we haven't even tried to estimate the numbers, as no one post-DD could actually find out anyways in many areas. Though, your list indicates we need to be upping some yields and adjusting others, as the 100kt blast normally used here is.... lacking on that list. 200kt seems to be the most common, and 1MT much more so than previously thought. The 20MT and 5MT, among others, on that list are a bit of a surprise. Interesting, that.....

Lordganon 11:01, March 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * For some odd reason, I did not get notice of this -- or it was lost in clutter in my in box. When I joined the time line just about everyone was assuming that that every hit was a mega-bomb. I planned my main article around that. A little later, I went with the FEMA maps, zooming in and assuming the various sized circles were accurate. The results were about the same, though leaving a lot of room for better conditions. The simulator web sites help also when used in conjuction with the FEMA maps. Have you had a chance to estimate the effect of a majority of the Soviet warheads doing their damage? SouthWriter 03:09, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're not the only one, South: I often have to visit the wiki to make sure I'm caught up on everything.
 * I didn't go as far as you did, South regarding the warhead sizes on the FEMA maps, but I too made the assumption at one time that all of the blasts were "mega-bombs".
 * I think FX is right in bringing up this topic for discussion and in noting its importance. One thing to consider is the perspective we all are writing from: outsiders from a parallel universe (ours), or people within the TL? If we're writing as if we're part of the TL, it's going to be next to impossible to determine exactly when all of the missiles hit and for that matter exactly how much mega-tonnage was used. The best they'll be able to do is make an educated guess, but they'll never know for certain. Perhaps this is one of those things we need to leave shrouded in mystery.BrianD 03:19, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing is, we have to write as "omniscient observers" if we want to keep the time line viable. We have, in the last year especially, built up quite a society in North America and Europe based on assuming a certain magnitude of the destruction. We cannot now go back and assume some other magnitude without re-inventing the time line. The Russian officer who kept this from happening told the interviewer that the counter-attack that would have ensured would have destroyed just a third of the infrastructure of the US.


 * That infrastructure, of course, would have been in population, communication and transportation hubs that would totally cripple us as a united nation. The addition of the EMPs, of course, heightened the disaster. I say this to emphasize that we should go with what we have, assuming the distribution of the bigger bombs indeed were concentrated on the priority targets. The smaller mega-tonnage would probably be aimed at the silos since there were more of them and the evidence of radiation and fallout seems to have been less than if mega-tonnage had been use there.


 * As for writing the WCRB and LoN reports, and even the "wiki" style articles, we are to a large extent restricted to a large amount of mystery. However, as communication has largely been restored in most places in the northern hemisphere, the articles can become more accurate as "local" records and residents are tapped for information. For example, I indeed wrote about "my home town" (the Piedmont of SC) because I have access to such personal recollections of the time. I did the same thing in "inventing" Neonotia (where I grew up). As editors we need to have the facts well in mind even if the articles do not reflect all those facts. Otherwise we are faced with viability problems. With so many things changing, in fact, we have to take all kinds of liberties in assuming what anyone would do it the situations we put them.


 * Well, I'm rambling, so I'll leave it at that. SouthWriter 17:10, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Alternate versions of 1983:DD - where Canada reigns supreme - on the Alternate History website
I was browsing on alternatehistory.com tonight and came across two most interesting threads. I don't recall ever seeing any mention or discussion of them on the talk page.

Not one, but two timelines I would describe as alternate versions of 1983:DD - both on the website's ASB section. Both seem to be well written, and well thought-out. I don't recognize the authors (Ming777 and The Mann) as ever having contributed to 1983:DD, but I could easily be mistaken on that.

The premise is very ASB: 2010 Canada in our timeline ISOTed to 2010 in the 1983:Doomsday TL.

Here are the links (note that you must be a registered member of alternatehistory.com to access them):

Rise of the North

In Defense of Humanity

BrianD 02:14, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Xeight pointed the one out to me a couple weeks back, It's really quite shameful what they are doing, though not a surprise for AH.com

Heck, they've done the same thing to published authors with copyrighted materials. Really not anything that we can do, though I do hate that fact. Extremely ASB, or course. Though, only the one even made for good reading, to be honest.

