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

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

Sac is Under New Management
Guys I have very good news. Me, Venezuela, Fedelede, and Katholico have recently adopted the South American Confederacion from Fero. Now, the two power blocs are under new management so hopefully we can achieve more :) Arstarpool 23:10, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is SAC changing their flag? Mitro 01:38, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why decided to change it because it saids "Argentina, Brazil and puppets because of the Brazil triangle and the Argentina sun, here is the new flag. SAC_NEW_FLAG.png
 * Wow, actually that is pretty good. Did you make that yourself? Mitro 02:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I just took the coat of the ALBA, which is an organization that Chavez created for his puppets, and change it to a flag. VENEZUELA 02:34, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say no then, for historical-convergence reasons. It looks like ALBA; we need the SAC. I'd be behind a change from the current SAC "frankenflag", though; but you should check with XiReney first since the original is his. Benkarnell 02:51, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the article is of Fero and he let us adopt it, and second it doesn't care it's about ALBA, because even Chavez is not president in TTL. VENEZUELA 02:59, September 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, if Fero let you make changes, then no problem. But the fact that Chavez is not in power is exactly why this shouldn't be the flag - it was designed in OTL after the point of divergence for the DD timeline. We shouldn't use any post-1983 flags because the circumstances that created them would not exist. Benkarnell 04:08, September 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here, I made this one if you are going to change it. Doing a little research the Sun of May was also in the flag of Peru, and a sun with a face is also in Ecuador's flag, and many south american flag concepts contain it, so I don't see it representing Argentina. The bands are the colors of the south american flags, and the nine stars represent the nine member states. Use it or not, I was just throwing it out there.Oerwinde 09:12, September 23, 2010 (UTC)83DD-SACFlag.png


 * Oo, I really like that. What if the face were removed from the sun to remove any lingering thought that the flag was for Argentina only? Benkarnell 14:15, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sun of May is derived from the symbol for Inti, the Inca god of the sun and represents the may revolution in Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia, and was the first flag flown in declaration of Peru's independence. I see it as a symbol of South American independence. Removing the face would just make it a sun in splendour, which is a symbol in European heraldry rather than a South American symbol.Oerwinde 16:27, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all. Chavez is not president, but the designer of the SAC flag could exist, and I think we will use the one of the colors for the Pan-American District. VENEZUELA 14:22, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the ALBA coat of arms, and the ALBA membership, I can see how the creator of the flag was influenced by the placement of the membership centered in Venezuela. Here is the way I see it being designed:
 * So, it appears if the same designer works on a flag to represent all of South America, he could indeed come up with the same sun radiating out from the center of the continent! Of course, it was the "brain child" of Hugo Chevez, so he may have had a lot to say about approving it in OTL. All in all, though, it is quite feasable. SouthWriter 17:38, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sun is located in the state of Matto Grosso or in the Brazilian-Paraguay frontier NOT in Venezuela.VENEZUELA 17:58, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what the TTL version shows! The reference to Venezuela was concerning the OTL version. I was defending your design, Vene, so go with it. The only thing you need to do now is find a connection between the designer of the flag and TTL. I'm sure the graphic designer could have similar insight in TTL. SouthWriter 19:41, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what the TTL version shows! The reference to Venezuela was concerning the OTL version. I was defending your design, Vene, so go with it. The only thing you need to do now is find a connection between the designer of the flag and TTL. I'm sure the graphic designer could have similar insight in TTL. SouthWriter 19:41, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand. The SAC is a completely different organization with a completely different purpose, history, and circumstances from the ALBA. Why would you want to just transfer the flag over? It doesn't make sense. The West African Union doesn't use the AU flag. And so on. Benkarnell 19:09, September 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Ben, I set out to disprove the notion of this symbol being used without the connection with ABLA, and the design practically hit me in the face. Starting with a sun (symbol of South American independence), and placing it in the center of the continent, this is what you get. Why would Sudamericanos and Africans not chose similar or even identical flags compared to the ones that arose in OTL? All you have to have is some of the same people in similar situations and voila - similar or, coincidently, identical designs. It makes sense unless you are the one designing flags for new countries and organizations. :-) SouthWriter 19:41, September 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * My question is, why would you, creatively speaking? When you have a blank slate to design a flag, why would you just pluck one from some arbitrary corner of real life? Benkarnell 03:32, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * As caretaker of Brazil, I must say that this is a very good flag.HAD 19:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * So decided this is the new flag? VENEZUELA 20:01, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we do what we always do when we choose new flags: leave it up to a vote? Mitro 20:25, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, add the poll. VENEZUELA 20:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'd also argue that even if you use the Chavez flag, it would be better to retcon it than to have a news article where it changes. Especially since the old one is agreed to be inappropriate (too Brazilian) and there's no real reason to change now in 2010, I'd say just say that the Chavez flag has always been the flag of the SAC. Benkarnell 13:04, September 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try again :). No matter what flag you choose, I think the news article you posted was unnecessary. I don't think the SAC changed its flag in 2010 - I think this has just always been its flag. Benkarnell 14:42, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

France
Is anything actually going on in this region? Are there any plans for its future? Fegaxeyl 09:50, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think reunification is planned in the future, although the status of Orleans might be a problem.HAD 10:56, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

I am the "caretaker" of Orleans, I adopted the page from Yank who created the page. The monarchy of Orleans will indeed stay in place, and a solution might be the unified France might have their own monarchs per region. Thats all I can say for now.

Also as the caretaker of the Celtic Alliance, I am happy to announce that Normandy and other non-Celtic French lands will be put into a protectorate regime, as well as most of Celtic England will be put into two "Special Cultural Administrations". Normandy and Brittany, if they agree will be governed as seperate autonomous republics and will eventually be freed of control if popular votes go above 66%. This is because some of the French states, close to unification might "raise an eyebrow" at Celtic control in the area, and in the distant future that may lead to war. Arstarpool 02:34, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

That means that it might be possible to see a Cornish state be established sometime in the future.

Yankovic270 13:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Expanding Essex
When I first put I had it controlling all of Hertfordshire. That was removed; but now I'd like for Essex to regain physical control over the area, starting with annexing the portion of Hertfordshire to the east of the A1 in the next month or so, following with a complete annexation next year, along with the possible colonisation of north Kent. Does anyone have an issue with this degree of growth? Fegaxeyl 17:11, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

United kingdom restoration
I was reading about the provincial USA so I had an idea about doing the same in Britain i have figured out the territory that could be used its going to be a an initiative by the Kingdom of Shropshire --Owen1983 18:12, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Why would this be the case. What basis does Shropshire have to re-establish the UK?HAD 08:09, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but the Kingdom of Shropshire is now obselete.HAD 08:28, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems sort of hokey to do both so close to each other, but in theory it would be fairly easy to re-establish the UK as a sort of confederation that revives some of the traditions of the monarchy and the Parliament. As more of Britain gets explored by the outside, world communication comtinues to improve, and the English and Scots start to realize they're slowly getting colonized by the Irish, I would expect some sort of revived UK (even if in name only) to be not too far off in the future. Benkarnell 13:53, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * We've already got something like that. Something a lot like that. The OBN. Though yes, I can see (with the wave of pro-British sentiment in post-DD Britain) that a UK might be reestablished - though that would require the marriage of the Cleveland-Northumbrian and East British thrones. Otherwise, though, the basic foundations of this confederation are already in place, as is the motivation for closer integration - and the people who want to see it happen. Fegaxeyl 14:54, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is the OBN. But even without dynastic acrobatics, I could see the petty monarchs in Btitain acknowledging Andrew of Windsor as a sort of suzerain-king. Enfeoffment actually works rather well in a postapocalyptic environment; I'm actually surprised we don't see more of it! Benkarnell 15:11, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait... you're suggesting that the nations of the OBN would offer pledges of allegiance and military support to King Andrew in return for resources? (If I understand enfeoffment and suzerainity.) That's... both plausible and cool!

I don't think King Andrew would be a popular choice because he left the UK to fend for itself. in her hour of need --Owen1983 15:35, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Japan
Hello! Does anyone have any information on the status of Japan and whether or not it has caretakers? I would like to do some work with Japan, the Ryukyu Islands, in particular. I disagree with the idea that the Ryukyuans, following the strikes against mainland Japan, wouldn't jump at the chance to secede from the mainland. There has always been a strong sentiment for independence in Ryukyuan culture, which notably becomes more and more popular when military issues are raised. Considering the massive military and political issues raised by something as heavy-handed as worldwide nuclear conflict, widespread destruction in Japan, and the reversion to traditional, militaristic ways in Japan would cause a massive upsurge of sentiment for Ryukyuan independence, enough for a successful secession. Even in our world, where no such issues exist, more than half of the Okinawan and Ryukyuan population has been reported to favor independence from Japan. In the late seventies, the Ryukyu Independent Party was gaining steam and pushing for seperation from Japan in any way they could manage. Thoughts, objections, assistance? Back Alley Hero 02:06, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Japan is one of those articles that never had an official caretaker as far as I can tell. Most of the work was done by an anon, but it was refined by the community as a whole.  So it is open for adoption i guess.  Mitro 02:36, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Back Alley Hero! I'm working on the n islands at this current time so I would be happy to help. Some articles state that many of the islands, such as Ogasawara were on the verge of collapse after Doomsday. I don't think there would be any objections on becoming the new caretaker. You should contact Brian too, since he caretakes Hawaii which in this timeline has been in several discussions with the Japanese government on the Ogasawaran islands. I was going to write up a page on Okinawa today actually but I didn't get around to it. Arstar [talk] 02:44, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Benkarnell would be more helpful regarding Ogasawara, as he came up with the scenario and developed it. Back Alley Hero, if you want to work on Japan I definitely encourage you to do so! --BrianD 02:48, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

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

Plymouth Flag
Could someone make a better flag for Plymouth? Arstar (talk) 02:52, September 27, 2010 (UTC) 02:51, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * What kind of flag did you have in mind? A better version of the current one, or a completely new and original one? --NuclearVacuum 18:38, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * A new one preferably. Arstar [talk]22:40, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be more than happy to make a flag for you. What did you have in mind for a flag? --NuclearVacuum 02:41, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

One that maybe has a boat in the upper-left corner maybe, symbolizing the Mayflower. It would be a big help if you could make it, most of my flags end up disastrous. Arstar [talk]03:41, October 3, 2010 (UTC)




 * Ok, heres a quick one I did up.--Oerwinde 04:14, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Its good but I'd like to see Nuke's ideas before I make the new flag official. It kinda reminds me of the Greece flag a bit with the stripes. Arstar [talk] 04:52, October 3, 2010 (UTC)




 * I really don't want to be competing with someone else, but here is my thought. It's an English cross, but black (representing the dead). While in the canton is the mayflower sailing the sunset, representing the bright future. What do you think? --NuclearVacuum 23:27, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the stripy version. Very American, very New England.  My only suggestion would be making the ship darker, since yellow-on-white does not show up well at a distance.  Benkarnell 13:58, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions! I have to say you both did good but the striped one is my favorite. Thanks anyways! Arstar [talk] 01:33, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Texas Military Flag
Found this cool flag, and its kinda funny. Maybe a future flag for the Texas Military?--Sunkist- 03:57, October 2, 2010 (UTC)




 * Why not a present military flag? It's fairly well known in Texas, isn't it? Μολὼν λαβέ! Benkarnell 13:56, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is? This could be an unofficial flag for the military, but seems a little too informal to actually represent the nation's military. BrianD 02:49, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

National Stereotypes
Just something I thought might be fun to think about and lets face it, they're going to happen sooner or later. We've already got a bit of a meta version going on, i.e. the 'all Virginians wear uniforms all the time' thing. It's not true but it's what people think, in other words a classic stereotype.Tessitore 12:18, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

How about "Woodbridge is full of in-breds"?? Verence71 20:42, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

What about "All Texans are cowboys"? Yankovic270 21:05, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think all the English survivor states aren't particularly proud of how the New British couldn't take the heat and ran away. I'm pretty sure all the OBNers would call the New British soft - or something rather more offensive instead. I'm not sure if the idea of an Essex Girl would have survived after Doomsday, but it's possible. And Verence, why would the idea of Woodbridgers being inbred come from? Fegaxeyl 21:09, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'm wondering about that myself. I'd have thought it'd be more like 'full of Yanks'.

