Lla Dafern/Archive 8

----> Go ahead, leave a message! <-----

Bengwenid! Bieńwięty! Moyn moyn! Bemmeinde! Pemmenut! Benvenuto! Welcome! This is Lla Dafern, or, as the Saxon invaders call it, The Pub. It is one of many places where the members of Ill Bethisad enjoy meeting each other informally. It is the place where opinions can be exchanged and questions can be asked concerning Ill Bethisad in general or about topics that do not fit in the Talk compartment of individual wiki pages. It is also the place where technical questions can be asked to the moderators of this wiki. THE MENU: Our chef, whose nationality for reasons of security will remain undisclosed, offers you a broad assortiment of Helvetian and other specialties, such as Montreiano Sea Elephant steaks with rended blubber, or if you prefer a side of Pacific white sided dolphin babyback ribs. He will be more than happy to give you a demonstration of his culinary talents. Just keep your health insurance card ready! And if you aren't particularly hungry today, he will also happily treat you on a rosy-scented Jervan Muscatel, a cool Dumnonian cider, a warm Irish or a cold Batavian beer, or, if you are amongst the more daring, a true Venedic jekwiała. For those who appreciate fine wines we carry the rich red wines of Bordeaux and les Ozarques, Brandy or Montignac, and bin ruper from Hostreht in Xliponia. For the discerning, a good 1984 vintage Arvorec anaf aval is recommended as an apéritif. Especially for minors and teetotallers we also serve Coke, orange juice, goat milk, Italian Limonata, and Neofrancian Spruce beer. If you prefer a more active pursuit to accompany your imbibition, there's a rousing game of puir-man whummlin going on out back. There's even an occasional pickup match of hibercrosse. Cheerio! WARNING: Please don't pay attention to the smoke, the noise and the mess. Watch your steps and don't break your neck over cables, books, broken chairs, empty beer cans, leftovers of cigarettes and snacks...our bus boys get to it when they can... DISCLAIMERS: The management is not responsible for physical or mental damage inflicted upon our guests, especially when it is caused by the food, by the BioCola, by the regular rioting here, or by any other kind of misbehaviour on anyone's part. Any similarity to what the Wikipedians call The Village Pump is not entirely coincidental. NOTA BENE: You can sign your messages by typing ~~~ for just your name and ~~~~ for your name + timestamp.

The current Ill Bethisad Collaboration of the Fortnight is: Franco-Prussian War.   Every fortnight a different topic, stub or non-existent article is picked by nomination. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.

Templates

Dear all,

Now that we have been using this wiki for slightly more than a year, and have seized the occasion for a somewhat belated celebration, there are a few thoughts I'd like to share with you.

One of the things that have been worrying me most over the last year is that IB has been moving steadily into a new direction, namely that of becoming a wikipedia pendant for our shared constructed world. That definitely is not necessarily a bad thing, but I have noticed quite a few undesirable side effects. Maybe it's just me growing old and sour, and surely this development has also a lot of positive sides. Yet, I feel compelled to remind ourselves from time to time that we should not let ourselves be fooled by the possibilities of the medium we are using.

We have been discussing the wildgrowth of categories. Another thing I'd like to do something about is the number of templates. Shortly after we moved here, many of us - especially myself, I guess! - have been eager to show off our technical abilities and started creating all kinds of nice tables and nifty templates, one after another, some taken directly from Wikipedia, others invented by ourselves. The danger of all this is that form might easily take precedence over content.

At this point, I have a strong feeling that I'd like to go back to the basics. And in order to achieve that, I want to limit the number of templates (especially those that contain a message regarding the content of the page) to those that we really need.

So, which templates do we need?

I think we all agree that {{delete}}, {{proposal}} and perhaps {{workinprogress}} are of elementary importance to us, and should not be removed. BTW, if you want to know what they look like, look at IBWiki:Templates.

The templates {{deletespecial}} and {{conditionalproposal}} are merely adaptations of the templates above. Frankly, I don't think we really need them, and I suggest we delete them. Same goes for {{prop}}: at the time, I was doing my best to create a mechanism for automatically inserting a date in the proposal template. I didn't really succeed in that, and since nobody seems to be using this version anyway, we might as well get rid of it.

Then we have a series of templates that deal with the quality of an article: {{quality}}, {{ongoingUpdate}}, and {{update}}. In my opinion, we absolutely don't need those at all. I think the {{disputed}} template should stay, and the {{disputed/Fallacious}} template should be merged into it.

Another one I'd like to get rid of is the {{stub}} template. This is typically one of those things that make sense for Wikipedia but not for us. In IB, an article is never really "finished", and in a way, everything is work in progress. In my view, we don't really need extremely short articles that would qualify as stubs at all: either the text should be in some other article, or it's basically all we know about the given subject. In either case, the template is unnecessary. In my own experience, the whole Category:Stub serves no other purpose than being a list of articles that should be either deleted or removed from it. But should we decide to keep the stub template, the text should be changed. Its current contents, "You can help the Ill Bethisad Wiki by expanding it and linking it." is a copy of the Wikipedia version and for IB it is simply not true.

I think we can delete the {{source}} and the {{IBSource}} templates as well. A while back, we decided that there's no place here for rought source material that can also be found elsewhere. As for IB source: does it really serve a purpose? To me, it sounds like every article should fit in a certain pattern, and that fragments of e-mail discussions are not good enough as IB material. I disagree with that.

And what remains?

The {{discuss first}} was created a while back because an anonymous editor constantly edited a number of pages, and didn't respond to our reactions. Now that we are working on a login-only base, I don't think we need this template anymore.

The {{protected}} is not very important, but sometimes useful, so I suggest we keep it. Same goes for the {{blocked}} template.

The {{question}} and {{question by}} templates were originally created by me. I don't think anyone else has ever used them. I'd say: remove them.

{{disambiguation}}: do we really need disambiguation pages? It's one of those typical Wikipedia phenomena that seem quite redundant here. On the other hand, it doesn't really disturb either. I don't really know what to do with it.

Two doubtful cases: {{english}} and {{herebedragons}}. They look nice, but that's about it. When an article is written in bad English, a native speaker should take the effort to check and improve it. There's no need for a special template for that. And the {{herebedragons}} template? Well, it's nice, but until now, it has only created confusion. I think we should either delete it, or reconsider its use.

The {{website}} template serves a primary function and should IMO stay.

This is more or less how I think about it. Of course, my primary purpose of all this is to provoke a little discussion about the subject. Input is welcome!

Cheers, —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 04:17, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Maybe we should use the Here be Dragons instead of a Work in Progess thats only just been started, and has no other reference to it anywhere else in the wiki, and to promote a discussion about what should go in. Perhaps it should include a link to the talk page of the article. As for the template indicating a user that's not fluent in English, that should be placed when the article is first writen, to direct other user's attention to that article, so it can be corrected. I do agree that the stub template should go, though, because some times that amount of detail is all that's needed at the moment, or that's all that's known about that article. --Sikulu 04:42, 1 March 2006 (PST)

As an aside, we all should come to an agreement as to which templates to keep, which to get rid of and which new templates we may like. --Sikulu 04:45, 1 March 2006 (PST)

I was going to suggest that perhaps we should use HEREBEDRAGONS in place of STUB, specifically as an invitation for people to take an idea and expand it. This would differ from WIP because in those cases the original author is still actively working on it. Zahir 05:46, 1 March 2006 (PST)

All interesting suggestions!

As an aside, I noticed that a HUGE number of articles carry a work-in-progress tag. In fact, I don't think that's proper use. I think it should be used only when someone is currently working on it, and doesn't want others to make edits in the meantime. It should NOT be used for articles that are not finished yet, because most of our stuff is not really finished anyway. I'm not sure in how far adding a dragon to the template would help much!

