Alternative History:Featured alternate history/former nomination archive

1983: Doomsday
I think 1983: Doomsday deserves to be a featured alternate history on this wiki for the following reasons:


 * Its generally well written with editors making sure to check for grammar and spelling.
 * There are a large number of articles covering this TL. Some cover the various nation-states, sports, politics, people, etc. (See Category:1983: Doomsday)
 * The POD is based on an actual WWIII close call and editors have attempted to keep subsequent events as plausible as possible.
 * Editors have worked hard to keep nationalism from turning certain articles into wankfests.
 * Collaboration among the editors has been generally peaceful. There have been no edit wars and many editors have worked together in creating articles.
 * 1983: Doomsday acts as the portal page to the TL.
 * Almost all the articles are broken down into sections and sub-sections for easy reading.
 * 1983: Doomsday provides a list of external sources and a number of articles have their own links to external sites.
 * ,, and Templates are used in the TL.

Besides these facts 1983: Doomsday is currently the most visited site on the wiki and has over a dozen editors who work in some fashion on the TL on a regular basis. I think the fact that the TL has not been featured on the main page before is a real shame. Mitro 14:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Agreed. One of the jewels of this wiki. --Louisiannan 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agreed. If this one doesn't pass the test no one will. --Karsten vK (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I do anything but agree?? Xi&#39;Reney 10:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Objectors

But nonetheless I think if there is one TL around here that fulfills all defined criteria and deserves to finally become featured than it is 1983: Doomsday. Xi&#39;Reney 10:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Though I got one rational remark... If DD is featured (for too long at least)I fear a bit that some of the less often visited TL#s and their respective authors/contribs feel a bit underrepresented or pushed aside given the fact DD would then be mentioned on the start page, in all widget links: "TOP-Content", Most Popular, Timelines etc...

Chaos
I've read most of the timeline; I think it's really good. I'm surprised it hasn't been featured yet. --DarthEinstein 02:40, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * It has in the past, before the change to how featured TLs were selected. Mitro 12:45, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * It is well written and very detailed. User:Riley.Konner 9:47, September 25, 2009.
 * Agreed, Louisiannan 17:48, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * Discussion

Viva California
It's been featured before, it's largely well written and, I feel, could use the featuring as it would draw interest of like-minded contributors, something to which I'm not averse. Louisiannan 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Mitro - some of the articles need to be expanded, but otherwise an enjoyable TL.
 * Well written TL. Worth featuring. --Karsten vK (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Enjoyable and well-written 82.38.97.148 06:56, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * Objectors

The TL as a whole seems alright, but there are a few questions on plausibility I need to ask:
 * Discussion


 * 1) If Mexico won the Mexican-American War, why did California secede? Generally, with a few historical exceptions, a victorious nation doesn’t suffer independence movements shortly after being victorious.
 * Mexico had been in a state of revolution and unrest since around 1830 -- the Yucatan and Tejas had pushed for independence from the central government which was seen as (and was) corrupt. I posit that since Tejas gained independence the land-owners of California thought to secede themselves and be free of Mexico City.
 * 1) Do you mean the Monterrey in Mexico, the one just south of Texas? If Texas is not in the war wouldn’t the US have to go the long way around Texas to attack that town?
 * Yes, Monterrey in Mexico. The timeline (if I haven't written it down, I apologize) is that Texas was considering joining the US, and winning the Mexican American War is what cemented the unity. In OTL the US traversed Texas to fight that very battle, and Texas was more or less letting the US fight the war for it.
 * 1) The Confederates are victorious at Gettysburg but are still driven out of most of Virginia? It seems unlikely for the CSA to do so well and yet be driven out of the North and Virginia.
 * I can't remember the exact reasoning behind it, but I remember as I searched through the annals of the Civil War, it seemed that one of the plans was a push toward Richmond.
 * 1) When did Canada become a kingdom?

Canada was always a kingdom -- under England. It was not named the Kingdom of Canada when it was granted self-rule in the 1860's *here*, but I posit it did, *there*.