Tessitore 22:20, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * That could lead to the idea of renaming what we know as the mid-Atlantic accent as the Woodbridge accent. Fegaxeyl 11:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Like "All Sicilians are mobsters", or the Australians are "American Wannabes"? Arstarpool 21:13, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my personal theories on the stereotypes of the British sucessor states:

Cleveland - Somewhat incomprehensible, footie obcessed, working-class types who love the Queen and drink too much (Poi chin has a reputation after all)

Northumbria - Stuck in the Middle Ages

Rheged - Country bumpkins (or in Cleveish, farm yakkers). Plus, sheep jokes.

Matlock - Scummy, untrustworthy, drug-addled gits who'd do anything for money.

Celtic Alliance - Probably mostly the same as pre-Doomsday Irish stereotypes.

Scotish New State - Scotish Nazis

So far nothings sprung to mind for East Britain, Essex, Woodbridge, Southern England or Lancaster.Tessitore 22:20, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

East Britain - Similar to Rheged as foes the country bumpkin farmer, with an incomprehensible accent and a fierce pride in his nation.

Woodbridge - A mass of Norfolk in breds ruled over by an elite clique of Americans.

Lancaster - Lots of trams. OTL northern stereotypes

Essex - War is a recreational hobby. Lots of casual violence.

Bob 15:14, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Though I can't quite fathom where the warmongering comes from, I simply love this idea of casual violence! Perhaps if I throw in a reference in the military section, about semi-customised armour with Viking-style horns on the helmets... And Essaxons are major producers of mead... Fegaxeyl 20:57, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

You know that the idea that the Vikings wore helmets with horns is a fallacy, right? Oh, and how about "Siberians are cold-hearted sociopaths who follow orders with out the slightest bit of free will".

Yankovic270 21:57, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah that sounds about right. The Siberians are probably going to be on the recieving end of a lot of flak for the next couple of centuries at least.Tessitore 23:44, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I can see it now...


 * Siberian guy: Hey us Siberians just figured out a way to evolve into beings made of pure energy!


 * Other guy: Yeah but didn't you guys start a nuclear war that killed billions of people?


 * Mitro 00:04, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I have a good one what if everybody in the Duchy of Lancaster wears flat caps --Owen1983 22:38, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do know about the helmets, I just couldn't find a way to fit it into the sentence and make sense. But in Essex it's likely that if memory of the Vikings survived in any way at all, it would have been the image of Vikings with horned helmets. Fegaxeyl 06:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether to be happy or depressed that no ones come up with a stereotype for southern england. The only one i came up with could be to do with them all being sailors or with them being inbred islandersVegas adict 18:22, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I f we run with the sailors, then well you know what they say about sailors. All that time at sea....Bob 18:22, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Bush's kids are probably going gonna get beat up for a while in school:

Descendent of Bush: I would do anything for my country. My forefathers died to free America from the Redcoats.

Another Guy: Ok but are those the same people that pussied out on America and chilled with the Aussies and the Hawaiians while the rest of us starved?

Or how about this one:

American: Hey.

Siberian: Hello.

American: So whats up?

Siberian: Nothing. You?

American: Nothing.

Siberian: Thats cool.

American: Ok.

Siberian: Look, about that whole nuclear holocaust and taking over Alaska...no hard feelings, okay?

Arstarpool 01:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the "All Australians are Americans" stereotype. It's one we ourselves have struggled with! Hand in hand with that might be "All New Zealanders are Australians" :D. I'm sure that plenty of jokes are still lobbed across the Tasman. Besides being sheep-oriented fush-n-chups-eaters, Kiwis might be seen by Aussies as child-of-the-earth Polynesians on account of the success of Greenism. Besides being loudmouthed crocodile wrestlers, Aussies might be seen by Kiwis as... Americans :D.
 * Within Korea, I can only imagine the persistent North-South stereotypes that probably come up every day. Not to mention those Yankees of Jeju! Taiwanese people probably have their opinions about the Mainlanders in their midst. In the Republic of Venice, there are probably jokes about the Slovene, the Croat, and the Italian who walk into a bar in Trieste... Benkarnell 02:40, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed there would be. I can also state that there are numerous jokes regarding people from Montenegro, as they are perceived as being lazy, the Bosnians are perceived as being dense, the Slovenians are made fun of due to the small size of their country, and so on. And the Siberian thing would be the main cause of hard feelings, of course, I don't see a lot of Siberian tourists going out and having a blast in the old US in the next century or so. Oh, and how about we create a page on humour, and/or jokes post-Doomsday. That could be amusing.--Vladivostok 07:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea of a page on post-Doomsday humour sounds good. Since humour is a time honoured method of staying sane when everything goes to hell, I'd imagine that there would be quite a lot of it, although some of it would probably be quite dark and/or gallows humour.Tessitore 17:31, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't see a lot of Siberian tourists going out and having a blast in the old US" - please don't tell me that was a deliberate joke. Fegaxeyl 15:01, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, whatever do you mean Fegaxeyl?:)--Vladivostok 15:45, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I got the warmongering Essaxons idea from the prevelance of conflict in Essaxon history a oppossed to say East Britain where technological underdevelopment prevented much war, or Woodbridge where sheer firepower prevented conflict. Bob 18:26, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'v created a page called, hopefully this can be a page the whole comunity gets involved inVegas adict 18:33, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking that many British jokes about the French - specifically, the surrender jokes - could be passed to the New British by the English survivor states. Fegaxeyl 19:42, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

In Venezuelan the most famous jokes are about Galicians and they are stupids in the jokes, I think that joke still would exist. VENEZUELA 22:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned in-breeding in conjunction with Woodbridge is that that is a stereotype that is sometimes applied to people from Norfolk and Suffolk in OTL. If we add that to the assumption that during the time that Woodbridge was controlled by the American military a lot of American words and phrases would have seeped into the language perhaps the stereotype of Woodbridgers could be this:

"A bunch of carrot-crunching inbred who speak like hillbillies" Verence71 15:08, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

The lines about "inbred" and even "cannibals" would definitely apply to people from the Yukon and Northwest Alliance. Heck, you can add something tribal and about rednecks into that too, readily enough.

Waldeck-Hesse, given all things - don't know if you guys have noticed this or not, guys - would definitely have some sort of Nazi stereotype, or similar racist insults.

Lordganon 12:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

All South Americans think about is soccer/football. Here is a example of a stereotypical situation:

Cashier At Resteraunt: What would you like to order?

South American: I'd like a cheeseburger, a large order of fries and a COOOOOKE!

Yankovic270 00:19, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage
Recently a post to Cleveland makes reference to the legal age for marriage being raised from 16 (with parent's permission) to 18, to be between two adults without regards to sex (or gender, if you prefer). At least one other law concerning "same-sex" marriage is known in this universe - in Yank's Republic of Lincoln. There it is based on the marriage being religious rather than civil (and thus being out of the government's hands).

What I was wondering is this: Would the social mores in a post-apocalyptic world be open to such an innovation? It may well have happened that way in these isolated societies, and I am not here to argue politics or religion (In fact, I am here to prevent it!), but I was wondering about the feasibility of the concept even being an issue. SouthWriter 18:47, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

The idea I had when making same-sex marriage legal in Lincoln was that the Lincolnites have many more issues on their plate, and that many of these required immediate attention. You tend to not focus so much attention on such a trivial issue such as same-sex marriage when you are dealing with more important issues such as food, fuel or jobs. They Lincolnites placed that ammendment in their constitution so that they could focus on the essential issues of the post-Doomsday world.

Yankovic270 19:00, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Isolated societies tend to be more conservative, as a general rule. Fewer different viewpoints to accomodate, a perceived need for solidarity, and all that. If you're the only gay person in your village, and becoming an outcast would mean losing your livelihood and possibly your life, you might be too intimidated to be open about your sexuality.
 * In a few places, we know that the breakdown of society led to an awful lot of social innovation. Nebraska was certainly one of those places. A place I helped to develop (Keene) was another. If conditions are right, there may be some places that would change their mores and be more accepting of gay marriage than they are in OTL. I would think here would have to be certain conditions met for it to be realistic; they would include an organized political structure, a significant gay community, a culture of human rights, and a high tolerance of social/cultural/religious differences. I'd guess that Keene, which was specifically founded to be a radical place where individuals are sovereign, almost definitely allows gay marriage. Azuero, Panama - traditionalist, isolationist, with a rather restrictive system of laws - almost definitely does not. The Yukon, which is more-or-less open and free but is very loose-knit and traditional, seems somewhat unlikely to have gay marriage but that may be because the issue "doesn't ever come up".
 * @Yank - if you are too busy to focus on an issue, you usually won't put the amendment in your constitution ... you ignore it! An amendment takes effort! Benkarnell 20:56, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Latin America would accept it, because the people is very conservatives and traditionalists, and very loyal to the catholic church, apart that the gays are seen as tabu in Latin America. VENEZUELA 21:31, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I swear there is a transgender mayor in Brazil, OTL.HAD 21:51, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Vene, the maricas, or maricones (Spanish for homosexual) are common in Colombia, Mexico, ARGENTINA, and Spain. If they are not big in Latin America why did the Argentinians just approve gay marriage? Arstarpool 23:03, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * HAD and Arstar, you are addressing Vene's point -- and he lives there! But nothing about DD would change the trends since then in South America. Colombia and Argentina would develop about the same as they have in OTL (but check the articles). Spain is a hodge-podge of separate states, I think, so there's no telling there (Spain is a secular state, with very little religious influence in OTL - and not "Latin America" by a long shot!). Mexico and Central America were greatly affected by DD, though. The political unrest there probably would not be condusive to changes in the traditional mores. And Arstar, just because homosexuals are "common" does not mean they would prevail politically. The atmosphere for such a change in tradition has to be right or things stay the same. SouthWriter 16:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Vene, the maricas, or maricones (Spanish for homosexual) are common in Colombia, Mexico, ARGENTINA, and Spain. If they are not big in Latin America why did the Argentinians just approve gay marriage? Arstarpool 23:03, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * HAD and Arstar, you are addressing Vene's point -- and he lives there! But nothing about DD would change the trends since then in South America. Colombia and Argentina would develop about the same as they have in OTL (but check the articles). Spain is a hodge-podge of separate states, I think, so there's no telling there (Spain is a secular state, with very little religious influence in OTL - and not "Latin America" by a long shot!). Mexico and Central America were greatly affected by DD, though. The political unrest there probably would not be condusive to changes in the traditional mores. And Arstar, just because homosexuals are "common" does not mean they would prevail politically. The atmosphere for such a change in tradition has to be right or things stay the same. SouthWriter 16:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * HAD and Arstar, you are addressing Vene's point -- and he lives there! But nothing about DD would change the trends since then in South America. Colombia and Argentina would develop about the same as they have in OTL (but check the articles). Spain is a hodge-podge of separate states, I think, so there's no telling there (Spain is a secular state, with very little religious influence in OTL - and not "Latin America" by a long shot!). Mexico and Central America were greatly affected by DD, though. The political unrest there probably would not be condusive to changes in the traditional mores. And Arstar, just because homosexuals are "common" does not mean they would prevail politically. The atmosphere for such a change in tradition has to be right or things stay the same. SouthWriter 16:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * HAD and Arstar, you are addressing Vene's point -- and he lives there! But nothing about DD would change the trends since then in South America. Colombia and Argentina would develop about the same as they have in OTL (but check the articles). Spain is a hodge-podge of separate states, I think, so there's no telling there (Spain is a secular state, with very little religious influence in OTL - and not "Latin America" by a long shot!). Mexico and Central America were greatly affected by DD, though. The political unrest there probably would not be condusive to changes in the traditional mores. And Arstar, just because homosexuals are "common" does not mean they would prevail politically. The atmosphere for such a change in tradition has to be right or things stay the same. SouthWriter 16:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well the Chumash Republic is mainly a liberal country so same sex marriage would be legal there. Although if you look up San Luis Obispo you'll see it may be primarily Republican but most of the people who live here are pro-gay. Riley.Konner 20:13 September 20 2010