As for adding the dragon to the stub template... That's indeed an idea. But that would practically mean the creation of a new template, which doesn't really cover either one of the old ones. The original idea was, that HEREBEDRAGONS be used for subjects we don't know anything about. But that's exactly the problem: if we don't know anything about it, there is not likely to be an article at all! Such subjects basically fall in the category of QAA, which means that it will probably be a red link rather than a blue one.

Another thing is the invitation for people to take an idea and expand it. That's exactly what I'm against, because it creates the erroneous impression that anybody is welcome to start working on any unclaimed region. As you probably know, I'm not in favour of that. IMO, editing should be restricted to IB members, and even IB members should work on their regions/fields of interest/expertise rather than claiming one undiscovered place after another. That does of course not mean that it forbidden or so, but I don't think we should encourage it too much; the more undiscovered territories we keep, the more interesting IB remains! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 06:10, 1 March 2006 (PST)

I've removed the Wip and stub tag from my articles, and would strongly recommend that others remove those tags from theirs. I agree that we should either rewrite or get rid of the stub tag. Nik 13:49, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Agreed. I'd go for the second option. Question remains: what should we do with the current stub articles? In most cases I think we can simply remove the tag. But I can imagine that in a few cases the article contain thát little info that we might as well delete it. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 14:51, 1 March 2006 (PST)

By in large I agree: less is best as far as templates go. A lot of them seem to be doublets or close doublets. The only one I really have a comment on is the {{herebedragons}} template. It was suppósed to be an indicator of a whole broad category of knowledge where we knew nothing at all. A whole broad category might be something like "religion" or "popular culture" or "literature". The fact is, there aren't so many broad categories anymore that we know absolutely nothing about. I suggest we lay the Dragon to rest. Elemtilas 14:35, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Yes, that's my idea as well. Of course, we can find reemployment for the poor beast. Like Sikulu and David suggested, we could always use it to jazz up one of the remaining templates a bit! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 14:51, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Well, I don't really care if the dragon gets put on all the templates or not, I was just commenting on the use of the particular template.

And re {{stub}}, I really don't think we need to delete the articles! If all we know of something is contained in a "stub" article, then it should probably reside here on the Wiki. That's what the Wiki is really best at: storing little factoids until they can be made presentable and (ideally) ensconced in a web article somewhere. Elemtilas 15:03, 1 March 2006 (PST)

That depends on the particular bit of info. In some cases, it might be better to simply collect related pieces of info on one page. For example, some of the Commonwealth nations might be better to simply put on a single page, a table of Commonwealth nations, with capital and languages. Nik 15:08, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Indeed. For example, I just submitted Batavian Guyana for deletion, since it doesn't contain any info that is not contained on South America, including the flag. Likewise, I replaced a few articles with redirects. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 15:15, 1 March 2006 (PST)

I agree with Nik, but would go a step further and delete the lot! In fact, most of the CoN articles can be safely deleted: there's already a web article that deals with the Commonwealth and its member states. It had been my hope that individuals would eventually create webpages for the various areas that interest them. It seems the Wiki has taken on that function. Nevertheless, in places where web based articles exist, I see no good reason to copy that information here on the Wiki. Elemtilas 18:03, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Speaking about coincidence: a few moments back I read that the German wikipedia has recently abolished the stub template and category, and on the Dutch wikipedia a poll has just started about the same thing (and a majority seems to be in favour of abolishing too). And I didn't know about that, honestly! :) —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 15:50, 1 March 2006 (PST)

The template calling for "copyediting" by a Native English speaker should stay, IMO. Not all of us read every new article as they're created, and a way of linking them together would be convenient more than anything else. And please don't delete the Work In Progress template! That's too useful IMO- we should just learn to use it more effectively. For example, it would have gotten right on my tits when I was trying to cobble together a proposal for Persia if someone had come along while I was halfway through and started changing stuff or discussing the unfinished work. Deiniol 16:23, 1 March 2006 (PST)

I second what Barry says. I think that these do need to stay, because I don't read every article, and I don't always check Lla Dafern. I think also that WIP needs to be used more wisely and be changed to proposal when appropriate. I think conditional proposal has its uses, but I do agree, there are some that have gone WAAY beyond the call of our needs, and we should PRUNE our list of templates. BoArthur

Well, to be honest with you, the CONDITIONALPROPOSAL was high on my list of templates that I'd rather delete. why? Because its functions can very well be served by the normal PROPOSAL template. I think we shouldn't be too strict in applying all kinds of rules, about an expiry time of one month and the like. As far as I am concerned, people who submit proposals are responsible for them themselves. If they feel one week is enough, it is enough. And I still think that if, say, you write something about Louisianne, you don't need to launch it as a proposal at all. If you want it discussed, better used Lla Dafern. My impression is that the whole proposal mechanism can work properly only when the number of proposals remains very limited. Besides, I have the impression that nobody (myself included) really uses the underlying categories (with the exception of Category:Proposal and Category:Delete) of all these tags anyway, so from that point of view I also think the mechanisms isn't working. But of course, if you want the CONDITIONALPROPOSAL to stay anyway, then it'll stay. I'm not imposing anything here. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 04:30, 2 March 2006 (PST)

I tend towards the "all Wiki articles are works in progress", so I don't really see the need for the template. Folks (especially new folks) dó need to take better account of who's working on what before they create new articles or edit old ones. I've discovered that a rather good new article will pretty much have to be redone on account of it not fitting. I guess my "gripe" is that all Wiki articles could legitimately have the WIP template attached to them. Just my penny-hapenny. Elemtilas 18:03, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Well, the intended purpose of the WIP tag is to indicate that you're in the middle of editing, and, therefore, people should hold off comments until you're done Nik 20:55, 1 March 2006 (PST)

And that's the only thing I think that it should be used for. I never have one on there for more than a few days and at the extremely irrational, a week. Otherwise, it's gone. I think any that have had WIP on them for more than a week should have them removed and be left for free game. BoArthur 21:10, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Yes, that has been my policy too. But I must admit: when I was looking through the corresponding category, I found one or two articles where I had simply forgotten to remove the tag! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 04:01, 2 March 2006 (PST)

Well, I guess I'm an offender in this sense because I will keep the WIP tag up longer than that while I tinker with a article before upgrading it to PROPOSAL. I wondering if maybe some kind of template should/might exist that is an outright invitation for others to contribute? Zahir 07:45, 9 March 2006 (PST)

That sounds like a good idea. --Sikulu 07:56, 9 March 2006 (PST)

Popes

I'm Writing articles on actual Popes that weren't Popes Here. --Quentin 09:12, 1 March 2006 (PST)

OK: since the CC and the Popes of Rome are one of my few areas of interest (and since the Papal States are mine), let's see what you've got! To get started, let's take a look at the Popes of Rome that are different:

251. Pius VI (1775-1810) (same as *here* but lived longer)

252. Pius VII (1810-14) (same as *here* but shorter lived)

253. Leo XII (1814-29) (same as *here*)

254. Pius VIII (1829-30) (same as *here*)

255. Gregory XVI (1831-46) (same as *here*)

256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78) (same as *here*)

257. Leo XIII (1878-1903) (same as *here*)

258. St. Pius X (1903-14) (same as *here*)

259. Benedict XV (1914-22) (same as *here*)

260. Pius XI (1922-39) (same as *here*)

261. Pius XII (1939-58) (same as *here*)

262. Gregory XVII (1958-89) He was an Eastern Catholic, of Middle Eastern ethnos. An Antiochene or Chaldean. We know that Pope Gregory XVII oversaw the (slight) revision of the Divine Liturgy in 1965 (nowhere near the overhaul / destruction it received *here*), and opened Vatican Council in 1988. Vatican Council was concerned with Human Rights in the modern world. I suspect it handed down strong teachings on Atomic Weapons and Biological Weapons as well. Gregory was a saintly and devout priest and a very charismatic and well loved teacher of the faith. Something like John Paul the Great *here*.