In this TL do they have their own separate royal family, I believe that was one proposition concerning the future of Canada, or are the British monarchs their monarchs? Mitro 22:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The royals were the British Monarchs, yes. I figured the Canadians would have home rule -- but all the same, they and Australia are constitutional monarchies under Queen Elizabeth, *here* and *there*. Louisiannan 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Granted I'll give you that, but the article reads like things are going good for the US and sometimes not mentioning the details will get people thinking it happened another way. Mitro 22:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Mitro 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Given that for most of the 20th century the Netherlands as we know it were part of Germany. I think they were casting about for a name for themselves following the Spasm, and settled on that. Louisiannan 14:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Even though we don't have a third vote, since no one has objected yet and we need a new TL to showcase for next month, I see no reason why this shouldn't be promoted to featured status unless someone has any objections. Mitro 14:28, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How did the American forces sent to Europe to aide the Kaiser get past the British/French fleets that would be likely blockading the area?
 * The U.S. was building its own navy at the time. With collaboration with the Germans, the US could've turned out several Bismarck-style ships and easily taken on the British/French fleets, IMHO.
 * 1) Why did Texas attack the US in 1931? It really does seem like a dumb move considering that the US is larger then Texas in both area and population, and probably has a larger industrial base.
 * Because they're Texans? Texas was always somewhat bellicose. They had easily taken Arkansas and Louisiana in the Great War -- they were headstrong and thought they could "liberate" more southern States. (A bit like our attempt to "liberate" Canada during the Revolutionary war.
 * 1) After only 10 years since being annexed by the US the Texans are happy citizens? Seems unlikely since Texas has almost a century of independent existence at this point.
 * They were ruled by a ruling aristocracy who was both Bellicose and punitive. The government of the United States was a breath of fresh air.
 * 1) Forced relocation? How did this happen without rebellions and death?
 * Didn't say it didn't happen without rebellions and death. By the time this was happening, the US resembled a fascist state, and we didn't hear much of the forced relocations the Nazis did, either.
 * 1) The available info on Sherman in this TL seems contradictory. According to the TL page after Bull Run he requested not to be given independent command and later committed suicide in Louisville. However on the Civil War article he leads an army, an independent command apparently, that conquers Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana.
 * Good Catch. I've fixed that one.
 * 1) Can a solar flare really knock out a satellite network for that long?
 * I've been looking for that just now -- spent about 20 minutes trying to find it -- I'd based that on the strengths of satellites and the effects of a later (or earlier) solar flare on satellites.
 * 1) Just one insignificant detail that I'd like to see explained. More out of curiosity really. How did the nation that spans the Low Countries come to bear the name 'Flanders'. Did the habit to refer to the whole of the area by that name resurface somehow? --Karsten vK (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fall Grün
This timeline is well research and in a word: epic. Great use of photos and maps. Also it already been featured on the main page in the past. Mitro 17:09, October 13, 2009 (UTC) --Riley.Konner: Its been featured before and it should be featured again.
 * Supporters

--Das Taub: Possibly the Best Alternate History in the Entire Wiki. i look forward to farther work on Deutschland Siegt

--YNot1989 01:43, October 23, 2009 (UTC): Arguably has the most detailed war page and geopolitical scenarios I've ever read. It has been my inspiration for many of my own war pages.

--Buk5 23:18, October 23, 2009 (UTC) : A very detailed and high Quality Timeline. A jewel of this wiki.


 * Objectors
 * Boring!!!!!! I like the ATL, but WWII ATL are always elected...it is becoming monotonous
 * I actually went and checked, only three WWII POD TLs have ever appeared on the main page over the more then a dozen that have shown up. That is evidence that they are not always elected, in fact there are no WWII TLs currently featured. You also admit you like the TL and yet say its boring? You contradict yourself. Mitro 23:47, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we have 4 supporters I think this should be approved as a featured AH unless there is another objector. Mitro 03:18, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * TL has been upgraded to featured status. Mitro 14:58, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Finland Superpower
Iamtheggman 03:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Objectors
 * Mitro - The alternate history needs a lot more work done to it. It currently only has one article of actual content. The history needs to be flushed out more. Also plausibility needs to be looked at, Finland just seems to expand too quickly and easily in this TL.
 * Louisiannan - it does need to have a larger number of pages to be considered for featured status, IMHO. 16:13, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Riley.Konner - I'm pulling my support this article has been around for to long and has not been expanded enough.
 * Discussion
 * Since there are three objectors and no supporters (besides the nominator) I think we should close the nomination unless a supporter shows up. Mitro 15:14, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination closed due to lack of support. Mitro 16:56, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Washington Shot at Murdering Town!
It's been featured before, it's well written and well thought out with maps and other extras. Louisiannan 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Mitro
 * Tbguy1992 I have to say this is a very enjoyable to read, and seems so plausable.
 * LeoT17 Really top notch, but try to expand some of the wars and countries mentioned. Maps would be nice too, but overall it is really superior.
 * --Karsten vK (talk) 15:45, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * We have criteria (see top of the page) for a reason. Just because it appeared before should not be a reason it never appears. Mitro 23:45, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Now featured. Mitro 23:21, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