In OTL the polls say 52% of Americans support gay marriage but as I discussed before American survivor nations will be by and large more conservative with the larger liberal population centers nuked. Then again Yank is right I don't think people would really care except for some fringe fundamentalist tribes or city-states. GOPZACK 23:32, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Watch it, Zack, that's close to commenting on current politics. You have to more clearly define "fringe fundamentalist." Many today are trying to marginalize the conservative traditionalists that are showing their "muscle." Just because they are treated as "fringe" doesn't mean they are. And this would certainly be true in post-DD America. SouthWriter 16:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * That was not my intention South I was just pointing out what the "people" are saying these days and relating it back to this TL. As for "fringe fundamentalists" I was referencing places that practice slavery or theocracies like Anderson or that place in Minnesota. (Sorry I forgot the name). It wasn't a swipe at the "conservative traditionalists". --GOPZACK 19:25, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah South you need to be careful. By commenting on Zack's choice of words you essentially did stear this conversation to present-day politics. Mitro 20:10, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, didn't I? Sorry about that (but see the talk page at "No Cross, No Crown"). And that "place in Minnesota" is Olmsted of which I am the curator (or whatever you call it). Anderson, by the way, is also "mine" (unless someone wants it). However, last time I checked "traditional values" did not label an ideology "fringe." But that is, of course, talking politics and a waste of time (the real reason why NCNC exists in my opinion). SouthWriter 22:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Victoria is likely open to the idea, being made up of parts of some of the most liberal regions in the US and Canada. Though I think I would prefer to just take the government out of marriage. There are civil unions, which are the legal union of two people and are open to both same-sex and heterosexual couples, and there are marriages, which are religious unions with no legal recognition. This ensures both equal rights, as both gays and straights have the same rights of union, and keeps the government out of religious matters.Oerwinde 09:11, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oer, stating personal preferences is "talking politics." Also, I think you are misapplying the term "legal recognition." If you mean they need no law on the books, then you are right. However, if you mean marriages are not recognized as legal unions, then you would be in error. The main reason that there is a push for "civil unions" is to get the same rights under the law as married individuals. If the laws were written to make marriages legally "civil unions" then that would fit the bill for equal rights. SouthWriter 16:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

this gives me something to think about with the kingdom of Shropshire. the country does not have a problem so it would be allowed --Owen1983 13:10, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suppose it would depend on what "not having a problem" meant. Would it even come up? Would there be a need for "marriage laws" to keep order in post-apoclyptic rural England? What were the mores in 1983, and what would the political priorities be in the meantime? We all seem to be trying to place today's mores into an alien environment. Study the movement that has lead to the present situation -- what would have happened if communication and travel had been largely absent for decades? That's what I am talking about. As Ben put it, it probably "would not come up." SouthWriter 16:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think any society post nuclear would want to hold on to any vestige of civilization so marriage laws would be valued but on same sex marriage in the wider spectrum It would not be allowed in many nations--Owen 11:17, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * To back this up - gay marriage would represent a deliberate change in most places; in other words, it likely not be the "default" pattern for countries. Most. For countries that do have an organized gay community and a receptive population and political system, that deliberate change is perfectly plausible. The tone in some of these comments is that "I support gay marriage so my fictional minions probably do too" - which is a pretty lazy way to construct a culture! I'll say it: I, Benkarnell, support gay marriage, but I'm pretty sure most of my fictional minions do not. Benkarnell 20:12, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though fictional, our states need to be based on real life. The question has to be, what would the population of an area produce. Some places were more "in to" this movement in 1983. Nebraska was not one of those, and I doubt if Cleveland (in Britain) was. SouthWriter 22:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool, you do realise that "maricon" is a very offensive swear word in Spanish, right? Would you refer to American homosexuals as "f*****s"? Next time, don't copy-and-paste things from Wikipedia... And those countries you rambled off don't have any more homosexuals than any country-it just happens that some citizens of said nations are more open about their sexuality. Mr.Xeight 03:01, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm Spanish, Xeight. Spanish is tied with English as my first language and almost my entire family has Spaniard, Costa Rican, or Cuban lineage. And marica is in certain countries is equivalent to a cuss word where in others it just means homosexual. In Viavisencio, Meta, Colombia I hear the word fly all over the place like its the word "the" or something. In Costa Rica we tend to use a less "sharp" word, playo, or queer to describe people, um, of that preference, and the term maricon means nothing offensive, just meaning "gay" in a neutral, non-offensive way. Arstar [talk] 05:03, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=maricon

Read the definition Arstar. And note what searching in wikipedia for it takes you to as well.

May not be offensive in Costa Rica, but it is definitely offensive elsewhere.

Lordganon 05:15, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar do this wiki and yourself the honor of refraining from using homophobic language. It may be acceptable to people in your family but its offensive here. --Zack 14:28, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2

Europa Games
Just a reminder that the games will be kicking off in a couple of days. I hope everyone who's in charge of participating nations has decided what they're participating in.Tessitore 22:27, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'll be working on a list of my nations competitors later tonight.

Lordganon 03:51, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

I've put Woodbridge's name down for quite a few team events and I'll think about adding some individuals tomorrow Verence71 19:57, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Effect of Doomsday on Future Geological Events
I have an idea which I have been giving some thought for a while and wanted to run it by the rest of the group to get your input before taking it any further. We have generally agreed that certain events, especially those weather related (i.e. hurricanes), would have taken a different course a few months outside of Doomsday because of the influence of the war. However, we have generally stuck to the belief geological events took place when they occurred in OTL such as the 2004 tsunami and the Haiti, Chile, and New Zealand earthquakes and Icelandic volcano eruptions which occurred this year thus far. Taking into consideration the whole Butterfly Effect Theory, I have been wondering if new geological events might have occurred in certain areas of the world given the effect of nuclear weapons detonating in unstable areas, such as the Ring of Fire.

I am not proposing that major geo events begin popping up everywhere, but perhaps a few in some regions. For example, could have Mount Fuji have become active again after Tokyo was destroyed. Could Mt. St. Helens erupted again since it was only three years out from when it erupted? What about the Yellowstone Caldera? Such stories though would have to be realistically plotted and written and if it affected several nations, those writers be on board with the story.

I have been looking at the possibility of Mount Lassen in northern California coming to life. It last erupted in 1915 and I was wondering what affect weapons detonating in the state might have had in stirring the plates and making it active once again. Depending on how destructive the eruption was it would have an effect on several nations including the MSP, SNU, and the Californian Republic and provide further angst. Rather than making it a past event, it could be played out in real time once a date was chosen. It might even be a catalyst for even further cooperation between nations. Please let me know your thoughts on the subject.

As I said, I have done some research, but have not taken it further until I had a chance to share my thoughts. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 02:29, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

I am going to write in the tropical storm that hit Florida today as a Category 3 Hurricane. It's already been said that summers and winters were more extreme, so the warmed ocean means bigger hurricanes. Arstar [talk] 02:36, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

I have been pondering a similar thought as to storms. Given Delmarva sits on the Atlantic Coast it might be hit by more hurricanes than usual. Having lived in this area my whole life I can say we don't get hit that often since h'canes tend to break up into tropical storms by the time they reach us. The worst I have been through was a Category 2 in 2003. Given that weather satellites were likely fried on DD, I have been wondering as well if this might be a driving force in several areas trying to put up a crude satellite to watch over the weather. That is why I mentioned they are working towards such a goal at Wallops in the UCD. --Fxgentleman 02:57, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Though nuclear bombs going off inside the earth would certainly affect faults and volcanoes, I doubt seriously that any amount of air bursts would have much affect. If Yellowstone Park was hit as hard as the silos with ground bursts, there would be no question there could have been a serious disruption of the ecosystem (if not a continent-wide destroyer if the past due "super volcano" erupted!).  The ground bursts that hit on the other end of the state, and those in central Montana, were too far away to seriously affect the Yellowstone Caldera.


 * As for hurricanes, I agree they would be worse, but Nicole broke up, never even becoming a Category 1, before it reached Florida. Even with the warmer oceans, I'd hesitate pushing storms up 3 notches.  Though this storm has to systems behind it, and maybe because it does, I'd probably go with a category 1, or maybe a 2 for a short time.  If we applied the same logic (0 to 3) to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there would be nothing left of the whole Gulf Coast!


 * And Fx, the satellites themselves would not have been fried (EMPs only work in the atmosphere), though some might have been knocked out of orbit if they happened to be in the vicinity of the warheads that exploded in space (not likely, but possible). What would be affected would be ground tracking stations.  The best defense for the east coast and the gulf would be radio reports reaching from the Caribbean and Mexico. Of course, satellites die and fall out of orbit regularly, so new ones would definitely have to be launched. SouthWriter 03:38, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.... interesting. Most of these wouldn't happen, as south pointed out, but a few areas that were nuked with faults right under them - or volcanoes essentially inside the blast zone - could have some sort of event happen, in addition to what occurred in otl. Some would be worse too - for instance, I could see the World Series Earthquake of 1989 being stronger than it actually was, as an example.

Lordganon 04:03, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

A New Idea of Mine:
Would it be possible for the post-Doomsday world to have some sort of international agency for studying radiation and hazard zones left by the nuclear strikes? Their operatives could study the effects of fallout, experiment, work in the contaminated wastelands collecting samples, etc. Their purpose would be to study the crisis and its effects and research these uninhabitable areas. Such an organization could give estimates as to how long it would be before such areas are inhabitable again. They could also set up field stations and travel across nuclear-devastated zones looking for any unknown communities of survivors. Maybe something like a Post-Doomsday Recovery and Research Agency of the sort.--Emperor of Trebizond 00:38, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * It would likely be a League of Nations effort if it was an international agency, working in association with member nations or yet-to-be member nations. I had the LoN making estimates on resettlement for New York City, under the guise of its North American HQ. BrianD 01:15, October 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * This sounds an awful lot like work the WCRB - and to a certain extent the WWF - along with various governments are doing. Especially the WCRB. Lordganon 04:31, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

This organization I had in mind would be specifically for studying long-term effects of radiation and collecting samples and research on uninhabitable waste areas. (Like the uninhabitable area in Central Europe, maybe). Of course, they could be the only living people working in such areas, and would need protective gear like radiation preventative measures and hazmat equipment. Something more of a scientific research agency, perhaps? --Emperor of Trebizond 19:46, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

International Heath Organization, does alot of research of the public health. You could always have some type of sub-division for the IHO, you could make it if you wanted too.--Sunkist- 19:51, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

What I need most before I can start the article is an estimate or map of the currently uninhabited European territory still suffering from Doomsday as of the end of the 1980's and as of today. A good example: "Vast areas of North America, most of Europe, much of the Soviet Union, and many parts of China are uninhabitable. Radiation levels dropped with the predicted two weeks fall-out pattern, but irradiated regions and areas where toxic chemicals have been spilled remain lethal to humans. Several nuclear reactors in the US, Europe, and the Soviet Union experience critical meltdowns and explode, releasing additional radiation into the atmosphere." Instead of general terms like 'most' and 'much', where, exactly? I've looked at the 1983: Doomsday map page and none of the maps there seem to help.--Emperor of Trebizond 20:47, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Really, it is a good idea, but it just seems superfluous when all the current agencies that are somewhat active in the area.

Honestly, about the only way this could work would be some sort of LoN office to coordinate activities between the agencies.

Lordganon 10:10, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

What about as a subdivision of the International Heath Organization, more for scientific research? Look at it like space stations on the currently uninhabited moon or something such as that.--Emperor of Trebizond 13:02, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that could work, but...... it still sounds superfluous. Maybe as some sort of brand-new agency, jointly done by the WCRB, WWF, and IHO? Would be small, but in that light it would work.

Given conditions in much of eastern Romania, Moldovia, and southern Ukraine - "habitable", but too radiated for crop growing - that would be an ideal pace to set-up shop.