263. John XXIII (1989-present) I haven't decided where he's from yet or what the nature of his papacy has been. He is young (well, youngish), and probably somewhat in the mould of his great predecessor. By now he's probably near 85 or 86 I would guess.

Be sure to review Catholicism and Papal States!

Elemtilas 14:58, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Pope Gregory XVIJ is nearly finished, but I'm concerned about QSS, especially as per his early life. Can you check that over, and see if it meets your ideas?

My main concern here is that he really never had anything to do with Italy at all. I took as inspiration the story of the papal election of 1958 (*here*) where it is said that the Armenian Patriarch was strongly favoured for the Chair (but obviously, archbishop Roncalli won in the end). Basically Gregory XVIJ should have come into the papacy after having been the Catholic Patriarch of either Antioch or Babylon (i.e., Syrian or Chaldean Catholic -- I haven't decided as of yet). I don't see how the article as it stands can fit with what I've been thinking about for this particular pope. It rather defeats the whole purpose to have him be adopted into an Italian family at 10 and be ordained a Roman priest and all that. I think a few of the details could be transfered (some dates and the like) but the article itself need considerable excision and alteration.

Part of the problem here is my fault: I tend not to just make up a stub article in order to "claim" the territory; though I'm increasingly feeling a kind of pressure to do just that. Either that or watch everything I've been working over disappear in the course of a night! I've been thinking about these two popes that are different between *there* and *here* for the better part of five years. Just because I haven't written anything in the Wiki doesn't mean they're fair game! So I certainly appreciate the "proposal" tag and willingness to work within that stricture. Elemtilas 15:32, 9 March 2006 (PST)

Destubbing...

Now that we're destubbing a lot of article, with the ultimate purpose of getting rid of both the category and the template, I encountered this. Category:Kings of Kemr contains quite a lot of articles, most of them very nice but also quite short. Now I was thinking: instead of simply destubbing them, would it be an option to move them all to one big article? It would look more or less like this (try to imagine it without the infobox at the bottom of each article)?

(CENSORED)

What do others think? Andrew? David? —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 15:34, 1 March 2006 (PST)

I don't see why we should remove them all, I think that they do look good as their own pages, and we should just expand them, or leave them be, I mean, if we have a page for Basque or Navarran or Biloxien or any of the other pages that are a sentence long, why can't we leave these pages as their own? Are we doing this because we're sucking up Muke's bandwidth? If that's a problem, I'm actually looking into setting up a mirror of the wiki to help with that, and I'm going to see about that in the near future, and this won't be an issue. If it's not broke, don't fix it. BoArthur 17:12, 1 March 2006 (PST)

I think one of the charms of IB is exploring it, of finding chains fo detail that connect. Lines of such monarchs serve precisely that function, as well as allowing room for further growth. What if some future member decides that the diaries of Donal II have been found and wants to expand the article? Then again, who's to say every article simply must be long? Why shouldn't some of them be short? I agree with Bo. Zahir 18:41, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Pruning? Or Deletionism?

It seems like we go in spurts...we write prolifically, and then we hack-hack-hack. I just want us to be sure that we're motivated by improvement, by a desire to Prune, not destroy all the work that's gone before. Removing templates is well and good, and I think there are some that should be, but I think that others have use, and they make our wiki easy to navigate and, by and large, pretty to look at. I just don't want us to start hacking out every little article we have here, because it doesn't fit this or that new "norm" we've decided we want to move toward. BoArthur 17:09, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Don't worry about that, Dan. It would be far from me destroy anybody's work. In fact, I'm not really in favour of deleting stubs anyway, let alone stubs that have some serious work invested in them. Of course, there are a few cases: the page on Batavian Guyana, for example, contained no other info than something like "Batavian Guyana is a country in South America, part of the Batavian Kingdom" + a flag and the info that it speaks Dutch. All this, and more, can also be found elsewhere, so the need for the article is zero.

Since you mention the word "deletionism": when speaking in Wikipedia terms, I'm much more of a mergist. Personally, I like long, nice-looking articles better than a lot of very short ones which are scattered all over the place. That has nothing to do with deletion, but merely with replacing info to a place where it looks better. Take my own Political Parties in the Batavian Kingdom: instead of creating separate articles for each and every party I choose to have them all on one page: it reads better, it looks better, and gives me something to be proud of! ;) I'm not saying everybody should be doing it that way, because I'm well aware that it is a matter of taste. My idea of putting all Kemrese kings on one page (see above) was merely a suggestion to their caretakers, not a dictate of any kind.

It is also not a matter of new "norms". In fact, it's rather the opposite: a return to older norms, or rather, no norms at all. During the course of a year, certain norms have grown that I'm not really happy about, and needless to say that most of them were imported from Wikipedia. One of those norms is the (IMO bad) habit of having all kinds of tags all over the place. "The quality of this article is in question" and the like. Do we really need that? Instead of putting a tag like that on an article, on might as well try to improve it. And if we don't watch ourselves, we well soon have tags over our stuff like "The copyright status of this image is unknown", "Cite your sources", "The relevance of this article is unclear", "This article shouldn't be read by people under eighteen", etc. And be honest: is it really necessary, when you have an article of only two short sentences, to have a tag above it that says "This article is very short"?

Another example of a new norm I'm not too happy with is that all articles about nations should necessarily have the same layout. Why? I'd much prefer that everybody has his own style in building such a page! But don't worry, I'm not going to delete the {{nations}} template.

So again, I'm not after deleting anything, and I'm merely expressing a personal opinion, in the hope of provoking a discussion about all this. Others are completely free to feel differently, and are invited to join the debate. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 02:43, 2 March 2006 (PST)

Perhaps we should provisionally merge some articles together. That way, if a section becomes big enough to merit its own article, we could just move it to a new one. --Sikulu 03:57, 2 March 2006 (PST)

But of course, that should be possible in any case. Anyway, I prefer to leave this to the authors of the articles in question. I'm merely throwing around recommendations. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 04:00, 2 March 2006 (PST)

Communism Proposal

I've (more or less) finished my proposal on Communism. Could you please check it (and my proposal on the talk page too). --Sikulu 05:06, 2 March 2006 (PST)

Cultural Proposals?

Do we realy need to use the proposal tag for some of the cultural articles on the wiki? --Sikulu 00:48, 3 March 2006 (PST)

Only if you think some items might cause problem or would have an impact on other people's part of the world.--Marc Pasquin 06:48, 3 March 2006 (PST)

It seems polite as well as marginally useful, especially when possible conflicts arise. Zahir 08:06, 3 March 2006 (PST)

My point of view is that we shouldn't abuse the proposal tag too much. Like I said elsewhere, if the Category:Proposal contains too many proposals at a time, nobody will pay attention anymore, and the whole proposal mechanism will be moot anyway. As far as I am concerned, you are free to use it anytime. But when it's an article the impact of which remains within your own territory, there's no need for it. Like Marc said, the only case when you really should use it is when it might cause problems or would have an impact on other people's work. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 09:17, 3 March 2006 (PST)

Leochester

Where is this *here*? And is bycopel more like Minitel or Teletext?