Lordganon 07:05, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Mine may be the minority (only?) opinion here, but I don't have a problem with them because it's ASB, from the Canadian perspective. Now if they start to move over entire articles and rewrite what we've done as their own work (albeit from the ASB angle), that's when I have a major problem with them. And everyone else would too.

What they've done now, I'm alright with. As you said LG, there really isn't anything we can do. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, they say. This tells me people are paying attention to our efforts.

I also must say I went over there, identified myself as a contributor and admin, and went the route of complimenting the little I read. Blasting them wouldn't do any good, and I really do think their work is comparable to some of the more well-written articles I've seen here.

If nothing else, let's keep the real 1983:DD timeline going, aiming towards excellence.BrianD 04:43, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

I am going to try to get something done about it, because this is not right.You guys spent nearly three years working your tails off to make a great timeline, only to have a bunch of Crazy Canadians (No offense to the Canadians here, I respect you guys) steal it and ruin it.If your a member there, look up Epic History and join me in fighting this.

God Bless the United States of America 06:09, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother, GB. There's nothing that we can do about it. Lordganon 06:28, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

I know, but it still ticks me off.I left some messages on both timelines saying that they owed you guys an apology, but thats about as much as I can do without risking a ban.

God Bless the United States of America 07:23, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

I got a long winded response from one of them, but I really don't get what he means (its 3 am here),

"I mean no offense by what I have made here, but the idea that anybody owes anybody an apology for this stuff is ridiculous. The whole point of alternate history wikis is that anybody can modify them, and more to the point, I am not modifying 1983: Doomsday. Beyond November 11, 2010, in this world the timelines completely diverge.

I am not stealing anybody's ideas. I am taking one very-well-written timeline and simply building a different world on top of it. I'm not trying to claim I wrote 1983: Doomsday, and if they want to add their own pieces to my TL, great."

Can somone clarify? God Bless the United States of America 07:47, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Their timelines are based on an ASB i(aka Alien Space Bat) idea: ISOTimg Canada from a timeline itself developed at alternatehistory.com into the 1983:DD timeline. As LG said there is nothing we can do, and as long as they don't start lifting entire articles from here and claim them as their original ideas I can live with this. My suggestion is the same as LG's: don't bother. Let them be. --BrianD 08:22, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, GB: choose your battles carefully. This isn't something to go on a crusade over. --BrianD 08:43, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

GB, please read my note on your talk page. BrianD 17:02, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

As a member of Alternate History.Com, I'd say both the TLs honour this one, by bringing it to a wider audience. Francis C 19:02, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Reading Rise of the North, my only issue is just how badly he handles the situation. William was 1 when he died ATL, I don't know why everyone recognizes him. The soldiers and such that were transferred with the ISOT would recognize him, but everyone else would have no idea who he is. Canadian ships show up and order the Victorian HMVS Resurrection to Vancouver for refit and it just goes "Ok ship from foreign country, I will go to bombed out city, by your command". The Victorian legislature, made up of nearly half american representatives within a day of finding out Canada is restored, votes to rejoin. Its just nonsense. Interesting to see people do stuff with our creations as a base though.Oerwinde 07:40, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps.

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

It does help, LG. Thanks for your time!