President Perot
Nominator: Emanresu11
 * Supporters
 * Objectors
 * This is only a single page with five small paragraphs! --DarthEinstein 22:42, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No offense but this needs a lot of work before this can be considered a featured TL. Mitro 23:46, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with u both --Ed9306 20:32, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Unless there is a supporter I think we should close this nomination. Mitro 23:24, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination closed due to lack of support. Mitro 23:17, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Aztec Empire
I think this ATL is well written.......It has a lot of original maps making a realistic world on modern days.....no only being a large page with a lot of facts and years that are in fact boring........I also think is time to choose an ATL that is relationed with another kind of history...all featured timelines have been relationed with WWII history, USA history, ColdWar history, Nazis, Nuclear wars, etc..Ed9306

Sorry but nominators can not be supporters. Since you are nominating it you are already a supporter, you need 3 more not including you. Mitro 15:46, November 2, 2009 (UTC) TL is now a featured AH. Mitro 14:54, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Mitro 14:23, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Emperorjames 10:42, November 2, 2009 (GMT/UTC)
 * User:Riley.Konner
 * Objectors
 * Discussion
 * Does a TL where the Mongols don't go conquering the largest land empire in history a part of that incredibly inclusive list of yours? What about a world where vegetarianism is more popular? And now you are telling me that it is not cliche already in alternate history to have the Aztec Empire stay independent? Just take a look at Uchronia to see what I mean. I haven't read this TL yet, so don't take this discussion as an objections, but your reasoning behind why all of those other articles should be objected and this one should not is faulty. Mitro 23:53, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well........maybe there are many ATL of the Aztec Empire.....but no one is like this one! this one have media elements (myself made) that makes easier to understand the Timeline...otherwise other Tl that doesn't have media elements......also the Aztec Empire is a Timeline that carries history from XIV century to XXI century....otherwise other TL that only makes reference about XIX century. I consider this TL is very good writed in adition of a good type--Ed9306 00:50, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that is the crux of the whole argument I have been having with you across several nominations. You want everyone to judge your TL based on its own merits and not on facts outside the scope of the TL, but you will not do the same for the other nominations. You have come up with arbitrary and vague reasons to object to several nominations that are not based on the quality or content of the TL itself. Meanwhile your reasons for objecting to Fall Grun turned out to be flat wrong. If you want others to give you a fair chance, you have to give them the same chance as well. Mitro 16:59, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey come on....take it easy......this is only a game...isn't to serious, you aren't gonna be choosed for getting a Nobel prize or something like that. We don't need to ake so serious this....--Ed9306 23:17, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I am only trying to give everyone a fair shot at getting their work featured on the main page. I have to assume that it is universaly disliked to have your worked objected to based on factors that have nothing to do with the quality or content of the work itself. Do yourself a favor, read the TLs and then cast your vote. If you already have and if you do like them then I see no reason for your objections to stand. Mitro 14:23, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus you need supporters to outweigh objectors. User:Riley.Konner

Vegetarian World
It's been featured before, it's well written and well thought out with maps and other extras. Louisiannan 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Mitro - Though the idea of vegetarianism being so widespread seems a little odd, I can't think of a good argument to make it implausible. TL seems to be featured worthy to me.
 * One of the most expansive works around over here. --Karsten vK (talk) 15:44, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * I like a lot this TL...is one of the larger work in here and I like a lot the plot; a history that isn't relationed or that the divergence point is't based on the european histoy (like WWII TL)...--Ed9306 01:25, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * The fact that it has already been chosen under an old system of voting shouldn't be objectionable. There is a new system and every TL should have a clean slate. The quality of the TL should matter, not whether it appeared before. Mitro 23:44, October 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion

President McCain
An excellent TL that has not been featured on the main page before. Though optimistic at times, it is still well-researched and articles are well written. It makes extensive use of images and other items to supplement the pages. Mitro 17:17, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters


 * Objectors


 * Discussion
 * Hmmm this is kinda iffy for me I like its originality but I do question a few things probability. User:Riley.Konner
 * I hear you. One thing that sets this site apart is that less-than-likely scenarios frequently play out. What results is sometimes less-than-good alternate history, from a strictly historical point of view, but good reading and good speculative fiction. Vegetarian World is a perfect example. The League of Democracies in this one is the most ASB thing in this TL. Benkarnell 22:33, November 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * I will stay neutral in this matter. Although I had thought of changing some parts of this timeline, I would just like to say that I agree with Benkarnell's classification of this althist as "speculative fiction". My main althistory here was the Fall Grün timeline, which I also spent the most time gathering information and made the most research for. This timeline was, originally, merely meant as a break timeline - when I needed a break from the other timelines.
 * Whether this actually gets featured or not, I in a way don't care. Sure, it would be cool if it did, but if it doesn't it wouldn't bother me. My main project was, and still is, the Fall Grün timeline. :)
 * Kindest regards,
 * Realismadder 19:21, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing my nomination. Though no one officially objected to the TL I feel consensus is that this TL is not ready to be featured. Mitro 19:26, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Ætas ab Brian
An oddball timeline, but a very well-made one. Almost 1400 years of history complete with maps of extraordinary detail and a very distinctive, enjoyable writing style. Based on an ASB premise - basically Roman technology is "wanked" to help build it into a permanent superpower - but it explores the idea of an enduring Roman state very admirably, and the Roman focus is balanced by attention liberally lavished on other cultures as well. Benkarnell 22:42, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Agreed. Mitro 15:39, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * nanoleopard201 16:48, November 7, 2009
 * An intriguing piece of work. Red VS Blue 10:13, November 8 (UTC)
 * Objectors


 * Discussion

Soviet defeat
User:Buk5 5:43, 12 October 2009
 * Supporters
 * Das Taub 01:17, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice argument --Ed9306 20:32, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Good story, but bad typing. FireFootball 02:14, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Objectors


 * Discussion

Puget Sound-1
A large, somewhat humorous timeline that I think should be featured. Mitro 17:37, November 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * I love the fact that pretty much anything can happen to anyone. --Yankovic270 02:37, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * I loved working on it. Too bad it died off by our own hands. -- Mr.Xeight 23:10, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Riley.Konner 07:28, November 25, 2009
 * Objectors

--Yankovic270 04:30, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I firmly believe that once in a while there should be a timeline that has humor in it. What is the point of this wiki if we cannot have fun while using it.
 * Yes, it's fun, and I love it personally, but it's not really alternate history by any normal definition. If that's OK with everyone, then OK. Benkarnell 23:19, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

No Islam
I figure this would be interesting to show what the world would be like if Islam wasn't around.


 * Supporters


 * Objectors
 * Emperorjames 20:49, November 29, 2009 (GMT/UTC)
 * TL is just one article. Needs to be expanded before it can be featured. Mitro 22:31, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * If well written, a very interesting concept. But, as Mitro mentioned, an expansion is needed. - Realismadder 23:57, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion

British Louisiana
It's been featured before, and has maps and other extras. Louisiannan 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Mitro 23:28, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Emperorjames 15:41, November 15, 2009 (GMT/UTC)
 * --Karsten vK (talk) 20:04, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * --SouthWriter 17:31, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * User:HamSquidLlamaHam
 * Objectors
 * there are many others TL that has a lot more extras --Ed9306 23:38, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Check you spelling FireFootball 01:37, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * @Ed: The quantity of extras shouldn't matter. I mean how many maps, pics, etc. does a TL need to be featured? Any number chosen would be arbitrary and what should be most important is the qaulity of the extras. @FF: Though the quality of the writing is important when it comes to whether a TL should be featured, it is easily corrected. Are there any specific articles in the TL that need to be copyedited? I would be willing to do that. Mitro 03:34, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * This TL is very interesting in that it takes an interesting POD that is quite believable. With the British having so much land to the west, the USA does not have much room to expand. They remain small and a lesser player in the world stage. I have often wondered how things would have gone in a TL that so limited the US. It appears that the creator of this TL, though, does not have as much time to work on it as he once did. And besides, it is obvious that English is a second language to him, leaving much editing to be done for a trouble free reading of his articles. I like his maps, though state boarders need to be added --SouthWriter 06:55, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * So are you a supporter or objector to this TL? Because if we get 2 more supporters, I think we can mark this as a featured TL. Mitro 17:05, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's go with it. --SouthWriter 17:31, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Papatlaca
Thoroughly well researched and imaginative, and very well written besides. A little short, but it does have a small body of pages to support it. Benkarnell 22:36, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * I don't think size is really that much of an issue with this timeline. The question marks however are, and I think they should be addressed (preferably by the original author if he's still interested). Intriguing timeline and therefore gets the benefit of the doubt. --Karsten vK (talk) 20:09, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote for this one. --LurkerLordB 23:47, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I change my vote, I am in support of this TL. Mitro 16:43, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * This time line was expanded since the last time I read it, I am changing my vote. Riley.Konner 18:22, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * It is certainly an intriguing TL, I can't deny that. However I think its size is still an issue, as are the number of questions marks on some of the articles. Mitro 04:18, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of short FireFootball 01:41, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree with the kind of argument Karsten presented, but I can't fully understand this TL unless it gets expanded just a little more. Riley.Konner 20:54, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I like it, but I agree with the idea that it is a little short. Intriguing, but I would love to learn more.KingSweden 01:52, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Superpowers
Extensive writeup with pictures, photos, and maps. Work in progress. Detail pages go well beyond the average scope of alternate history.--TEAKAY 21:27, March 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * I like it, it seems very well organized and extensive. Definitely stronger than some of the above nominated pieces, and it would be nice to feature an AltHist that hasn't been featured before. KingSweden 22:12, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * i agree. it's well written, well researched and well-thought out. it's also extensive and of a much higher quality than most of the nominees Destroyanator 04:02, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * VENEZUELA 00:37, March 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Objectors


 * Discussion

Rebellion of 61
It's been featured before, and has maps and other extras. Louisiannan 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Mitro 16:46, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * Everything seems somewhat short and under-developed. Where are the extras you mention? I can only find one single map. Benkarnell 15:44, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhat short. VENEZUELA 00:26, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote. Mitro 15:31, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Unless there are any new votes for support I am going to remove this nomination. Mitro 15:31, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Easternized World
Well written and structured timeline of eastern colonialism and world leadership. Still getting updated.--TEAKAY 21:27, March 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * VENEZUELA 00:35, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mitro 18:14, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * J4p4n 07:27, April 21, 2010 (UTC) - wooot! ;)
 * Objectors


 * Discussion

Napoleon's World
I'm not sure if one is allowed to offer up one's own AltHist for nomination, but I've put a lot of work into this TL, and if anything needs to be added (especially in the 19th century) let me know. I want to hear everyone's opinion. KingSweden 22:12, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * I believe this is a good, well written timeline, with a bit of surrealism thrown in, just to verify that this is an Alternate History, but also with a hint of plausibility, knowing what Napoleon is like from research into my own timelines. I support this whole-heartedly. Tbguy1992 15:21, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mitro 18:15, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. It's well written with pictures and maps. --CheesyCheese 16:14, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * Discussion

South American World
Nominated by: VENEZUELA 00:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Objectors
 * It is very short. So far there is only 2 articles. This TL needs to be greatly expanded before I could support making it a featured TL. Mitro 22:47, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly does a massive plague just magically not effect South America? Mean Mr Mustard 22:55, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were to say every reason I don't like it, I'd be here all day. Eastward Expansion 19:36, May 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Great White South
It's well written, has a team of contributors, is fairly realistic and also has good maps and picturesVegas adict 15:37, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply one of my favorite timelines! Eastward Expansion 19:36, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of great articles, it has several contributors and it's refreshing to see such a new TL get so much traffic so quickly. KingSweden 18:17, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * Discussion

Cabotia and Brasil
It's been featured before, and has maps and other extras. Louisiannan 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Mitro 23:28, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Owen1983 20:18, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eastward Expansion 12:15, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * An intriguing and quite frankly CLASSIC alternate history, definitely deserves to be featured again. Red VS Blue 21:58, June 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Objectors
 * FireFootball 01:36, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * VENEZUELA 00:25, March 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * FIrefootball, if you're objecting because of spelling, that's a very small thing on the scale of things, and really should just be noted here in the discussion section. It's not a reason against a timeline, especially since this timeline was written by a non-native english speaker. Louisiannan Dr. Cayne Armand 19:06, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * I will take louis side on this becuse spelling irrelevent and not everybody here speaks english
 * If we can get one more supporter, this can be promoted to a featured TL. 98.226.91.184 15:46, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Basileus' Interference Timeline
It has been featured before. Mitro 13:41, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Louisiannan 22:58, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very detailed. And complex. And hard to understand. But I like it. Eastward Expansion 12:57, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just became a member of this wikia so that I could vote yes on this one!