It's Caerleon, however, it's much larger than *here's* Caerleon. The bycopel is more like the minitel, but with far superior graphics. Both of these questions could have been better asked on Castreleon's talk page. And don't forget to sign your name with the four tildes: ~~~~. Deiniol 07:08, 3 March 2006 (PST)

Naming convention on the Wiki

I think we should adopt a single way of naming places within the wiki itself. Right now, some are named accordint to their native language while other use their english equivalent (and until recently, brittany was named after its french name).

Personnaly, I think we should use their english name. The articles in the wiki, after all, are written in engligh and this would make sense.

One reason I can think for using native name is for exotism it provide. In other words, it help to differientiate between the IB version of a place and its english-named counterpart *here*. The problem with that though is that it doesn't seem to follow habits in most languages whose speakers, due to the law of lazyness, bring changes to names to make them esier to pronounce.

So, what do other thinks ?

--Marc Pasquin 08:04, 3 March 2006 (PST)

Frankly, it doesn't really matter to me if we speak about Dûnein or Dumnonia. I wouldn't be in favour of having a rules for this. As far as I am concerned, the wiki should principally reflect our own usage (which is not really *here*, not really *there* either, but mostly *somewhere in between*). For names of countries, we use the English name in most cases. But yet, I couldn't imagine myself speaking about "Cambria" instead of "Kemr", even though an English-speaking person *there* wouldn't even think of calling it that way. Same goes for languages: an IB person would say, in English: "Do you speak Welsh", or "Do you speak Venedic", but here we tend to call conlangs by their native name: Brithenig, Wenedyk, etc.

Also, I've noticed that we tend to call cities by their native names rather than by their English equivalents.

An additional probleem seem that we simply don't know the English name of a country yet (which seems to apply mostly in Asia). —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 09:34, 3 March 2006 (PST)

Even if we adopt a "middle of the line" approach, we should decide that for example "Kemr" would always be refered to as such in an article so that there is no need to have someone else correct it (and to avoid confusion when the english and native word are very different). --Marc Pasquin 09:43, 3 March 2006 (PST)

Agree with Jan: no "rules" on this. Certain places, like Kemr and perhaps Dunein, are so refered in their native language because of tradition. As for Kemr, it was always called Kemr by Andrew and everyone who's become affiliated with IB since has known it as that. (This doesn't mean it can't be refered to as Wales in English languge news items, mind.) I've sometimes refered to Dunein as Cornwall, but once again tradition seems to be at play. Also, I think it's important to differentiate *there*'s Wales and Cornwall from *here*'s Wales and Cornwall. Other places, like Japan or New France get refered to by their English names (either their IB English names or their *here* English names -- those two happen to coincide on both sides of the trousers of time) for the simple fact that English is the common language of the group. But as you'll have noted, I have often referred to New France and Louisiana with their French names. This was done as another kind of tradition: New France at least entered fairly early, and I worked quite a bit with Dan on Louisiana -- so I wished simply to refer to them in French. They sort of stuck that way.

While I don't favour referal rules per se, I would say that we can nèver go wrong by using the English name for a place. A special note for places that use non-Latin letters (RTC, SR, etc): it is best practice to use a normalised spelling, i.e., a Latin charcter spelling when refering to places and people in discussions in conjunction with the native alphabet spelling. One or the other should be in parenthses. We've already discussed non-Latin letters in article titles. As I recall, we decided that they would be allowed so long as there is also a redirect in preferably accent free Latin characters so that a searcher can find articles more easily if they don't know or don't have access to oddball letters. So if we want to refer to NF in an article, we might best write "yada yada Nouvelle France (New France) yada yada..." or vice versa -- that both tips the hat to the native name while also being clear in using the English name for the place. Sometimes what I'll do place the English name within the wiki link to the original language title of the page. I.e., you'll see the English name, but will be linked to the native language title of the article. Elemtilas 16:06, 9 March 2006 (PST)

Actualy your use of "new france" is a pretty good exemple of why we should have some sort of standard. As I've said many time before, New France/Nouvelle-France (both *here* and *there*) was the historical name for the whole of the north-american french posessions. New Francy was just one part of New France (which *here* was the royal province of Canada). The fact that we have some articles about the 2 would just make it confusing if you decide to use both interchangeably.

if you want to make a distinction between 2 places between *here* and *there*, the easiest way is to either always write articles (talk page excluded) from the IB point of view or use a name which would not cause confusion with its real world counterpart: "Republic of Louisanna", "Cambria" (for Kemr instead of Wales).

Again, I'm not pushing for one or the other, just for a standard. --Marc Pasquin 16:51, 9 March 2006 (PST)

Well, if we mùst have a standard, then use English when refering a place: New France, Lousiana, Wales, etc. I simply see no particular need for such standardisation. We aren't Wikipedia who are trying to create the conformational standard of a general use encyclopedia. Not all IB Wiki articles can or should be written from the IB perspective. Quite a lot of what is happening here on the Wiki is describing how things are different between *here* and *there*. Remember also that this is really nothing more than a place to sort things out. The Wiki is not the end-all or be-all of IB matiere. As such, it is a place where IB is described by people from *here* who have seen *there*.

That "New France" is the name of two entities separated by space and time (an old colonial one and modern country) I suppose can be seen as a problem. Well, I didn't choose the names! The French called their territories in North America "Nouvelle France"; those French living there who ended up in the Intendency of New France kept the name, Nouvelle France, rather than choosing a new one. It might be interesting to note in the NF article why this was (I suppose, in some sense, the New French might have still been yearning for the good old days of King and Country, and so they chose to keep a name that reminded themselves of their position vis a vis metro France). That this is an historical oddity of IB is perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned. I guess you could disambiguate within the context. Say "colonial New France", or "New France in the XVI century...". Otherwise, all I can suggest is calling New France -- the Intendency, that is -- by a new and novel name! (Though I wouldn't suggest "Quebec", cos that will just transpose the nature of the problem!)

As for making distinctions between places with the same name *here* and *there*, well, that's exactly how we've been discriminating between the two! We write "France *here*..." or "France *there*...". No worries, eh? Same thing also happens for other places that share the name name between realities. Elemtilas 15:21, 20 March 2006 (PST)

If you re-read what I wrote, New Francy (Nouvelle-Francie, note the *i*, named after the central province of Francie) is the Intendancy, New France (Nouvelle-France, no *i*) was the collective name of the french colonies. *Not* the same name. --Marc Pasquin 15:40, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Yes of course! -- you named it in the interest of the fictional French people of North Amercia. So much for noting things from the IB point of view!

Though one wonders why they'd name their country after only half of France (and then spell Francie wrong -- or is this the Laurentien (Laurentian / Lawrencian) spelling convention?). This is not addressed in the history section of the article, so I am made curious. And yes, you bring up still another issue: the English and French / Lawrencian differ on the distinction between the two entities. In English, there is no distinction in name: it is "New France" whether we're talking about the colonies of New France or the Intendency of New France, saving that the extended and complete name disambiguates. The reason for this is that "Francie" is meaningless in English -- every bit as meaningless as "Gauhle". Those are internal names that the curious reader might find on a map, but no more. I had gathered that "Nouvelle Francie" is French. That only leaves "New Francy" -- that can only be the Laurentian you're working on and which we're starting to hear about?