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

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

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

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

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

Never said hotbeds, lol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

=CURRENT ARTICLE PROPOSALS=

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Is this article ready for graduation, or do the authors want to fill in a tad bit more? Arstar 05:41, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I would like to do a little more work on the article itself. I realize I'm not the original creator of the idea of Elizabeth City, but I would like to do some work on its early history and then run it by Brian for review. Mitro 16:38, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you run it by Brian yet? I mean, it looks pretty finished, and it's kinda just sitting here. Arstar 07:56, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I need to complete the history, but Brian has already heard the outline and I believe he approves of it. Mitro 03:22, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * As it turned out, I was the primary editor of the Outer Banks, having completed the bulk of a rewrite of the article on September 6, 2010. This rewrite pulled the article out of the review that I had put on it for some implausibility problems it had. No one objected, so it is canon. I had not done much with the relationship with Elizabeth City, but I had set it up as the prosperous city of the "fifth state of the Outer Banks." When the Brazilians discovered the city in 2002 it was already a protectorate of the Outer Banks. The discovery could not have been more than a stop over in an ambitious exploration of North America.
 * The work Mitro put into the article is admirable and the early history explains a bit of the mystery of the city. But the animosity and rivalry with the Outer Banks, its natural ally, seems misplaced. However, I have been called "overly optimistic" of late, so I am willing to cut back my article to be more in line with this one. Perhaps the dam, started by Elizabethans in 2000 and completed with help by 2006 when it began producing electricity, can be removed in favor of the airship factory which was already there in OTL. The help in restarting production would most naturally come from the Outer Banks rather than Brazil any way. By the way, the new airships would probably have to be designed to safely use hydrogen given the scarcity of helium.
 * Though the dam seemed a little too optimistic in the original I had decided to keep it, anticipating more discussion. But given the tumultuous history of the 1990's in Elizabeth City as Mitro has laid it out, the dam would not have been a project they would have begun, so that part of the Outer Banks article is certainly open to change. That is QSS giving in to change, folks, by the only one who can do it (the original editor). :-)
 * SouthWriter 15:28, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I got most of the basis for the EC/OB relationship from the article which was Brian's work, hence why I consulted him when writing this article. Apparently the three articles are starting to contradict each other. Further discussion may be needed to bring them into order. [EDIT] I found the info on the dam, however there is no specific mention of EC being that "fifth" state anywhere in the article, which is likely why I did not consider it when writing this article. Obviously Outer Banks is the canonical article and this is only a proposal, but since other articles but EC as independent around the present we definitely need to figure that one out.Mitro 15:34, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * UPDATE. I have just finished an update of Elizabeth City, along with changing the Outer Banks slightly, in order to get this article ready for graduation. Check it out. It was one listed to be graduated before the "American Spring" could get rolling. SouthWriter 17:32, April 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good, South. Lordganon 17:39, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me, too, South. BrianD 18:05, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Westmorland and Furness Alliance
An article created by me due to the split in Rheged --Smoggy80 18:36, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

So, why hasn't this been graduated? Are there any objections to the article?--Vladivostok 10:08, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Armachedes.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superior Election Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natchez Accords
A brief overview and history of the Natchez Accords trade and defense agreement amongst three southern U.S. survivor states. BrianD 17:13, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you think it needs a little bit more, Brian? Or is the last paragraph sufficient to tie it to the present situation. It looks good to me, as is, to be graduated. SouthWriter 17:41, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to any and all ideas, South, but have no problem with the way it is now. I'm not sure though what Mitro was thinking when he suggested the Accords were necessary to American Spring. Do you have an idea? BrianD 18:00, April 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I think he wanted to establish a binding agreement among the mid-south "nations" as to political loyalties. In being in political and economic alliance with one another and with Texas, it is thought that a political union with the USA would be out of the question. I don't see it this way, but I am the primary supporter of an expanded USA. The Accords would, it appears, mean that patriotic sentiments to the old nation would be unpopular among the political leaderships in the smaller city-states. That being said, I'll graduate this article as is, if you say so. SouthWriter 17:54, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm open to all ideas. I will say that the accords in canon were signed at a time long before the establishment of the new United States government. They were intended as an agreement amongst those three states, and independent from any question regarding the reemergence of the USA. It is true - at least in my mind - that the political and business leaders in the Natchez/Hattiesburg/Louisiana region would rather tie their future to Texas and Mexico than an unproven entity in the newly reformed United States. Torrington with even half of the assets that Washington had before Doomsday perhaps would change their minds. Again, given the state of the region in TTL 2011, and their history, I can't see why the leaders would want to give up what they feel is the best option. That does not preclude the people from having their own views, nor to potentially elect officials they feel represent their own interests. BrianD 02:49, April 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding assets, Zack has made it clear that Kentucky is certainly on board to rejoin the USA. It is clear, also, that the Torrington government is the recognized successor of the 1983 government, with "rights" to much of the gold at Ft. Knox. It is unclear from the Mexico article as to how much of that particular assets Reagan intended to give Mexico in return for safe haven of refugees. Apparently they never approached Ft. Knox to collect on those assets, so they still remain untouched. It is conceivable that now that the USA is recognized, it may be required to pay a perceived debt to Mexico, however.