Lordganon 02:36, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

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

Due to size this discussion is being moved to Talk:Sultanate of Turkey (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 00:59, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me and JackOfSpades' proposal for a international organization in the Great Lakes region. Arstarpool 01:34, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to passing as a stub? Arstarpool 00:13, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we get a list of members, that way people don't have to consult the map. Mitro 15:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also London, Pennsylvania and Toledo should become canon first before this is graduated. --GOPZACK 19:00, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this proposal might actually conflict with this article: League of the United American States (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 16:03, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does. The League of the United American States (1983: Doomsday) was a proposed idea as I recall and hadn't even been foramlly voted on by Superior's Congress. --GOPZACK 16:26, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is my point though. The LUAS is a canon article and pretty much seems similar to this current proposal. If the proposal is graduated, than why would this organization even be proposed if Superior was already a member of the UC in 2007? Mitro 21:28, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah but, LUAS does not even exist yet its a bill purposed by Harold Duke some right-winger in the Congress of Superior. With that said, I really don't know Superior would be a member now that I think about it. In fact I don't know why the other members would want Superior in it. Superior would dominate all decisions made in the UC. --GOPZACK 03:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar became caretaker of Superior, but he may not have been aware of the LUAS (which if I recall correctly was Lahbas' proposal). BrianD 03:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are their any articles he's not a caretaker of? ;) I think your right Lahbas did write that article. --GOPZACK 03:55, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

How does one become a "caretaker" of an article he has not edited? Arstar was appointed to look out for vandalism and "trolls" (which I assume are obnoxious articles offensive and totally irrelevant). I am hard-pressed to keep my own articles updated, much less hop around fixing elements of other folks' articles.

Apart from that, the UC seems workable. It is not the grand scheme to bring the USA back under a new umbrella (an idea I like, by the way). The UC is a locally based organization, and probably would have been founded some time before anyone knew of the LoN. --SouthWriter 04:36, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * He asked Lahbas for permission to adopt Superior (and Wisconsin). BrianD 14:57, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Did Lahbas grant him permission? GOPZACK 01:19, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Zack, yes on Wisconsin, no on Superior. The latter was my misunderstanding. I got Lahbas and Superior mixed up with Mjdoch and Celtic Alliance. Lahbas did give Arstar permission to be caretaker of Wisconsin (with a couple of conditions), and Arstar did in fact ask him for Superior. According to their talk pages Lahbas never responded back in regards to Superior. So as far as I can tell, Lahbas is still caretaker for Superior.

Ah, I don't see any radical edits by Arstar on the Superior article so we need not worry about that for now. I still think this alliance can't work with Superior in it. Pennsylvania (if graduated) will be weaker then Arstar's original article, Toledo is in decent shape, Niagara Falls is small and London doesn't have much of an army so Superior would basically run that show with an iron fist. GOPZACK 01:22, August 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Waitasecond. Oerwinde makes reference to Arstar being caretaker of Superior. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Arstarpool#Superior.2FOntario.2FCanada.2FSaguenay_War BrianD 18:03, August 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the adoption rules somebody must ask somebody who hasn't edited in three months or more to adopt a page. If the editor does not respond in a week the article is theirs. Other than a few talk page related edits within the three months Lahbas did not edit, meaning that I am the current caretaker of Superior. However I will return it to Lahbas should he request for it to be returned. Arstarpool 03:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you plan to do with Superior? BrianD 20:55, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is true that someone can adopt an unedited article the article cannot be changed based on QSS. However, it can be continued in a different direction from the last chronological reference (new item in "real time" in most cases). It will have to confirm with the histories of other related articles in order to stay viable as well. I suspect that Arstar has no real drastic changes in mind, though. SouthWriter 15:39, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay guys are there any objections to graduation? Arstar [talk] 06:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay guys are there any objections to graduation? Arstar [talk] 06:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay guys are there any objections to graduation? Arstar [talk] 06:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

nothing has been decided yet--Owen1983 10:39, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

It should wait until the situation in southern Ontario is decided before graduation.

Lordganon 00:35, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Rhodope-Vidin War
Call it the Bulgarian finale. Will be ongoing through the month.

Lordganon 02:20, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

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

It's not done yet.

Lordganon 10:15, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Would any of the American survivor states be interested in putting an American member of the Bulgarian - and Vidinite - Communist Parties on trial?

Lordganon 22:14, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

It would be great "business" for the United Communities; with your permission could the members be tried in Niagara Falls in front the United Communities Post-War Committee? Arstar [talk] 00:05, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Why would the good folks in Bulgaria send people to stand trial in another continent in Niagara Falls by an untested "United Communities Post-War Committee" that only has members in Southern Ontario & North-Central United States, in the post-Doomsday world? If anything they'd go before a LoN war crimes tribunal. --Zack 00:12, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

For starters, we're only talking about a single member, Georgi Pirinski, Jr. He is a Bulgarian-American, born in New York, and has been involved with communist politics in Bulgaria since the 1950s. I figure that someone in America may want him as a patsy for the war - basically, for war crimes, but tried in the USA due to his citizenship, even though he renounced it in the 70s. Something along the lines of him not being a Bulgarian, so they can't try him (in their opinions) in a Rhodopian court of law.

Glad someone finally answered, but the United Communities are a bit far. Personally, I was hoping for a member of the Dixie Alliance, though most states on the Atlantic coast would work. Heck, Plymouth or the Outer Lands would be nice.

But barring no good answers, I will be either giving him up to an area state or having Rhodope try him anyway.

Lordganon 03:48, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Article created by Jnjaycpa. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2jec010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Adopted and will resume work on it soon. --XterrorX 10:44, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Any objections? Arstarpool 23:21, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lianyungang, a city of 4 million, appears to be a pretty important city to China. Wouldn't it been destroyed on Doomsday? Mitro 00:50, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally am surprised China got hit as bad as it did.Oerwinde 09:40, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the Soviets probably wanted to knock out China from being able to attack them if they got into a war with the US. Exactly what targets that plan would entail is still guess work. Mitro 01:01, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I have a concern regarding the article dealing with National Historic Landmarks in Virginia. Several of those listed were located in Richmond, VA and likely destroyed along with the city on Doomsday. I mentioned it previously, but I noted they are still there. When this article is canonized, I believe this part should be accordingly adjusted. --Fxgentleman 04:46, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

So do I. I like Yank, but his insistence on Richmond having survived is almost as bad as Owen's perpetual attempts to retroactively save Manchester, England. BrianD 01:36, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted it so that Richmond was struck, but with a non-nuclear ICBM. I altered the page to make the landmarks in Richmond reconstructions of the originals.

Yankovic270 14:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Richmond is too important of a target to not be nuked. We have been over this almost as much as Manchester with Owen. Mitro 04:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * At least Owen's proposals are amusing. Can we by any chance add that Richmond VA & Manchester UK were hit by nukes to the QSS and QAA and the . --GOPZACK 04:08, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Florida and New Rome ones are hole-fillers and have no purpose in life other than to take away the ugly red link. I took them off the graduation list kay? Arstarpool 05:37, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless the article article of Virginian landmarks is edited to remove references to Richmond, I think it should be marked as obsolete. Mitro 18:22, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove references to Richmond and graduate the article. There's nothing inherently wrong with the article, just with the Richmond references. BrianD 19:39, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Former stub expanded on by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the Sri Lankan Civil War? What happened to the Tigers? Doomsday probably would have made things go better for them. We could see a divided Sri Lanka. Mitro 01:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I did my research, and this is actually Bob's grandfather who died in OTL, but somehow managed to survive irridation and starvation. Arstarpool 23:39, August 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Admit it, Arstarpool, the "research" was the talk page where Bob revealed to Mitro who William had been. As long as William was alive on Doomsday, his life could have gone any number of ways. This could include escaping whatever it was that killed him in OTL. If William died of heart disease, then the more austere life after DD may have improved his diet and exercise. If he died of cancer, life style changes might have prevented the cancer from developing as well. The fact that anyone escaped destruction means that it could be just that, ANY ONE


 * I say develop it, Bob. You've got the start of it on the East Britain page. SouthWriter 01:25, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Because this man is my grandfather, I know the intimacies of the causes of his death. He was a farmer and a successful one at that. He died because of a combination of a tumour which developed in his face because of long term chemical use and a small stroke. My idea was that due to Doomsday, he continued to farm, providing for his community. As East Britain expanded, it took control of farms and made them state controlled. At this point my Grandad stood up for farmer's rights and moved from the agricultural field to the political one, all the time calling out for farmers rights. He grew to be a prominent politician and helped form the Agricultural Party. Because of this move from the fields to the political battlefield, the exposure to chemicals that would one day kill him is dramatically reduced, though small cancers would trouble him for the rest of his life. I know that toward the end he may have appeared pathetic but this was just the drugs. He was a strong man with a strong will to fight. Also as you say South, the more austere life leads to his heart being healthier, rendering the stroke that would be the slippery slope to death null. This means he still a fit and strong man now, in fact even more so. Though not leader of the Agricultural Party, he was a strong voice on the National Council and his political ideas about agricultural redistribution lead to a proliferation of jobs as young mean and women served their 'National Service' not in the Guardsmen but in the fields. His popularity as food became an exportable product and wealth flowed into East Britains coffers ultimately lead to his election as King of East Britain. Bob 11:01, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * With all that information, you need only move it to the article in an organized fashion and the article can be on its way to graduation. --SouthWriter 15:58, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think making your grandfather king and you a prince is not the right choice. How about making him a chancellor of East Britain? But a king? And you a prince? I am sorry but not only is it not plausible, but unfair. If I said I wanted my cousin the new Queen of Spain, or my aunt the Eternal President of Singapore, or my dad the King of Kentucky, or my great-uncle the new Dictator of Cuba, it would be shouted down, but making him have a temporary seat of power as a prime minister would be much more plausible. Arstarpool 22:46, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find a plausible reason why your cousin should be the new Queen of Spain, or your aunt the Eternal President of Singapore, or your father the King of Kentucky, or your great-uncle the new Dictator of Cuba I'll support it. --GOPZACK 01:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do Zack. Arstarpool 01:32, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * But anyways does anybody else think it is implausible to make your grandfather king? At best I think he could be chancellor or some other seat of power but I doubt they would make him king. Arstarpool 01:32, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The English love the monarchy Arstar. GOPZACK 02:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a descendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The English love the monarchy Arstar. GOPZACK 02:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a descendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a descendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Besides, Bermuda has pretty much the same thing. An elected official who beocmes popular enough to be selected as king.

Yankovic270 00:47, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm with Arstar... something doesn't sit right about doing this with a relative. Benkarnell 04:26, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well, at the moment we Brits are at an especially low point in popularity for the monarchy, but under a quarter of us are republicans. Because of that, I should think the Windsor monarchy is unpopular due to the flight to New Britain but a homegrown monarch would be popular. Bob 15:17, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, really, get your head out of the toilet and think about this. This is basically making the timeline one big tribute to a relative. What I always thought a monarchy is is that it represents the power and spirit of your nation. But no offense, electing an old guy to become king wouldn't really be plausible, much less somebody with leadership capabilities. Some people say "Oh, we tried to do it with Washington!" but thats actually an urban legend. Electing your grandfather to become a king is like one big middle finger at plausibility and NCNC. Arstarpool 19:06, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be so dramatic Arstar. Its perfectly reasonable for an elder statesman who has fought for farmers rights in to post Doomsday world. Plus I doubt your character assassination of Bob's grandfather will sit well with anyone.
 * How is this a violation of NCNC? The NCNC page reads, "Adapted to alternate history, the rule can be summed up like this: discussions on religion and politics should center on our fictional timelines and not devolve into debates on politics and religion in real life (OTL)" --GOPZACK 20:27, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read the proposal, Astar, you'd see that Bob's grandfather does represent the "spirit of [his] nation. Personally, I think he probably would be elected far sooner than 2010. If he had been in power a little longer, I think it would be more plausible, but overall there's nothing implausible about it. And far as "we tried, etc.," my exact words above were "there were those who wanted to make George Washington king." The myth was that Washington considered it. He opposed it vehemently, but admitted that the letter from Col. Nicola was not the only attempt of someone to suggest a monarchy with him as king. The whole story is found at |Top Ten George Washington Legends (number 4). SouthWriter 21:25, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