On retrospect, I might be forced to agree with you that this is quite a mess! So, if you want a standard, I'll reiterate that English would be the best way to go. At least as far as article titles and the like are concerned. To disambiguate in an official sort of way, I'd specify "colonies of New France" (or sim.) and "Intendency of New France", as I said earlier. Thát should take care of any confusion. Other than that, we'll just have to rely on context as usual. Elemtilas 17:28, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Though, I wonder why would the English name be "Francy" for Francie? Wouldn't it be "New France"? There's no reason English has to or should use "Francy" when the original country is called "France". I guess it just sounds odd to my ears. Doobieous 17:34, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Well, exactly. That's the whole point: "Francy" ìsn't an English name. I asked if it's Laurentian, as I'm sure it's not French either! ;) I understand that "Francie" is the French name for the northern part of France; and according to Marc (and I wasn't really aware of this) New France is, for some reason, named only for northern France. I'm not at allsure how that came about - it wasn't that way originally. It does seem very odd. Well, perhaps they all hail from northern France? Would have been nice if they'd called the place Intendance de Laurence (Laurencie?) or something sensible like that! Then we could call it Laurentia and all confusion would be done away with. :/ Elemtilas 19:08, 20 March 2006 (PST)

I tried to clear up some of the apparent confusion under "New France/New Francy" --Marc Pasquin 16:04, 21 March 2006 (PST)

Borrowings Suggestions

Does anyone have any suggestions as to words that Louisiannais might've borrowed from other languages, esp. IB-specific languages? BoArthur 19:54, 3 March 2006 (PST)

Bishops & Politics

The following article is up for de-proposalizing but an interesting issue has come up: Alister Sharpton

Okay, in IB instead of being a protestant liberal (and frankly, gadfly), Alister Sharpton is a moderate Catholic bishop who has the reputation as a peace-maker and diplomat. Currently, he holds two offices--Bishop and Lord Governor of Jacobia. This is supposed to be an atypical situation. Yet the question arises about how to reconcile these two positions, which would seem to be full-time jobs and would also go against the policy of the Roman Church *here* of generally not encouraging this kind of thing. A few possibilities:

• Sharpton is on some kind of "sabbatical" while in office.
• Sharpton's Rite has a fundamentally different attitude about bishops entering politics and so more easily makes adjustments.
• Sharpton resigned from his position, but perhaps retains the title as a courtesy?
• Sharpton is leaning very heavily on his staff in one or the other (or both) positions.

Or some combination thereof. Or maybe something else? I look forward to your feedback... Zahir 07:07, 4 March 2006 (PST)

I answered on Conculture, but might as well put in for "sabbatical" as being the most likely course of action for IB. The Roman Rite is not adverse to priests and even bishops holding office, though for obvious reasons it is increasingly rare as there might be conflicts of interest. If Bishop Sharpton were to resign, he really wouldn't be "Bishop Sharpton" anymore and this whole discussion would be moot. The title "bishop" is not retained "as a courtesy". A retired bishop is still a full bishop. Bishop Sharpton can lean on his staff as much as he likes. I don't think the NAL has the same "separation" of Church and State concepts as the USA does. Elemtilas 16:25, 4 March 2006 (PST)

Flag proposals

East Florida --Quentin 23:18, 4 March 2006 (PST)

BLOCKED template

A small request to the administrators of this wiki. If you block a spammer or vandal and use the {{blocked}} template, would you please place it on the talk page of the user in question, and not on the user page? That way, the User List will give a better impression of who's a real user and who ain't. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 06:24, 7 March 2006 (PST)

Now that I look at it, about 80% of the users on that list are spammers. Most of which are probably the same person. --Sikulu 06:06, 13 March 2006 (PST)

World Games

I've reworked my proposal for the World Games somewhat, making it triannual instead of biannual. Please review and comment on. If anyone has any idea for locations of Games, please feel free to add cities Nik 19:04, 7 March 2006 (PST)

WikiNode Protect

I protected the wikinode because I thought it's very low traffic (My first visit to it was today) and as such, there's not going to be that many edits, so why not protect it and then if it NEEDS to be edited (I'd be surprised) we can be notified.

I can see Nik's point in that there's not been that much spam. (It's not got much spam in it...), but at the same time, if we can make it less of a target and further elminate the need for reverts and blocks, that would be ideal. Votes? I'm fine to go either way, if there's a preference. BoArthur 21:43, 10 March 2006 (PST)

I agree. This is not the kind of page that anyone would want to edit, and even if someone would like to, he can always address one of us or use the talk page. Anyway, I've protected it. I have also protected a few other pages that have been popular with our most recent spammers: SNOR, Skuodia, and your own user page... —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 04:17, 11 March 2006 (PST)

Homosexuality

Is the status quo of Homosexuality rights / gay marriage like here? The APD don't seem to like gays!

I'd guess it depends on state, but I would assume in general it is worse, because IB seems to be more conservative, sticking to monarchies in most cases, and thus probably the social standards are more conservative too. So, I would assume such things as gay marriages probably would be unknown everywhere except maybe very few states (maybe Louisiane, Batavia?) and in some countries (not only Islamic ones) homosexuality would perhaps still be banned, although this probably wouldn't be enforced as strongly as it used to. I would as well assume gay movement would still have gained momentum in past few decades, forcing some governments to review their policies. Abdul-aziz 03:39, 11 March 2006 (PST)

Louisianne may be socially progressive in the realm of government, but they are staunch catholics, after all, and given the Latin Rite feeling regarding same-sex marriage, I think that they would be much like the rest of the world. BoArthur 10:22, 13 March 2006 (PST)

Keep in mind that "monarchies" does not mean that IB is essentially stuck in the 19th century! Characteristic for IB, I think, is that it is characterised by evolution rather than by revolution. Which means that many old institutions have survived *there*, but at the same time were thoroughly modernised. In other words, I don't think you can say that IB is more conservative, only a bit different.

As for gay rights, I vaguely recall the subject has come up before, probably on Conculture. Perhaps someone else can refresh my memory. In general, I don't expect the situation *there* to be drastically different from *here*. Social standards may be a little more conservative indeed, but there is also a slightly higher amount of tolerance, and so gay rights might in many places be less of an issue. For the rest, I think you are right with what you write. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 04:26, 11 March 2006 (PST)

This has actually come up here and there. For example, Montrei has a celebrity lesbian couple who are essentially married. Ontario a few years back passed a law distinguishing between civil marriage (to which same sex couples are entitled) and religious marriage (which entirely depends on the given church, sect, temple, etc.). There are references to homosexuals in the "How To Tell..." lists while it has been established that pundits in the NAL like to accuse some politicians of being gay, or of having various affairs. There has been mention of a Green Carnation Party in both England and Kemr as well as the NAL, which actively pursues gay rights. Actor Iewan Meade is a member of same. I was thinking that while in some ways the Ecotopic Parties are similar to the Communist Party *here* (in terms of prominence), the Green Carnations are somewhat analogous to *our* Green Party in terms of political position. But I haven't actually written that proposal yet. Some of this was dicussed [[1]]. And of course one cannot consider the history of same without noting Oscar de Bhílde and Alia Valentina. Zahir 05:36, 11 March 2006 (PST)

Unlike with antisemitism, there's not realy any large scale "epiphany" missing *there* that would have prevented an increased level of acceptance for gay rights on IB. It would probably have to be analysed on a case by case basis. NF never passed legislation legalising gay marriage (unlike its counterpart *here*) due to certain legal complexity but there are round about ways that have been found to give gay couple equal rights: the legal definition of "co-dependants" does not specify anything beside the need to having lived together for a set number of years (adult family members or war buddies can fit the bill) but gives same right of succession or tutorship as marriage. In general, being gay is not seen as that big of a deal (the "national author" and the leader of the local republican party are openly gay). The local catholic clergy has largely kept out of gay rights related discussions (publicly anyway).