 * As far as "options," the fact is that only Louisiana is technically "eligible" for re-joining the USA as it now stands. It is a legitimate successor state with organic and organizational links to the former state. Hattisburg and Natchez are city-states that never had a "claim" on the state they attempted to rule. I can see them bonding with Louisiana as an extension of that state (if it were to accept USA membership), though the legitimate government in Corinth have a better claim on them legally. I say legitimate, since the northern counties chose to organize as the state of Mississippi rather than as independent city-states. The point is, present alliances do not negate the possibility of returning to a previous alliance with far more historic and legal standing. I think that is the reason the Natchez Accords are related to the American Spring movement.


 * And back to the first point, the "new United States government" is a legal extension of the old. In fact, the old Constitution may very well be re-instated (even though it has outdated sections nullified by amendments). I was careful in the revision to change very little, but the 1991 document was made without knowledge of the sealed orders and before the dissolution of the APA. The Accords were only an economic and defense agreement, not a legal requirement for merger. Bottom line - Ft. Knox gold and existing statehood of Louisiana and Mississippi. SouthWriter 04:26, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Article by me. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:50, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

So, this seems like something that would always need expansion, are there any objections to graduation?--Vladivostok 10:11, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

Article by Kenny dealing with Arstar's Macau article. Lordganon 09:28, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

It's done now. I will need to go back and fix some stuff on the Macau article and other stuff around the site which did not meet standards (i.e. conclusion that Patrick Yu was dead), so don't be surprised if it contradicts anything. I will not work on Macau for a while but I thought I would state this is done. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 00:32, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Courland
An article by me on a unification of Lithuania and Latvia. I need someone with expertise on the region to assist me with it.

Yank 19:18, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

I've left a few objections on its talk page. Lordganon 17:14, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of converting it to a Courland state.

Yank 17:44, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

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

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

(Discussion moved)

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

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

~smoggy


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

Ahh, much better. People will actually notice this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

And, name ideas for the top 2:


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

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

Thoughts?

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


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

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

Arkansas
LG's comments on the Arkansas talk page:
 * Looking at the article, and comparing it to the article on Hot Springs, it seems that this one doesn't take everything that is on Kentucky or Hot Springs into account, either. Hope is listed here as being independent, but on Hot Springs it is listed as being in that state, and the same principle applies for Jonesboro and Kentucky. 

BrianD 17:54, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * This is interesting since this article is almost completely the work of GOPZACK (Zack), the primary creator of both Kentucky and Hot Springs. Brian added a mention of Jonesboro, to the list, based on his article, not Zack's Kentucky article. The Hot Springs article makes no mention of Hope, but does use an overly optimistic map that includes the county of which Hope is the seat.


 * The only thing that has to be changed, it seems to me, is the map on the Hot Springs article. I assume that Zack has been contacted about this change in status for this article. SouthWriter 20:13, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Kentucky map is very explicit on the county containing Jonesboro, as well as a couple deep on either side, being part of Kentucky. The Arkansas article understates Kentucky presence greatly.

The Hot Springs map pre-dates the entire Arkansas article by several months. I've no idea why the Hope reference was added at all by Zack, but it shouldn't have been.

Zack doesn't seem to have been contacted yet - that will happen shortly by me.

Overall, I think the best way to go would be to just remove the Hope reference, and to adjust the Jonesboro reference to allow for the current situation, along with changing how the Kentucky references are worded to be more accurate.

Lordganon 10:17, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this you guys. It seems I've made an error but it is nothing that can't be fixed easily. I agree with LG on what needs to be done to correct this. Zack 18:15, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Repaired, as per what I proposed and Zack agreed to. Lordganon 12:34, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1, Archive 2

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