So can we finally get this graduated? --Zack 03:12, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm for graduating the article, though as a stub. The paragraph needs to be broken into smaller bits and expanded a little. Also, the final sentence needs to be changed to either remove the Celtic Blockade (if it never happened) or state that the crisis has passed (if we assume it was a misunderstanding by the CA). SouthWriter 04:26, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should take a vote on this matter before you just decide it is plump for graduation. Please sign your name below in the respective section.
 * Should Bob's grandfather be King of East Britain?
 * Yay
 * This should really be an actual poll - but Yay. Lordganon 03:38, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay. --Fegaxeyl 06:51, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea - It's been discussed, folks, and it's time. SouthWriter 14:24, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay .--Zack 17:42, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nay
 * Nay. Arstar [talk]


 * I've never seen this done for a proposal, having a vote & all. Zack 02:35, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I assumed yours was an objection to the vote, Zack, since you voiced support above. SouthWriter 14:24, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I plan it to be a sort of rump state comprised of the remnants of the US Military and initially the US's Atlantic territories until eventually it begins to deteriorate until it is comprised of two or three small islands in the present day. It will be kind of a mix between the APA and the CRUSA. Arstarpool 02:08, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I left my comments on the talk page. Mitro 04:18, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be high if I'm asking this but are there any objections? Arstarpool 01:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...yeah. There is still no way there would be an American presence in Guantanamo. It would either fall to the Cubans, or be abandoned and then fall to the Cubans. The idea that they would be bailed out by the ECF makes little sense. Even I doubt the ECF nations have that large of a navy to provide proper support. Furthermore Guantanamo would mean nothing for the Confederation. Mitro 01:51, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought my email picked up all these notes. It's been 5 days and I did not get a notice of this. Anyway, our discussions on the USAR talk page make it clear that the consensus is against this idea as is. The main beef is the holding of the base at Guantanamo. Originally, Gitmo was to be a territory of South Florida, but that got shot down. So then it became the fortified capital of America in a hostile land at war with them (America having bombed them with two Nukes!) I am sure the command would have come to get out of there soon after the accidental firing of the missiles. The idea of the Remnant, though, need not die. Such military support in the Caribbean would be a blessing to the American diaspora. SouthWriter 23:41, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. An interesting new template (ofa830 -- a desperate plea instead of a simple announcement. It appeared after my note was put up at the page's talk page (in answer to the old 'ofa'). I have alrteady made room for the organization in the "American diaspora" article, so I will gladly adopt the article. I should have put that notice here as well, but I was so flabbergasted that it would be handed over after the fight for its graduation. Any way, I adopt it. I will remove the 'ofa83' template now, and begin transforming the article soon. SouthWriter 19:53, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * My only request: Please keep it as a territorial government, and not some American expat organization! Arstarpool 01:13, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I created and added the new template, since the original all wiki template is for whole timelines and not articles. I used the final line from the nuclear war film The Day After for inspiration.  I guess not many people got the joke.  Mitro 18:08, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * My only request: Please keep it as a territorial government, and not some American expat organization! Arstarpool 01:13, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I created and added the new template, since the original all wiki template is for whole timelines and not articles. I used the final line from the nuclear war film The Day After for inspiration.  I guess not many people got the joke.  Mitro 18:08, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Food
I've started a page on this, since if there's a page on what people are drinking then there should really be one on what they're eating.Tessitore 20:35, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections?
 * So much of it is not even finished. Give Tess some time to work. Mitro 01:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Neonotia (New South)
SouthWriter's proposal for a nation-state in OTL southern Alabama and Georgia, with former President Carter involved. BrianD 17:41, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

The name is kind of wierd, kind of something you would see in the original Map Games, but the details are okay I guess. Arstarpool 23:19, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Wales
A survivor republic based in southeast Wales. Jnjaycpa 17:53, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think that they would end up joining their fellow Celts in the Celtic Alliance. Besides that the Celtic Alliance article pretty much states what isn't theres of Wales and Scotland is mostly wasteland. Keep that in mind. Arstarpool 19:58, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well are there any objections before I make this obsolete? 01:55, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think he should be given a chance, first. While I think it should be smaller, the thing as a whole is plausible, to a degree. 

Lordganon 02:20, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Second Empire of Trabzon
I have just completed an article on the Second Empire of Trabzon, a now-extinct monarchy in post-Doomsday Turkey that was extinguished by the Sultanate of Turkey in 2009. It claims to be the (nominal) successor to the original Greek Empire of Trebizond based in modern Trabzon, Turkey. --Emperor of Trebizond 19:44, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, but graduation will have to wait until the Sultanate is graduated.

Lordganon 00:55, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Greek Revival

 * Agion Oros (1983: Doomsday)
 * Morea (1983: Doomsday)
 * Cyrenaica (1983: Doomsday)

I've remodeled the article for Sunkist. Map coming soon. But tell me what could be the maximum extent of this state? Arstar [talk] 05:35, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I kept the name change, anything still wrong with Indiana?, I'm really hoping to get this passed some time soon.---Sunkist- 02:23, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder, the discussion about the map can be found on the discussion page. Personally, I think that Sunkist's additional blue counties, but not the red, in the map on the right are as many as could be expected to be annexed in the state as habitable land. The Northern part of the state is "fair game" if it can be reclaimed in time. SouthWriter 04:51, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Map showing Indiana, the Kentucky states of Southern Indiana, Evansville and Bloomington and Toledo's claims. The old map showed Terre Haute not being part of Indiana, current map shows it, rest is basicly---Sunkist- 05:20, October 3, 2010 (UTC) I'm willing to help out with the article but the size is just too big as several people pointed out. (It's not just me who disagreed, South!) Arstar [talk] 05:28, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not say it was only you, Arstar, so don't be defensive. If you look on the discussion page, the maps above the aforementioned section show the FEMA strike zones overlaying the county map. In the Map discussion, my first suggested map (on the left) is the minimum based on all strikes listed.  Sunkist expanded to a map showing areas that were deemed probably not hit.  My note above just says that such a map is the largest I think things could get.  It's not unreasonable to assume the best in Indiana (especially if you're a Hoosier).  You assumed the best for Florida, didn't you?  :-)  SouthWriter 21:18, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Actually I worked with what was already established as canon from mentions from other articles on South Florida. Gainesville was out of my hand so I had no say in what happened there. First Coast was Sunkist's and the Republic of Florida is just mashing the three together as seperate exclaves of territory. Article talks about its size, if you really go up into Northern Indiana what your really going to see is just a lot of farms, if you look at the history, you will see that the cites of Terre Haute, Richmond, Former Fort Wayne, Lafayette and Wabash & Warsaw, formed city-states that gained control over these farms and that in due time the city-states knew they wouldn't be able to stay independent, so they formed Provisional Indiana. Its not like one large city took over the land, like Toledo did or Fort Knox.---Sunkist- 05:39, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

But those farms are in counties, and there are towns in counties :) Where there are towns there are people, and where there are people there are bad people. Where there are bad people there are bad people taking advantage of bad situations. Thats how raiders come into the picture. Raiders can come in the form of drug dealers or biker gangs, and they can make even the smallest town or biggest city collapse if they are in the right numbers. That's why its not plausible for every non-nuked area to be home to a nation state.

With having calling up the national guard and local forces, all in which are present in all the major cities, one is in my city. These towns are little farm towns..Indianapolis and Gary were the areas of most violence, with which Indiana dose not control.----Sunkist- 06:28, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Anything else?---Sunkist- 07:13, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether its a farm town or not. Altamont was a town of a couple hundred people and raiders had a headquarters there. Indianapolis and Gary couldn't have been areas of violence because Indiana does not control it? They were nuked! Arstar [talk] 07:45, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

The nature of the towns matters little. There is still a fair chance of gangs, etc. appearing.

It is just too blasted large, Sun. And Arstar is right about Altamont - you may want to read the history of Superior article.

Lordganon 10:21, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've read the History of Superior, trust me...its really not helpful. When you read about them going to Indiana they don't state where in Indiana. I've added some things to the history that can work with the gangs. Also, 'Its just to big' has been repeated and repeated over and over again, I'm sure I can counter it this time.----Sunkist- 16:31, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well you've never changed the size (or maybe by a micro-bit) and you keep asking any objections when there are objections! No, you don't get it though, the Superior article states this:

''In former Indiana, the expedition came across several nomadic clans that traveled over most of the Midwest, and were told that there were many such groups both South and West of their current location. Meetings with the “Rico” clan did not go well, as a soldier by the name of Pvt. Neville Gregory had apparently fallen in love with, and removed the virginity of, the Chief’s daughter. A firefight ensued as warriors of the clan tried to take both Pvt. Gregory and the daughter, now disowned, back to the camp. As a result of this incident, strict rules were put upon expedition member’s interactions with the natives, and Pvt. Gregory was removed from active duty.''

Also almost all the radios would have been knocked out after Doomsday. Also what you added about the military doesn't really help much. There aren't gangs there are nomads, so tell me how they wen't from being nomads to a nation/provisional state in 15 years? Arstar [talk] 01:51, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Auburn, Alabama
So what happened in the Alabama college town, and site of a provisional state government post-DD? An article to expand on what has been written as canon in the New Montgomery and 2009 WCRB report on the southern United States articles (I'm giving Charles Barkley to South if he wants him for the Neonotia article) --BrianD 03:17, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Trebizond. Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Private Response and Military Defense Services
A private mercenary organization in the military field formed after Doomsday.--Emperor of Trebizond 01:24, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it but it's not really plausible for this sort of community project. An army fleeing to a small island and turning it into a fortress with spotlights and such? Defending from who? Being hired by who? For what purpose? I'm sorry but its a tad, um, unfit for this sort of thing. Arstarpool 08:34, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

There are such real organizations in the world. Who? For What Purpose? Defending it from who? The small island you described is just barely large enough it can be used for this. Besides, it's not one army, but ex-soldier survivors looking for a job that were brought together by someone whose fortune was generally unaffected by Doomsday. See the talk page for more. --Emperor of Trebizond 12:10, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand. There is nobody except the Australians and the South Americans that had fortunes after Doomsday. Trade collapsed, and with it order, so there would be no jobs for a long, long time. You can't just keep things vague like "they meet under the table" in this sort of thing. Everything needs reason. And there are not such"real organizations" in the world. Sure, there are the New York Rangers, but they were founded on practicality Arstarpool 19:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

How do you contact the most prestigious and the best law firms and banks on the planet? Does that have a reason? No, it's awfully vague. You have to have a lot of money, and many important people contact such organizations "under the table". Investors in Australia and South America could have private reasons for funding the PRMDS.--Emperor of Trebizond 16:30, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool, you're comparing two very different things. The SAC and ANZC are nations. The PRMDS is a corporation. Corporations are a dimension we've failed to explore thus far on this timeline. Just because nations collapse doesn't mean corporations would also collapse, and the same goes with how prosperous they are. Many corporations, pre-Doomsday, were well equipped, wealthy, and highly connected. It's very possible that several large, multinational corporations would survive Doomsday relatively intact and be able to reorganize post-Doomsday. Or, another way to look at this is that the post-Doomsday world is a survival of the fittest world. The stronger you are, the wealthier you are. The PRMDS would be formed from various military groups that survived Doomsday, were well trained, and kept their equipment. At first, they would be glorified raiders, but later on, once the states of the Black Sea became interconnected with the rest of the world, they would become a legitimate mercenary force with global reach. Caeruleus 16:39, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm really impressed. That sums up my concept of the PRMDS flawlessly.--Emperor of Trebizond 17:35, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

The SAC is not a nation for one, and neither of you have read enough and don't fully understand how everything works. There aren't investors in the northern hemisphere, where buisness is still at a very basic. Exceptions would be the Celts or the Alpines or the Siberians or maybe even the Nordics but they aren't going to be funding a private militia because they need dirty work done or something. World travel as you portray it is not how it really is, so they would not be launching missions across the world. This "world" isn't how ours is minus the US and Europe and the Soviets, its a world where you can find a degree of normalcy in the Pacific and South America and pretty much everywhere else is struggling at the moment including places like the Alpine Confederation and the Celtic Alliance and Canada and Siberia. If this was reorganized and renamed into something of a local militia it would be more plausible.