 * Objectors


 * Discussion

Welsh History Post Glyndwr
An excellent timeline that details an independent Welsh state. Mitro 16:51, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Owen1983 23:47, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it! Even though that's basically what I say for all of these.Eastward Expansion 23:48, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * Discussion
 * there is a lot of info here I like itOwen1983 23:47, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

2nd Punic Victory
Has a great portal page, and is covered with maps and other goodies Eastward Expansion 22:00, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Objectors
 * No offense against Oer, whose work I usually enjoy, but I have to object on a purely technical reason. The TL itself is just to short, it is only 4 articles long. If it were expanded more I would be willing to change my vote. -Mitro
 * I'm going to have to agree, and its my timeline :P I was all into it at first when I was going hardcore on althist, but it has petered out a lot as I got sucked into the mapgames.
 * Discussion
 * Since the actual author is voting against his TL, is there any objection in quickly removing this nomination? -Mitro
 * No I guess not.Eastward Expansion 14:07, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Defeat
No offense to the editors of Soviet Defeat, but I just don't feel that this TL should remain a featured TL anymore. Most of the articles are either stubs or unfinished articles. If more work was done I could drop my nomination, but as of now I think it should be removed from the featured TL list. -Mitro


 * Supporters 
 * Big-Hype 14:48, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Red VS Blue 14:58, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eastward Expansion 20:13, June 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Objectors


 * Discussion
 * Wait! Would supporting it mean that we support getting rid of it, or we support keeping it? Eastward Expansion 15:23, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * "IMPORTANT: By putting yourself down as a supporter, you are supporting the nomination to remove the timeline's featured status." --Karsten vK (talk) 15:36, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * So if there are three supporters does it get taken down? Red VS Blue 20:44, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatl's World
It has tones of stuff including lots of Pics, Maps, and more. Its very creative too.Eastward Expansion 23:55, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Most of the current stuff is in these articles, 1300-1350, 1350-1470, and 1470-1510
 * Supporters
 * It's okay, but it is way better than some of the other things that have been nominated. Or even been featured for that matter.French Victory 00:02, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * --Catherine 00:29, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * This one is pretty interesting! Babylonanian Siberia 20:07, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * A very good timeline so far. The author's other work that I've seen is very good as well so I see a lot of potential here too. Perhaps a few more articles and this would become the most deserving candidate still up! Red VS Blue 20:44, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Creative concept! --AWesome