Whats the APD mention at the begining of this thread anyway ? --Marc Pasquin 07:09, 11 March 2006 (PST)

Agreed fully. Frankly, I don't think it would be such a big deal *there*. So long as a society isn't repressing its homosexuals and offers round-about ways to get around societal norms, then I bet they'd just take advantage of those means to obtain what they need. It may be, however, that in the modern period, homosexuals might seek a kind of legal legitimacy: they may not be seeking "marriage" in the accepted sense, but a kind of fully legal, non-work-around civil union that has all the advantages of normal marriage without stepping on the toes of tradition. Elemtilas 13:01, 11 March 2006 (PST)

Indeed, Montrei has a famous lesbian couple who are essentially married. Most Montreianos don't understand homosexuality, but being independence minded they don't see it as a big deal as long as it doesn't become their business (same with religion). I would think that in Montrei, civil unions would be allowed as long as it is not a religious ceremony. I'd think that for the religious, it wouldn't be seen any worse a sin than someone who lies, steals, or kills (and we all know that muderers get forgiven, even *here*). It's not something I've explored too much yet. That said, Montrei has some rather vibrant gay neighborhoods, as the cities tend to be very liberal socially, which I think is a reflection of the cultural attitudes Montrei has, as a whole. Doobieous 13:25, 11 March 2006 (PST)

APD Are Alliance for Public Decency --Quentin 13:59, 11 March 2006 (PST)

Possible QSS violation

Arnoldo Schwartzenegger is president of Alta California; Arnold Shicklegruber is former LG of Jacobia. Both seem to be *here*'s Arnold Schwartzneger and both seem to be different people. comments? --Quentin 05:57, 11 March 2006 (PST)

They are in fact similar but different individuals. I suspect them to be cousins, much like Guillaume Henri Claintaun and William Josiah Clinton. The former's widow is also a cousin of NAL Senator Diane Rodham. It should also be pointed out that the Prussian Chancellor Adolf Hessler somewhat resembles the alternative history author Adolf Hitler. IB sure is an interesting place, don't you think? Zahir 06:04, 11 March 2006 (PST)

Duplicate dopplegangers are quite common on IB. For the sake of continuity, they are treated as completely unrelated individual who share a similar name and personnality due to pure coincidences.

There are both an austrian Adolf Hilter (a failed artist) and a prussian marchall named Adolf Hessler. There are a georgian priest and a russian dictator based on Stalin (either neither took that nickname). There also seem to be a few clintons running around. --Marc Pasquin 06:37, 11 March 2006 (PST)

Not even to mention that I, myself, seem to have at least four Doppelgänger in IB: Jan van Steenbergen, Żowan Sasomętany, John o the Stone Burg, and some former Batavian minister of colonies... —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 07:26, 11 March 2006 (PST)

And I forgot to mention that I have also 7 Doppelgängerss on the List: Jan, Dan, Nik and 4 of the early spammers.

As a matter of fact, all that read this (myself include) are ultimatly creation of my multiple personnality disorder.

Oh dear, did my keyboard just wink at me ?..... --Marc Pasquin 08:31, 11 March 2006 (PST)

!!! Hm, only 7? ;) Elemtilas 13:02, 11 March 2006 (PST)

We are a multifaceted bunch, aren't we? I've got atleast 6 versions of me roming about inside my head, but that's another story. --Sikulu 06:14, 13 March 2006 (PST)

QSS Contradictions

I've recently noticed two contradictions:

1) one of Turkey's "Other Cities" is Istanbul. Greece's ceremonial capital is Constantinople. Unfortunately *here* they're the same city. Is this the case *there*- perhaps Chalcedon and Scutari (on the Asiatic side of the Bosporus) are referred to as "Istanbul". Exactly why this would be the case is beyond me.

2) Istria is listed as a constituent if Italy, however on Ferko's [map of Dalmatia] and on [this map as well] it's shown quite clearly as part of Croatia. Perhaps this is a condominium situation (although I'd really like it if it weren't- one can have too much of a good thing after all and here in Ill Bethisad we have the damn things coming out of our ears), or a just a mistake.

Your attention and thoughts would be appreciated. Deiniol 14:29, 12 March 2006 (PST)

1) Could be, considering greece used to be part of the Ottoman Empire and left under less then cordial circumstances, that the situation of Istanbul/constantinople is akin to *here* jerusalem/jerusalem-west as capital of Isreal and (future state of ) Palestine. Either both claim it or both claim half and call it differently.

2) Dan brought up a similar circumstance regarding Nice and Savoy. I think Decameron simply went with the maximum extent of Italy and no one noticed before.

--Marc Pasquin 16:23, 12 March 2006 (PST)

Indeed. It's QSS that Istanbul/Constantinople is a divided city. Greece possesses the European half (reverting to the name Constantinople), while Turkey retained the eastern half (retaining the name Istanbul). Nik 17:31, 12 March 2006 (PST)

Aha! Pity the Turks didn't retain the older name Qusţanţanīya, though! But what of Istria? Deiniol 17:39, 12 March 2006 (PST)

As always, QSS applies, but I also don't want to see too many condominiums (which I thought should be something uncommon, but workable, rather than common and popular?). Either way, wasn't Istria "officially" assigned to Yugoslavia in *here's* WWII? Doobieous 18:07, 12 March 2006 (PST)

It was, yes. I suggest that Ferko's maps take precedence due to their greater age. Deiniol 15:12, 13 March 2006 (PST)

Absolutely. All my maps of Eastern Europe are also based on those maps. The impact of making it part of Italy would be far greater in any case: it would mean that I would have to redo quite a lot of maps! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 00:41, 14 March 2006 (PST)

Here's a suggestion - what if "Istria", in regards to Italy, refers to a small piece of the territory still controled by Italy. Or, alternately, Italy retains a nominal claim to the territory, although they do not actually govern it Nik 00:57, 14 March 2006 (PST)

If anything, I'd prefer the latter. I really don't feel much like redrawing my maps, and I'm sure Ferko feels the same. But, that of course does not mean that Istria couldn't have some special properties anyway. What, for example, about its two languages, Istriot and Istro-Romanian? If we follow the usual pattern in IB, which would mean that both languages are stronger *there*, that would make it an essentially Romance-speaking territory. If so, what would be its status within Croatia? And what would be its relations with Dalmatia? —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 03:52, 14 March 2006 (PST)

I've noticed, that on this map, what is Croatian-Istria *here*, is Dalmatian controlled. Or is that just me? --Sikulu 05:37, 14 March 2006 (PST)

It's not just you. How curious. Deiniol 05:51, 14 March 2006 (PST)

That map needs to be updated anyway. --Sikulu 06:01, 14 March 2006 (PST)

That's one of the first maps I did, even prior to the discovery of Xliponia and Skuodia. I would go with the ones found on my pages my pages

Tokugawa Japan

I have come to the conclusion that there must've been some differences in late-Tokugawa Japan between *here* and *there*. I already knew there were minor differences, but had thought that the big picture would be the same. However, several issues have been bugging me. Japan seems to have industrialized/democratized more smoothly *there* than *here*, suggesting a less abrupt and/or less radical reformation in the Meidji era. Plus, Japan seems to have strengthened faster, establishing Pacific protectorates in the 19th century.

The idea I have come to is that the Meidji Restoration *there* was more of a political/foreign-relations revolution than a social one. As *here*, Japan remained closed off to the rest of the world until the late 1850's, when Montrei opened up their ports, peacefully. That peaceful method has bugged me for a while. Perhaps, however, the late Tokugawa shogunate had attempted to learn from the West without opening up. Perhaps their intent was some sort of "Catch up and then open up". Whatever they'd planned, it didn't work, and, once they'd begun their social reforms, and freer trade, the same social factors intervened as *here* to bring down the Shogunate. However, the opening would've been not quite so shocking, nor would there be quite the radicalism of early Meiji modernization *here*, allowing for a more evolutionary development

I don't think this would affect any QSS, or even any QAA outside of Japan itself. But, I do have a couple of quetions.