The worst part is is that you speak of nations that aren't part of the timeline yet, the Turkey page is still a proposal and isn't going anywhere for a looong time...so this page would remain a proposal until Elazig and Turkey are graduated. Arstarpool 19:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter that your opinion that this would remain a proposal until Elazig and Turkey are graduated? I haven't a problem with that. The PRMDS could've been planned before Doomsday but significantly affected by the results of Doomsday, which made it by far a more possible, attractive, and plausible venture by whoever planned it. They can travel locally to the East or to the West (Furthest to Africa and furthest west to Central Asia). Limited range, but more than enough within that to keep them busy.--Emperor of Trebizond 19:46, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know the SAC is a collection of nations, but it fits into the same category. You're also misinterpreting what this is. This isn't a typical pre-Doomsday corporation that you just go and "invest" in. A more apt comparison would be to the Knights Templar or Knights of Rhodes. These were wealthy, independent, private mercenary organizations that had large amounts of capital and small amounts of territory in which they are based, similar to the PRMDS. They don't need people to invest in them. They acquire their own funds, or, in a post-Doomsday world, simply obtain success in survival which essential means they pay for themselves because in eastern Europe, financial systems broke down post-Doomsday so the typical dynamics of a money-based economy would not apply to as great of an extent.


 * Also, you vastly overestimate the necessary level of stability for this to be plausible. The Alpines, ANZC, SAC, Nordics, Celts, Siberians, Koreans and Japanese are all stable enough. They don't need to be prosperous to be able to pay for mercenaries. African warlords OTL are able to pay for mercenaries, and we all know how poor and unstable they are. The chaos of eastern Europe actually provides a ripe enviroment for them to develop because, like I said, they could start off as glorified bandits, grow wealthy through pillaging, and establish a semi-legitimate international operation by the late 2000s. This article is plausible, though they may not be deploying to Africa until the late 2000s. Caeruleus 19:52, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool has a thing about rushing articles through quickly so don't feel like you have to hurry. I defiantly think this article can work. After Doomsday there would be a lot of "guns for hire" popping up around the world. Also in the anarchy who says they need money? they could raid an armory get all the weapons they need. I'll try not get too philosophical here but money in the post Doomsday world is just pieces of paper. Major currencies would collapse on the commodities market (or whats left of it) and food, water and other necessities would become the new currency. Perhaps now that the situation has stabilized the ANZC Dollar or the currency of South America might appeal to them but initially its the necessities of life that ruled the day. GOPZACK 19:54, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't they use the already existing ruins and temples as bases? That would be more practical then demolishing them (which would be pretty hard post-Doomsday) and building new bases when materials would be scarse. Or they could build using ruins as foundations into new structures. Arstarpool 03:36, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose those temples would be small, ruined, and in their way, probably too unstable to use for much. They seem to be in pretty bad shape--the product of thousands of years..But I've seen remote ruins turned into secure monasteries before, so it wouldn't surprise me. It could also be a waste of explosive. I think I will probably consider this idea.--Emperor of Trebizond 09:35, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Took Arstarpool's idea into effect. I agree that the PRMDS could probably use the foundations of the ruins for their current buildings.--Emperor of Trebizond 02:55, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Page created by Michael Douglas 03:22, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about this one, guys what do you think? I really doubt they would decide to stay in Antarctica and anybody there probably starve or search refuge elsewhere. Arstarpool 04:09, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Really sounds kinda implausible.

Lordganon 18:10, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

No offense but there is pretty much no way this can work in this timeline. So should we mark it obsolete? Arstarpool 22:43, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

A few leaders could convince people to stay there, seeing as they just found out there had been a nuclear war. Plus, many people thought and still think that the entire world wouldn't survive a nuclear war. Antartica may be the only survivor if we have a nuclear war. I think that they could survive. Its possible that a small number would at least. I mean, they can fish, they have snow for water, they have rations to prevent scurvy until they get enough soil for a small crop in the summer. Nuclear summer happened, so it got a little warmer, and they had the seeds from the ships rations. Still, I can see your objections, and people would have to be exceptionally resourceful.Michael Douglas 00:53, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

But by warmer, it means like 10-25 degrees, which, no offense, would not change anything. I guess the article could be something like a temporary hideout until maybe the late 80's when explorers confirmed that South America or Australia survived. If Soviet Cosmonauts managed to return to Earth I think these guys could easily travel to South America. But a nation, or even a present-day territory would not work. New Britain, a nation in this timeline maintains a small town of 150 permanent residents in Antartica, but it is the result of re-settlement of British Antarctica and needing constant resupply. Or maybe it can be the result of a nation attempting to reestablish its presence in Antartica by at least 2011 or 2012, but you'll have to consult the authors of the articles. Arstarpool 02:12, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

True enough. I don't think it would work with the naming of the article (I don't see any Russian survivor nation being received to friendly by the international community, especially if they are colonizing a previously unclaimable territory which is already rather contested). I think that the main idea behind Keslov, which is people taking to the sea to survive and what happens to those already at sea when the nukes hit, may have to be moved. Hudson Bay is the only other place it MIGHT work, maybe Nunavut...anyway, I think it would be fair to consider Keslov obsolete, so ya, I second the Obsolete motion.Michael Douglas 01:03, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

If you want I can make it work for you. Arstarpool 01:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

New Haven
By Jnjaycpa. I'm pretty convinced that it won't work because Connecticuts small size plus assloads of fallout from Hartford and such. Plus the Vermont article states almost the entire state is a wasteland. Arstarpool 04:57, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Renamed from Republic of Connecticut. I'm skeptical about the article as well, but let's give Jay a chance to make his case. We also need to consider the effect it would have on the New England region and on the Vermont, Plymouth and Outer Lands articles if Jay can prove to everyone's satisfaction that New Haven/Bridgeport would have survived. I've alerted all of the relevant editors on the three articles, plus Zack, about the article. BrianD 19:12, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

I decided to restore the original name. --Jnjaycpa 23:16, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jay. Thank you for your interest in the time line, but a survirvor community on the Connecticut coast is not a promising idea. Though we don't always go by the FEMA maps, we usually have a very good reason to stray from them. It has pretty much been decided that much of Connecticut was decimated. To the right is a map based on the one | found here You will note the center and bottom of the state are practically "carpet bombed" with nukes! Lower Middlesex county (Clinton) sits between three field days of nukes. Some of these could be tertiary targets, but it doesn't look good for the chosen home for this survivor "nation." SouthWriter 02:11, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

We need to figure out which of these targets are the primary and secondary targets, as the tertiary targets wer likely not hit at all.

Yankovic270 02:21, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I got this from this web site.

CONNECTICUT Primary:  Groten-New London. Secondary: none Tertiary:  Bristol, Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, New Haven, Norwalk, Stamford.

I assumed that Hartford was nuked. I also nuked Stamford and Danbury. These strikes (along with the fallout from NYC) would devastate the western part of Fairfield County but leave New Haven county relativley unscathed. Jnjaycpa 03:15, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know exactly where this Bruce Beach guy is today, but back in May of 2001 he gave this analysis He theorizes as few 100 or as many as 2000 nukes would probably be used against North America in WW3. That would be in a planned attack of strategic targets. He defines what would be primary, secondary and tertiary targets in 2001. He says, though that targets are always changing. If we go with a certainty of primary, a high probability of secondary, and a rarity on tertiary sites, we will probably come out with a respectable patchwork of survivor states like we have now.

We cannot go back and rewrite the story though. I have to agree with Arstar on the tendency to optimism has prevailed most of the time. Nevertheless, as we rethink the size and number of strikes we acknowledge, it does look a lot better for people not living in the urban population centers. We see a lot of more surviving than originally imagined. We need a comprehensive map to see how well we're doing in our visualization of the USA and other sites around the northern hemisphere. SouthWriter 03:58, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the two cities, though you may want to add the city of Norwalk to that list - there's a lot of companies based there. And don't forget about the Submarine base at New London. Having a pair of strikes on Hartford may be best, to take out the city of New Britain, which is nearby, as well.

Though, you are right in one thing - New Haven wouldn't be hit unless someone really wanted to whack Yale or John Hopkins.

But, the fallout from New York and the surrounding strikes would have been dangerous. Fallout in the northeast US tends to drift slightly east, and then north. http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/UN_Images/FEMA.fallout.map.jpg shows this, though you'd need to at least triple the width of the new york fallout.

Maybe it would be best to have it be New Haven, but not much else, and only kept together by Yale and Hopkins? Keep the name, though. Bunch of intellectuals would be more apt to do that instead of a "Republic of Yale", for sure.

Lordganon 04:15, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, canon points to the entire state being a wasteland. Would anyone have any objections to making this obsolete? Arstarpool 04:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, canon states that most of the state is wasteland. That this area could survive does make sense, to a point. Call that an objection.

Lordganon 02:53, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Is the article finished? BrianD 02:59, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

A west-Ukraine state.

Lordganon 12:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

A west-Ukraine state.

Lordganon 12:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

A west-Ukraine state.

Lordganon 12:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Western Ukraine Organization.

Lordganon 12:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Lordganon 00:30, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

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

Article I made right before Zack made Antlers. Mentioned in the Oaklahoma article, I would appreciate if Zack or Brian or someone else could help me out with this one. Arstarpool 18:37, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to help out, let me know how I can do so. BrianD 02:14, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Me & South's proposal for the American Shadow Government post-Doomsday. --GOPZACK 02:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Buganda
An article created by me about the most important OTL kingdom on Uganda, which got independence during the Uganda Bush War. Fedelede 00:47, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks good so far but I don't think there would be such a rapid growth of Ganda religion and culture by 2005. Maybe 2015 would be a better target date. Arstarpool 00:37, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

A Transylvanian-supported Hungarian survivor state.

Lordganon 09:58, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic archdioceses in North America
My proposal for a list of Roman Catholic archdioceses and dioceses in North America. Intended to be a community project. BrianD 19:57, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I wrote about my "home" state of Florida and the Catholic institutions in Naples, FL? Arstarpool 21:57, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Go for it! I put them under the San Juan Archdiocese, as from reading the Florida articles it seems that those towns have closer ties to the Caribbean nations than any of the other regional nations and survivor states. BrianD 22:43, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...while Florida is a heavily Hispanic state the area of the, or more specifically South Florida is mostly White and most of which might not follow the heavily Church influenced lifestyle of the Hispanic churches. Most of the people in FL, or at least North Florida would probably go it alone or with another state in the South, in my humble opinion. But it's your call. Arstarpool 22:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

The closest archdiocese north of Florida TTL is in East Tennessee. How much contact have the Florida survivor states had with the other Southern survivor states, versus Puerto Rico, Cuba and the East Caribbean Federation?BrianD 22:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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)


 * 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)

New Mexico
An article on the state, touching on Doomsday targets and its post-Doomsday status. BrianD 23:19, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ambô
Five thousand farmers on an island, under Brazilian patronage. I like the idea of Brazilians poking around in West Africa. Do you? I'm sure the rest of Equatorial Guinea is as bad or worse than OTL, but this little piece of it is doing all right. Benkarnell 05:36, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made the page more pessimistic. I've also hinted at the turbulent politics of Equatorial Guinea during the 80s and 90s.  (And probably the 00s and into the 10s as well.)  Benkarnell 04:56, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Arizona
An article on the OTL state, touching on targets, and present-day TTL presence of the Navajo Nation and a survivor town in Prescott. BrianD 18:09, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert (1983: Doomsday)
An article about Colbert, who would have survived Doomsday, being in Rural Virginia attending Hampden-Sydney College. Most likely he becomes a humorist in Virginia in later years, though the article is not fully fleshed out yet. Tbguy1992 02:04, September 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems a little convergent to me. He's doing the same job, and the same show, with the same format, and the same title, as he is in real life? Think of the different experiences he'd have *there* - living as a survivalist and getting drafted into Virginia's military are givens, and there's also the fact that he never worked on the Daily Show, which provided so much of the Colbert Report's inspiration. He could be a writer, a politician, an entertainer, even an academic, and still be known for his humor (which I think was the point, to create a biography for a surviving American humorist). Benkarnell 05:01, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it more likely that he becomes a politician. He's got some aspirations OTL, if he maintains the same liberal tendencies as he does OTL combined with his charisma, he could be a huge political force for the Left in Virginia, which I assume is mostly dominated by the right.Oerwinde 10:12, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I have figured out is that he will be one of the first TV show's in Virginia, but after a Senator dies, he is asked to take his seat, which he accepts, and ultimately goes from their to be a politician, though he still maintains some ties with his roots, such as a radio program.