 * Objectors
 * It seems interesting, with a nice concept, but way too underdeveloped. I'd be happy to swing my vote the other way if I could see some flesh on this timeline. (Sorry if that sounded harsh. I just can't communicate well over wikis, for some reason...) Fegaxeyl 20:33, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Fegaxeyl. The TL only has 6 articles. Way to underdeveloped to be featured. -Mitro
 * Discussion
 * Mitro, it's not the number of articles, but the content of those article!Eastward Expansion 14:06, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the guidelines near the top of the page. A featured TL is required to be "Comprehensive: the alternate history neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; more then one article is used to convey the alternate history." While its true that this TL does cover more than one article, 6 articles is not enough to believe that this TL meets the requirement of being comprehensive. -Mitro
 * Well this TL does have enough votes to pass, and though I voted against it, to be fair I will grant it featured status very shortly unless there is any change in position. -Mitro
 * Well? Are you going to make it featured Mitro?Eastward Expansion 12:41, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Wasteland Europe
The timeline tells of a world without the Marshall Plan, the plan that rebuilt all of West Europe into the superpowers they are today, and America choosing to concentrate on its Pacific theaters, stopping the rise of Communism in Asia while letting it run rampant in Europe. Arstarpool 00:00, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Objectors
 * Simply not fleshed out. Just a week before Arstar nominated it, he said it was dead.Eastward Expansion 23:13, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why Europe would be divided in various countries just because of the Marshall Plan? VENEZUELA 23:22, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar, I think it still needs some work. -Fedelede 23:32, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to admit that to me this timeline over-exaggerates the potential consequences of there having been no Marshall Plan. Considering that Europe never lost the technical know-how and greater part of its infrastructure to reconstruct itself (and considering that my very own country used the Marshall funds mostly to wreak havoc in Indonesia but did not recover in a noticeably different way from the countries surrounding), the results of the lack of input of external funds would, however tragic, have been nowhere near the scale of Europe deserving a name like ‘wasteland’ or having entire countries fall apart. --Karsten vK (talk) 13:44, July 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion 
 * Venezuela: Some nations would divide because they were so weakened economically that they could not hold itself together- And yes, Europe would be divided in various countries even if the Marshall Plan had sent all of it's money. However, although I'm saying this, I do think it still needs some work. --Fedelede 23:32, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the spur interest argument was used once before and my opinion on it has not changed. Making a TL featured just to spur interest in it is a weak argument. We have the guidelines for a reason. If the TL can meet them then there should not be a problem with marking it as featured, unless there is debate on whether said TL actually satisfies the guidelines. But if the only argument in support of the TL is that it will "spur interest" and potentially make it better, than I think the creator(s) should hold off trying for featured status and instead try other ways to spur interest in their TL. That being said I have not read Wasteland Europe so I cannot vote in good faith, I just really wanted to put my two cents in on the spur interest argument. -Mitro
 * Let me reiterate, it was just a thought, I was unaware such an argument had been used before & dismissed. As you can see I have withdrawn my semi-support for it. --GOPZACK 02:22, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Central Victory
I think this is really one of the great timelines on this website, that have gotten no recognition. Eastward Expansion 17:48, June 23, 2010 (UTC) I'm currently in U.S. Army basic training. Editing from me will cease temporarily. After my training is complete I will begin editing again. If you think you can help feel free. Also this a new community project.--Central Victory Creator 13:11, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * That's true. VENEZUELA 05:01, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. World War I ATL's don't get the recognition they deserve. Therefore, I cast my vote. Tbguy1992 13:12, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I change my mind, the fact that he's making this a community project is great! Ownerzmcown 00:02, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * Discussion
 * Your page hasn't even been started yet, Owner!Eastward Expansion 19:43, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can Mitro or someone make it featured now?Eastward Expansion 23:15, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not making it a community project? VENEZUELA 23:23, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Perez Jimenez's Venezuela
I think is good and plausible, also it just need some article because it doesn't tell and alternate world but and alternate Venezuela. VENEZUELA 05:35, June 24, 2010 (UTC) Arstarpool I think your comment is extremely nationalist, and if it one interest to a Venezuelan why not to featured, it's different to other timelines, I know 4 Venezuelans in the page: VENEZUELA 23:12, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * Objectors
 * Only 4 articles, not developed enough to be featured. -Mitro
 * This is an article that wouldn't interest anyone else but a Venezuelan. Arstarpool 05:18, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it does not qualify since all candidates are supposed to keep a nationalism-neutral tone. Arstarpool 00:03, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * 1) VENEZUELA
 * 2) dafg
 * 3) Migue325
 * 4) the truth finder

Huh? Nationalist? Do you know what nationalism is?

Here are your so-called Venezuelans:

1. DAFG is fake, he is a puppet used by you to vote on polls.

2. The truth finder is a vandal, copies things right down from Wikipedia and has made FOUR EDITS.

3. Migue makes future hist map games.

I'm sorry, Vene, but it's the truth. Arstarpool 23:46, July 15, 2010 (UTC) VENEZUELA 23:51, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) DAFG IS NOT A PUPPET IS A REAL PERSON AND I KNOW HIM IF YOU WANT SEARCH HIS HISTORY ALSO MIGUE325 KNOW HIM,.
 * 2) THE TRUTH FINDER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE WIKIA
 * 3) MIGUE IS A VENEZUELAN THAT HAVE SEEN MY TIMELINE.

Hahahaha, I did my research, DAFG is not a real person. Please do not "shout" at me with capital letters ever again!!!!. And Dafg only logs on when you need him to, and the truth finder has not logged on in a long time. How do you know the truth finder is Venezuelan anyways? Oerwinde banned you for operating puppets on the map games, remember? Arstarpool00:00, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

DAFG is a real person, Warairna Repano is the puppet, and I know all of them, I said them to join the page, ok?VENEZUELA 00:14, July 16, 2010 (UTC)