A) Did the Batavians have a monopoly on trade with Japan *there*, as the Dutch did *here*? If not, who did?

B) Might there have been some small-scale cultural exchange, mediated by the Batavians (or whoever) between Japan and the West prior to its opening up?

Nik 19:14, 12 March 2006 (PST)

If the Japanese were warmed up to the idea of western technology and ideas, I would think that opening them up wouldn't require forcing them to do so, like happened *here*. Or, maybe like you said, the Shogunate was much more progressive and decided to do a catch up, then open up, and ships from Montrei happened to have sailed into port when the shogun was ready to open japan? Doobieous 19:32, 12 March 2006 (PST)

Seems to me the essential detail here is point B. The Tokugawas need to have enough contact with the West to have some idea of what they're facing and to get ready. One possibility is a shipwreck. Suppose a ship carrying someone or something important was wrecked off the coast of Japan? And the Shogunate entered into discrete negotiations with INSERT NAME to return whoever/whatever it was, in the process learning rather a lot about how different and formidable industrial nations were? Or something like that. Zahir 20:28, 12 March 2006 (PST)

I like how you think, good Dr. Zahir! I agree that it's mostly internal QSS, Nik, and I think this suggestion of Zahir's is going to be quite fruitful, should you choose to use it. BoArthur 10:27, 13 March 2006 (PST)

Well, it's something of a myth that Japan was completely unaware of what was going on in the outside world. *Here*, the Dutch, and, I'm assuming, *there* the Batavians, traded with the Japanese, and the Shogun did learn of some information throught him. For example, when Perry arrived, the Japanese already knew who the Americans were. They knew that they'd fought a war of independence against Britain, and even knew that they'd recently acquired California. All that's required is that the Shoguns see a potential danger from continue isolation, and decide to acquire more technical and political knowledge. Nik 21:12, 13 March 2006 (PST)

Departure

I am henceforth ceasing to make new proposals here. This is due to numerous disputes concerning How it all works, QSS, QAA etc and I feel my proposals don't fit in with the whole ethos of this place and never will. I wholly acknowledge blame for this, and see that this is entirely my fault. I hope that you will continue up the good work and that you will make this place as good as it ever has been! I will, however, continue to look at other people's proposals here and comment on them, and I hope this will not be detremental. I apologise for the trouble I have caused. --Quentin 12:03, 15 March 2006 (PST)

Quentin, I can see you've gotten off to somewhat of a rough start, and rather than simply say that you won't participate anymore, do as Sikulu has done, and watch and ask questions until you feel that you've come to understanding of the function of things. That's how we all have done it. Nik, for example was the first person to post on the conculture forum, and it wasn't until years later that he joined IB and worked on Japan. I think that stepping back and getting a better understanding of Oure Merrye Bande is Not A Bad Thing, and I should like to see you continue to participate! BoArthur 13:10, 15 March 2006 (PST)

I wholeheartedly agree! I know you've gotten on the nerves of a few active folks hereabouts, Quentin, but I also know you've done some good work too. Don't underestimate yourself. There's no way it can be easy for you to come here new, and try to absorb nearly ten years of alternate history as well as our somewhat ideosyncratic set of traditions. I'm glad you say you're not leaving entirely. Please, continue to comment on other's work, but also keep working on the older materials. You WILL get the hang of it eventually if you but give yourself the chance. Elemtilas 17:07, 15 March 2006 (PST)

Don't give up so easily, Quentin. The key here is to study. Look at countries, peoples, languages, etc. within the areas you're interested in. Think of a proposal, but then study how your proposal may affect them. You only violate QSS if you don't take a good look at it first. Another key is, slow down, take time to develop your proposals rather than trying to fill voids (well, not really voids here, exactly) Doobieous 20:47, 15 March 2006 (PST)

Hey, it took me a while to get used to IB, like BoArthur said. I'm more used to writing althists on my own. But I've come along way since I joined last December. Maybe you should concentrate on certain areas, rather than just filling in some gaps in the future. Perhaps you should be in charge of Africa or something. (Any thoughts from anyone else?) --Sikulu 03:48, 16 March 2006 (PST)

I'm back, but treading carefully. --Quentin 07:57, 17 March 2006 (PST)

Good! It really isn't our intention to scare you or drive you away. If you like our collective work and wish to partake, it really is our position to help you do that. Even if you don't know everything or don't know how it all works, your best friend will be your keyboard: talk with us. Ask questions, make comments. Think out loud here. Don't be discouraged if ten out of twelve times a proposal of yours gets nixed -- the two remaining will be absolute gems! Elemtilas 14:23, 17 March 2006 (PST)

Alexa Stats

Here's some info from Alexa on the frath.net sites.

Apparently IB garners 12% of the frath hits. Interesting stuff! BoArthur 20:47, 15 March 2006 (PST)

Apologies

Some of you have perhaps noticed a certain foulness of my mood lately. Please accept my apologies with this explanation.

Today, March 16th, would have been my darling Colleen's 52nd birthday. We were to have taken a trip to see her father in Montana this week. Obviously, that was not to be. She is in my heart, and will remain there forever, but she is not here in any other sense. Well, some of her ashes are here in my apartment. When the time comes, they will be scattered with mine.

But this week...hurt. For the first time in a couple of months I actually had a full-on sobbing attack, and had to medicate myself to sleep a couple of times. God above, I miss my lady. My beautiful and wonderful girl.

That is the reason for my crappy mood of late. Please forgive it, because in truth it has had little enough to do with any of you. Zahir 18:20, 16 March 2006 (PST)

You'll be in my thoughts and prayers. I can, at some level, understand the grief you have in your heart. Apology accepted. ;) BoArthur 18:29, 16 March 2006 (PST)

Education

Does anyone have ideas about education systems in IB? I want to write about that. --Quentin 07:57, 17 March 2006 (PST)

Are you asking about things like "do they use corporal punishement ?", "whats the progression levels ?" or "what do they teach ?". In all cases, I would assume it would be different from one country to the next.--Marc Pasquin 08:22, 17 March 2006 (PST)

We know there are entities called universities and colleges...and QAA, they're like here's... see University of New Cornwall, The College of Joseph and Brigham BoArthur 09:19, 17 March 2006 (PST)

Likewise, I've given information about Montrei's educational system on the page for Montrei. Doobieous 09:34, 17 March 2006 (PST)

It is dealt with in small ways in the "How To Tell" pages. Various colleges are mentioned here and there. Quentin, how do you think the systems might be different between *here* and *there*? Zahir 09:40, 17 March 2006 (PST)

Perhaps the school system isn't privatised, at least in FK. Or the FK state of post-grad qualifications is like what we have *here* in the USA and in the NAL it is much more sensible. That's an idea. I also think that we could have, for, perhaps, England or Kemr:

• Must start school at 5
• Go to secondary school at 10
• May leave at 15 or go to apprentiship or college until 20
• May also work for a degree up to 25, with 1-5 Year level of degrees

Probably no PhDs or BScs, only BAs, BLaws, MAs and MLaws. Adult education would be much more low-key or virtually nonexistent though. Ideas? ----10:53, 17 March 2006 (PST)

Well, I think that this would greatly depend upon the nation. Did you have one in mind? I'm not so sure you can standardize education across IB except maybe University work, but even then I'm not so sure. What are your reasons for no PhDs or BScs degrees? Why a low-key or virtually nonexistent adult education? Doobieous 10:55, 17 March 2006 (PST)

Like I said, England or Kemr.