 * I would like some help on fixing it, because I'm in no way an expert on 1983:DD; this is perhaps one of the biggest contributions I've made to it so far. So, please? Tbguy1992 00:45, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Since the Plymouth/Outer Lands issue is over, I've made this page to document the state. Would be nice if Brian could do some work on it since he is the other person with land in the state. Arstarpool 02:42, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Article for the Alpine Confederation. Arstarpool 04:34, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

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




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

Block Island
Another associate state of the. SouthWriter 03:01, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

I created a page about Billy Joel, who survived and lives on. He has become a major celebrity and personality of the. It's still a work-in-progress. --NuclearVacuum 19:27, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Clothes and Fashion
I started this one a while ago but didn't get around to adding it here. Pretty much what the title suggests.Tessitore 23:53, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those articles that will never be "finished" in the usual sense. Any objections to graduation? Mitro 14:47, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

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

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the plausibility of this article on it's talk page. Please check it out. Mitro 21:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I should step in here, since I adopted it from Gamb. (Check his and my talk page for more info). But Mitro can you tell me what should be fixed? Arstarpool 23:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, check the talk page. South and Fx are the ones bringing the objections. Mitro 23:03, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its not really an objection per se, I am just agreeing with South the idea of Bermuda breaking off all contact for so long seems a bit odd. That's all.--Fxgentleman 03:49, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * There are numerous things that need addressing, Arstar, and it's all over at the talk page. Mitro saw the lengthy remarks I made there and put the article under review. If you are now responsible for its content, then I hope you will read the comments and consider how to change the article to be more viable. The main thing most comments have in common (Fx and Ben agreeing with me) is that the isolationism is unsustainable.
 * Power, communications and travel would not have ended immediately as it had on the North American continent. Immediate needs would have been rationing of food until shipments could be secured from the Caribbean and South America, for Bermuda has virtually no agriculture of its own. With radio contact available (assuming a near miss nuke postulated by Mito didn't knock out 100% of the electronics with an EMP) to the Bahamas, help would be on the way soon. Venezuelan oil would be available so they would not run out of power "in five months" (highly unlikely, since that too could be rationed to last a lot longer than five months if need be.
 * The American naval base there, receiving the "Gathering Order" would surely have informed the APA of the existence of Bermuda as well. They would have probably left as ordered, but not before meeting up with others in the North Atlantic also on their way to Australia. Tiny Bermuda would not have been left to their banks and hotels, to fend for themselves for 25 years. The whole concept is ludicrous. I'm hoping that at least this can be eased into the story lines of the other articles where appropriate, but as it stands it is totally not viable. SouthWriter 18:00, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say "ludicrous:" what reason would Venezuela have to send more than the most modest and basic aid? I'll repeat what I said on the talk page: I have no problem adjusting the date of first contact for Bermuda, but I'm against any change to the main story of a remote island left almost totally on its own.  I think it's fine for Bermudians and outsiders to be aware of one another in a mostly abstract sense, but that need not lead to any sort of regular intercourse between them.  Benkarnell 13:25, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republic of Superior
As per the multiple discussions, this needs a review based on the revelation that Southern Ontario was actually pretty heavily populated.Oerwinde 10:05, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "heavily populated" and "organized government". Hell, China still has hundreds of millions kicking but their shit's not in order at all. Lack of a central government or a provincial government takes a big toll when it comes to deciding what to do after a nuclear war. My idea is that most people fled south to London, Ontario and Norfolk, attempting to form a regional government, leaving the northern lands underpopulated and anyone who wanted to cause trouble could cause it, such as creating these "raider tribes" and "cannibals" we hear about so much. Then good ol' American rogue state Superior stepped in to start another wave of Manifest Destiny and boom! There we have a bunch of outposts. Arstarpool 23:00 September 27, 2010 (UTC)

That's the second time I've had to sign you stuff, Alex. Did you think you could just use "adult language" and be thought to be someone else. :-) Actually, your explanation works pretty well. The areas to the north are removed from the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence with land that is nowhere as good (even taking into account irradiation). Folk would tend to gather where other people were in order to survive. Except, that is, the hard core survivalists. And you've tagged Superior -- they got it in their heads that most of America was "toast" so they set out to rebuild America after their own image. Even if it meant taking part of Canada in the bargain. SouthWriter 02:54, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

China is as yet undocumented for the most part - and a few hundred million refugees eating their way through the countryside would mean most of the population would die. Heck, China now probably has a population similar to what it had two thousand years ago.

In northern Ontario, there are six population centers of decent size: North Bay, Timmins, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and Elliot Lake. North Bay was nuked, Timmins is too far north for sustainable life without outside supplies, Sault Ste. Marie is (justifiably) part of Superior, and Elliot Lake is a mining city surrounded by forest and swamps, meaning no food there either.

The net result of that is a dead zone between Sudbury and Hudson Bay to the north and between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie to the west. It would allow Superior to expand into those areas, with little to argue with the current view of the area. Past that, they would run into people - and organized states - somewhere between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie. The same idea would be seen around Thunder Bay.

In late September, the likelihood of refugees from the hits on cities in and around Southern Ontario getting far is unlikely - most would not get to these survivor states in shape to live long.

The survival of Thunder Bay in its present form makes sense - that area is mostly rocky and forested, but with the lake they could feed themselves, though barely. Sudbury would not be much better off, but I can say from personal experience of the area that outside of like ~2 miles of the city itself - and the mines, of course - there is farmland in the area, especially along the roads to the southwest, towards the lake. Besides, since the early 1970s there has been extensive efforts there to rehabilitate the area. There'd still be issue there, obviously - there would still be hunger, at least for a while.

People would attempt to flee south, I'm sure - but few would make it. Add in the discussed vestiges of Canadian government authority at Kingston, and it becomes that much harder for Superior to expand its control in Ontario beyond parts of the shoreline of Lakes Superior and Huron. The majority of people would have stayed put and suffered - there's no point at all in going south when you'll probably die trying, after all.

The area over by Midland is likely to be outside the control of Superior, however - as a matter of fact, I would say anything beyond Manitoulin Island is too far for them to expand to.

As for how this could impact the War itself, the existence of these states would disrupt the passage of Superior forces to the theater of war. This is what needs to be put into that article, somehow.

Lordganon 04:46, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

The Northern Ontario territories aren`t in dispute, the Southern Ontario ones are. Midland due to its position as a tourist town is equipped to house nearly 10x its permanent population, making it a likely center of a survivor state, the abundant agricultural lands and several surviving urban centers would likely ensure several survivor states and greatly change the outcome of Superior`s colonization. Some smaller areas would likely view annexation by a large organized state as preferrable to submitting to the influence of a city-state, but Canadians are a pretty patriotic people, and our national identity is mostly defined by us not being American, so this would ensure resistance to rule by an American survivor state.Oerwinde 07:48, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

The area I was discussing is actually the area in question, Oer. East of the island is Midland and its associated territories. My whole speech basically said that the northern Ontario parts are fine, but the area east of the island - Midland, Barrie, etc - would still be fairly populated.

Lordganon 00:41, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I found this on the Ohio page:

 Between the nuking, Canadians fleeing south over Lake Erie, and the millions of displaced suburban families most thought that the state would be nearly impossible to salvage.

Guys why would they be fleeing if they were in "order"? I hate to say it but no matter how you put it we are pretty much bending canon to let Oer and Zack's articles in the area "slide by". Arstar [talk] 02:47, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the article that started all of this was Zack's - and the line in the Ohio article was put in by him - I would ignore it, myself.

As for its content, following the destruction of Detroit and Toronto, you'll have people fleeing in many locations across the lake. The line itself, truthfully, means little - and if you think about it, you'll agree. This could end up meaning only a few dozen boats, fleeing to where they saw no mushroom clouds from, or even a rumor of the area across the lake being intact - as you and Jack have made with North Penn and Toledo.

We are not bending canon to allow their passage. I myself could care less about the articles. What is the problem here is grossly inaccurate assumptions that were originally put into the Superior article - and as has been discussed several times, there is a need to remedy the problems.

Lordganon 06:38, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar has made some revisions to the map and to other elements of the article, I encourage you guys to check it out. --Zack 18:05, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've changed almost everything needed to be changed in the Superior article itself, but if there's something that needs changing then tell me. Arstar [talk] 18:22, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

The map looks good, though the history has not been improved, realistically. You still have the one territory that doesn't equal any physical location, fyi.

Now, as I said I was going to do, I've come up with a comprehensive planish thingy for everything:


 * Eastern borders of Superior rolled back to the Island, and south east rolled back to tip of the peninsula.
 * Midland borders rolled back southward/westward.
 * Establishment of Sudbury and Kingston city states.
 * Sudbury effectively allied to Superior, having been aided by Superior with food, etc.
 * Kingston held by Canadian remnants in region.
 * Kingston as on map shrunk.
 * Kitchener established as well, opposition to London.
 * Likely not a member of the UC due to this.
 * Ontario city-states generally supportive of Superior, hosting military teams and exploratory parties and even looking into joining the state until the discovery of both Kingston and the word of the definite survival of Canada through the raiders.
 * Still meet up with Maine/Vermont forces, who confirm everything.
 * Still work with it, as Canadian government cannot get support to them, but now refuse to join them.
 * Leads to the various city-states (inc. Sudbury) joining the United Communities, except TB, Kingston, and Midland.
 * Add the nuclear destruction of Hamilton and CFB Gagetown, as well as second strikes on Montreal (at Laval), Toronto (At Missisauga) and CFB Edmonton (strike on city itself over Strathcona, on the south side of the river).
 * Superior desires to gain the city-states, so they fund/supply the Raiders using roads, etc. through Sudbury and north of Midland and Kingston
 * This ensures that the Canadian government cannot break the raiders and regain the area, though they have been weakening them as of late, with the addition of Ara~ efforts from the south.
 * The raider-controlled zone has shrank as defined in its article as a result.
 * Ends up being no proof that saq~ aided the raiders.
 * All maps need to be adjusted, for territory adjustments, and going away from the inaccurate "blockly" borders of many of the countries of the area (Ont. countries and Saq~).
 * Sag~ gets more coast, so sea invasion of Gaspe possible.
 * Superior expedition that finds out about Canada leaves Sudbury, with much the same result, except the discovery of Kingston.
 * Contact with Midland made during original east expedition, when Superior helps them get rid of brigands near their borders (Barrie?) on their return from the ruins of Ottawa.
 * Contact with the states in Southern Ontario made during the southern expedition, about the same time as exploring the ruins of Windsor/Detroit, after hearing rumors of survivors.
 * Meet up with London officials, and gain knowledge of Kitchener, Norfolk, and the Falls as well.
 * Contact with Sudbury about the same time as Thunder Bay, only from the eastern group.
 * Both explore the ruins of North Bay before Superior forces continue to the east.
 * Superior begins to trade food for materials from the mines.
 * Contact with Kingston (much shrunk from the map) occurs during the second eastern mission.
 * Despite the United Communities, the dispute between Canada and Superior drives most to be wholly neutral.
 * Sudbury continues to supply Superior with resources and allow movement of forces though their territory, but does not officially support them.
 * Like Sudbury, Kingston does not officially support one side or the other.
 * However, they do try to make life more difficult for Superior.
 * The Falls favors Canada, but does nothing.
 * Toledo and N. Penn. Stay the same in attitudes.
 * Penn does send some troops to help kill the Raiders, however, as well as openly supporting Canada.
 * No real reaction from Toledo.
 * Due to Superior supporting the Raiders, they can get troops through the area to Gaspe, where they assist the invasion.
 * Still unknown where raiders are from, but based in Drummondville
 * Raiders once held a large region, Ottawa to Canadian Quebec and US border area to the national parks the other way.
 * At the end hold from ruins of Montreal to ruins of Quebec, other ones roughly same.
 * No longer raiding northern townships.
 * Sag~ war starts out the same way.
 * Gaspe still taken, fighting much the same elsewhere, etc.
 * Republic of St. Lawrence declared.
 * No territory taken elsewhere.
 * ADC still intervenes.
 * Celtic forces break the deadlock in Gaspe, allowing Canada to regain control over the "Republic."
 * These forces begin to invade raider territory, pushing Superior troops west and north, but eventually being stopped.
 * Sag~ forces make small advances in the north.
 * Foreign intervention, largely through the LoN, prevents anything else.
 * Peace Treaty still has the same result.
 * Superior, not Sag~ is responsible for the raiders, and agree to stop - Ara~ and Vermont forces will act to ensure this.
 * Aro~ and Vermont will also aid Canada and Kingston in removing the Raiders.
 * Sag~ recognized by Canada.
 * Canada drops objections to Superior controlling the area of Canada it does.
 * Thunder Bay to go whichever way referendum does.
 * Windsor region to be left for future arbitration.
 * Superior will also agree to not annex any of the survivor states in Ontario.
 * Thunder Bay is the exception.
 * Investigation of the Assassination of the Sag~ PM shows rouge elements of Canada First responsible.
 * Vote of Confidence in Canadian Parliament, government loses due to defections.
 * Both Canada First and the Liberals lose the election, having both lost the confidence of the people.
 * Third Party, likely the Conservatives, comes to power.
 * NDP would also gain something.
 * Canada First will not be banned, however.
 * It is agreed that a very small amount of reparations will be paid by Canada to Sag~, for civilian damages.
 * Canada, since it controls one end of the river and their allies in Kingston have the other, will gain the valley once control is regained from the raiders.
 * The Canadian government must also drop its veto in the LoN to Superior joining.
 * General status quo with territory around Sag~
 * States in Ontario all have a resurgence in Canadian nationalism, as shown in the results of the referendum in Thunder Bay.
 * Kingston becomes capital of Canadian territory.
 * Thunder Bay becomes another.
 * Sudbury begins to isolate itself from Superior.
 * Midland begins to warm to Canada, becoming like Kingston was pre-war.
 * London, Kitchener, and the Falls have increased Canadian nationalism, but the governments maintain a more neutral position.
 * An official territory formed along the Bay - "Hudson."
 * Results of Thunder Bay referendum need to be added.
 * Some sort of condition, likely the construction of a road between TB and Hudson within a reasonable timeframe, is also set.
 * Invitation for both Canada and Sag~ to join the UC
 * Raiders still present south of the river, but fairly safe passage to the north cleared.
 * Articles that would need editing:
 * Superior
 * Superior military articles, possibly
 * History of Superior
 * Possibly the United Communities, slightly
 * London, Niagara Falls need to be slightly edited
 * References in N. Penn. need to be reworded, and Toledo really should have something added.
 * Canada
 * History of Canada
 * Aroostook
 * Sagueny~
 * The War itself
 * Republic of St. Lawrence
 * Midland
 * Thunder Bay
 * Articles for Sudbury, Kitchener, and Kingston need to be written.
 * Norfolk needs to be finished.

And, I once again remind that I will do it all if no one else is willing but I am allowed. Thoughts/Objections to any points?

Given its size, please quote any problem lines.

Lordganon 06:08, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like a good idea, if it can be made to work.--HAD 08:18, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

I think of Norfolk as the Switzerland of the area. They don't naturally pick sides and tend to stay out of the way most of the time. But my issues are:


 * Superior supporting Raiders: Hell no. That's Saguenay, if anyone. Superior isn't really known for conquering lands with brute force so they wouldn't need to try to "gain" the city-states from anyone. Saguenay is more of a malevolent state in some ways and since they share cultural ties to the Raiders (Quebecois?) they would be the one helping them. Superior involvement in the war wouldn't be as big and they have a general disgust for the raiders but still fight alongside them. As a result the war would end with Canada clearly winning.


 * Canadian nationalism in Niagara Falls: It's always been there, the older generation in the Canadian side of the city feels Canadian in some ways and the American side American in some ways, but they are more Niagaran now than anything else. So they wouldn't be joining up with anyone any time soon, if at all ever.
 * It is already canon that Superior supports the Raiders. In fact I believe it was Superior's original author who came up with the idea.  Mitro 02:33, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

2009 Saguenay War
With much of Southern Ontario actually surviving, the war would go much differently.Oerwinde 10:05, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

And how so? Give me some examples on how it would be different, thats all I want. Arstar 01:19, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously Arstar? I mean, really.

All you have to do is look at the Canada talk page and the war talk page. This has been discussed for how long and you don't know? .....

Lordganon 01:39, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

I know all right. I just want to know what in specifics. Okay, we might need to include the London, Norfolk, and Kitchener states into the war, or maybe the war will be ongoing, or maybe it ended earlier? Arstar 02:24, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

The suggestions on both the talk pages, with the nation states you list being mentioned, are how it should go, with much the same result.

Lordganon 03:43, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

One of the major issues would be unrest in Superior`s Canadian territories. Since Ontario is much more populated than first thought, the Canadian population of Superior would be much larger and therefore have a much larger voice in Superior`s politics, though still a minority on a national level, but a majority on a regional level. These citizens would not want to go to war with Canada. The existence of Canadian survivor states in southern Ontario would hinder Superior`s ability to wage war in the Saguenay region, and engaging in hostilities with other Canadian survivor states would increase the previously stated unrest. All this was discussed in the Canada and 2009 Saguenay War talk pages.Oerwinde 08:02, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And the inability of Superior troops to have easy access to the battlefields in Quebec means a large-scale edit to the war article is needed.

Lordganon 00:47, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not necessarily true Oerwinde. Like many other survivor states, these Canadians within Superior may have abandoned their old national identity and adopted a new one. Or, they may see Superior as the successor state to pre-Doomsday Canada. Also, like you said, they're a majority on the national level and it's doubtful that they would rebel, so they may oppose it bu the war would still occur.


 * LG, getting troops to Quebec would be easy. They would just go through the Great Lakes and up the St. Laurence. Superior's allies control the Great Lakes region and would allow their troops to pass through. Caeruleus 19:07, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Canon says that the St. Lawrence itself is controlled by packs of raiders - the "Lawrence Raiders." There's even an article about it. With the existence of actual survivors inside Ontario itself - the majority of which are not allied with Superior - any troops sent to Gaspe would have trouble.

Contact with the Canadian government - and the story of its roots with the escape of Trudeau eastward - would ensure that they wouldn't view it as the successor state to Canada. If anything, it would be viewed as the successor state to the USA - and many of the Canadians would believe that the US had caused the nukes, so they wouldn't willingly go along with it.

Lordganon 06:25, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Canada was a member of NATO too so they would feel this responsibility of Doomsday too if anything. Why does everything get blamed on America or the Soviets! Can't Canada take blame for at least one nuke? Arstar [talk] 18:31, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you right now that the Canadian government would not be the ones blamed - it would definitely be the Americans. It's just how we are, really - heck, a fairly common political insult during elections is to say the other side is "in bed with the Americans," or something less offensive along those lines. And people will often lose elections over how close they are to the US. We like ourselves with them, but usually as far away as we can get.

Lordganon 01:53, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Canada also doesn't have nukes, so how could we be blamed for them?--Oerwinde 00:20, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

If Canada takes part of the blame for World War III, I demand we hold Liechtenstein accountable as well. ;) --Zack 00:30, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

It came to my attention that Midland, and Simcoe County for that matter is part of Superior. Technically there is no way this article can be saved in its current revision but if it was transformed into another article that controls some of the other counties that would be alright. Arstar [talk] 06:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

While you are correct about the town of midland, according to the map on the Superior article, they only control the lake-shore of Simcoe county, and no more than that.

All the article needs is a slight adjustment of names to the city of Barrie.

Though, you need to adjust your map to be the real boundaries, not the accursed county lines. It makes no sense for those to be the boundaries of controlled territory.

Lordganon 07:03, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

This article came about after many discussions on the fate of Ontario. The Superior article is the one that needs reviewing, not Midland.--Oerwinde 10:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I added this back under review. With so much debate on Ontario, I think it is only fair that this article remain under review until everything is decided.  Mitro 22:37, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. No matter what we do with Superior I think that this state, and other of these Ontario statelets should have a smaller area of control. Just an idea. Arstar [talk] 02:49, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its all fine & good you have this "idea" but I'd like to know why you believe these "statelets" as you call them should be smaller. --ZACK 02:57, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out how large they can be and still be plausible. Remember that even though its been decided that Ontario's not a total wasteland there still is radiation and there still were strikes, especially the northern area of Southern Ontario right? Arstar [talk] 03:29, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Outside of metro Toronto and Ottawa - as well as most of North Bay and Windsor - the area should be pretty free of radiation. Really, the only badly effected area is the north shores of Lake Ontario, where the metro area of Toronto is - the strike(s) there would render it uninhabitable for many, many years. You'll have to look it up on a map, but most radiation would effect only the southernmost parts of Ontario, near Lake Erie.

The only strikes in the area atm are Toronto (would be more than one, quite likely), Ottawa, North Bay, and Windsor would have been essentially destroyed in the Detroit strikes. Some radiation from upstate New York would effect the Kingston/eastern Lake Ontario region as well. I do personally believe the city of Hamilton should have been nuked as well, of course.

Call it the south-central part of the area, mostly. But you'll need to look at map~

Lordganon 08:21, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Right, so Midland's size should stay pretty much the same. Zack 12:45, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd shrink it somewhat in the northern stretches of its control on the maps, but more or less, yes.

Lordganon 03:34, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

This article was graduated into Canon before it was totally finished, and their has been much discussion about how to try to fit everything in with the timeline, as, I'll admit, I added somethings that may not completely work out. Tbguy1992 14:48, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1, Archive 2

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

Britain
Maybe its just me but it seems that Britain fared incredibly well post-Doomsday. The British government predicted in the 80s that the country would lose 65% of its population after a nuclear war, either immediately after the bombs go off or afterwards due to serious injuries. Those estimates don't consider fallout, disease, famine and social disorder that will effect the survivors. Its already long been canon that the devestation was bad enough that the government abandoned the islands for South Africa, and yet a lot of large survivor states (for Britain's size that is) made it out ok. I'm not saying that we should start obsoleting or rewriting articles, but maybe we have reached the point where we are no longer going to see anymore British survivor states anymore and current proposals need to be carefully reviewed. Mitro 14:36, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to balance some of the optimism out with a reconsideration of my own articles, and creating some less optimistic ones too. But I would still submit to a review. Fegaxeyl 15:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree Mitro that its getting to crowded --Owen1983 15:41, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that reviews are necessary but i agree that there should be no more large british survivor states. The north is way to crowded and the east is reaching that point while the south was badly damaged on DoomsdayVegas adict 15:57, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think reviews are necessary either, they should only be a last resort. I like what Feg is doing by taking the initiative to trim his own work for optimism or implausibilities. I would rather see more authors do this, except when the info has been relied on by other editors when creating articles. If that comes up the best thing to do would be for those editors to discuss the material and see if something could be added, instead of removing or changing canon, to explain away an issue. Review only if there is really no choice whatsoever. Mitro 16:38, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Regarding the north of England, I don't know about Smoggy's nations but the eastern half of Lancaster is mostly empty space that was claimed by Lancaster more or less because it was there. That said, I did my best to keep Lancaster plausible but if anyone's spotted anything that's implausible please let me know.Tessitore 17:44, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Regarding the north of England, I don't know about Smoggy's nations but the eastern half of Lancaster is mostly empty space that was claimed by Lancaster more or less because it was there. That said, I did my best to keep Lancaster plausible but if anyone's spotted anything that's implausible please let me know.Tessitore 17:44, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough and I've just made a start on altering Woodbridge slightly by reducing the population to 100,000. It also occurs to me that there would be a fair bit more violence between the Brits and Americans in the early days so that's something to work on Verence71 20:05, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that that isn't really necessary with Woodbridge. The fact that humans always tend to co-operate - and that the base is clearly in a position of strength - would mean that Woodbridge would not have as much conflict in its early days. Yes, there might be some anger, and the whole nuclear war thing, that would create tension, but really I think Woodbridge would only face major conflicts after it has established itself - like these 'pirates' that were once mentioned. And I always thought Woodbridge's population was low, especially given how (comparatively) developed it's considered to be. Fegaxeyl 20:25, October 4, 2010 (UTC)