BoArthur, I'd like to point out (and I don't mean to sound rude; I commend you for your work and think you're great) that you have a lot more detail about Louisianne than most other countries in IB, followed by RTC, Xliponia, Japan, the RTC, Russia, the NAL, and the FK, probably in that author. One of the things I think the project aught to do to stop newbies like me getting trapped into the "There isn't any info here so I aught to write some and no one else has thought of anything to do with this" mentality is to get the info out there. I don't mean to sound rude and apologise if I do.

Again, I'm not entirely sure what you are hinting at, Quentin, so better just tell us straight: what do you want? That would give us a better starting point for discussion!

As for the trap you're talking about: I'm sure I and others have done our very best to make that clear. I know, we have our software working against us a little, but I can only repeat over and over again what I've already written so often: this is not Wikipedia. IB has a long history and has developed its own traditions, ways of doing things, etc. Of course, newbies can't be expected to know all that, but there's always somebody around to point things out swiftly, and there are several pages that describe in detail how we work.

As for detail: it's up to the caretaker of a country to decide how much detail he wants to give it. Besides, a lot of things have been written in the past but never made it to this wiki; most of that is hidden somewhere in the Conculture archives. And at last, there are a lot of things that dó exist in someone's mind but simply haven't been written (yet). To give you an example: I have a perfectly clear image of the kind of cars you can see in the RTC, but I haven't drawn or described them yet. Likewise, I know pretty well what the University of Warsine looks like, but again, I haven't written it yet. In other words: don't confuse a relatively small amount of wiki material with incompleteness!

Returning to education now. I think basically it's very close to *here*: people have to learn their native language, history, geography, mathematics, biology and all that. I'm not aware of any additional topics that are absent *here*. One principal difference I can think of is that people probably have to learn a few more languages than *here* (there's no such thing as the whole world speaking English). Also, I can imagine that in IB history is valued a bit higher as a topic than *here*. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 11:58, 17 March 2006 (PST)

Quentin: the goal of a newbie who doesn't see information on a topic is to ask. While theoretically anyone can edit, as has been said, this isn't wikipedia, so just adding pages isn't a good idea without some research, as you already know. This wiki is a proverbial two way street, it's not up to those established to make sure everything is there, it's up to you to ask us about things which we haven't added. Sometimes we have ideas in our heads, sometimes they're hidden in the conculture archives, as was already stated. Doobieous 12:14, 17 March 2006 (PST)

I'm sure the various British systems are quite like *here* in formulation and operation. I suspect the American system is more like the British than *here*'s US system. We know there are primary, secondary and tertiary schools, privately owned, publicly administered and associated with religious organisations. Elemtilas 14:26, 17 March 2006 (PST)

Ahem!

I've noticed there is only one female person on the list. I've also noticed that that person doesn't seem to be best known for being around here than for their individual (and most excellent) work. Comments? --Quentin 09:40, 18 March 2006 (PST)

Kristen is great. And if you, Quentin, can find some more ladies who'd like to participate in IB then I say "More power to you!" And "Please do." Zahir 09:52, 18 March 2006 (PST)

WE GOT A WOMAN ON THE LIST ?!

Better start wearing trouser when I post then. --Marc Pasquin 13:24, 18 March 2006 (PST)

Kristian is a man, actually. Conculturing does seem to be a largely male endeavour though, not sure why ... Sally Caves, of course, has a wonderfully developed one, but she's not really an IB member, even if she is on the list Nik 20:04, 18 March 2006 (PST)

Oops. You can't tell, but my face is oh so red. Zahir 20:55, 18 March 2006 (PST)

Well, obviously it's just that women don't like the smell of our cigars!
Actually, it's a very interesting point raised here. I've been wondering about that as well. First, let's take into account that IB is predominantely the domain of conlangers. Now, looking at conlangers (the CONLANG list, in particular) you can see that a majority is indeed male, but there's still a sizeable minority of women. And even among conlangers who have elaborated concultures, there are still a fair number of women. Sally Caves is one example, but there are others: Arthaey Angosii, Sylvia Sotomayor, Irina Rempt... just to name a few. So that can't be it.
What I've always found remarkable is that there are so very few women involved in a posteriori conlanging (which is basically what we do). I know of two romlangs created by women, but that's in fact all; for the rest, it seems to be an all-male enterprise. What I am honestly curious about (and in fact, I have thought about it a lot and never found an answer) is why that is. Does a posteriori conlanging require a different mindset? Is the game-like elements in it a typically male thing?
In any case, I would very much welcome our first REAL female IB member! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 13:28, 19 March 2006 (PST)

Wait one moment! Let me just remind everyone that Sally ìs a real IB member! With very few exceptions, if you're on the List, you've contributed to the project in some fashion. She was more interested in the cultural elements of Kemr and mostly with the stories I'd written and descriptions of Dûnein. She asked questions and made some comments. She has a demanding Real Life (academia) and couldn't always participate on the old mail lists -- she'd be really out of the loop if she had to participate with the regularity demanded of the Wiki! Quite frankly, I also don't think she'd be terribly interested in some the niggling details we've been getting down to of late! Elemtilas 16:29, 19 March 2006 (PST)

Well, as you stated yourself a while back, The List is mostly a list of credentials, rather than a actual member list. Much as I'd like Sally to be a regular participant here, I doubt if she's even aware of the fact that she'd called an IB member!

Anyway, I guess you know what I was talking about. "Member" is the narrowers sense of the word. Not necessarily someone writing wiki entries perhaps, but at least someone who develops, or has developed, some corner of IB. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 08:49, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Certainly the List is a list of credentials, but that doesn't mean it can't also be a list of real members! She may not be active on this Wiki, but she was active early on, and through her questions and discussion (quite a bit of it private), helped develop at least one little corner of IB! If Sally had been one of our Silent Sams -- who never said a word -- I might be more inclined to await our first "real" woman Member. As things stand, all I can say is, our first "real" woman Member is already known! Elemtilas 15:30, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Might be an interesting question to ask on the conlang list. While I can think of a few female writers in the sci-fi and fantasy field, I couldn't say the same about alt-history. Maybe males tend to be more attracted to variations on a theme while females are more interested in free-form creations ? --Marc Pasquin 14:49, 19 March 2006 (PST)

I'm trying not to speculate on what Marc's wearing if he's not wearing trousers while he's posting. It's slightly disturbing to think about. - AndrewSmith.

Shorts, Andrew, shorts. Just hold that thought and it'll be OK :) Aside from Sarra la Cawurn, we àre rather male-dominated. It's never really struck me before. Prehaps this is one reason why we don't have an article entitled Women's Rights... Deiniol 06:43, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Well... I do wear something and it is kinda short so for the sake of Andrew's sanity, lets go with that. --Marc Pasquin 15:16, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Well, except of course for our "mystery editor" we had a while back, who started providing lots of unclaimed countries with female leaders! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 08:49, 20 March 2006 (PST)

We could use a more gender-balanced membership, come to think of it. --Sikulu 08:01, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Anyone up for hormone therapy, since the real ones don't seem to be coming in droves (or at all)? It's either that or we write the Women's Right's article... BoArthur 09:03, 20 March 2006 (PST)

I'm willing to do a lot for the IB project but I think my wife might object to gender re-assignement. She's funny that way... --Marc Pasquin 15:16, 20 March 2006 (PST)

LOL. Aherm! Well, for the sake of your marriage, Marc, we shan't allow you to do that, then. I award you the Loquacious Trapezoid of Devotion. Wear it next your Anti-Spam Rosette! BoArthur 15:39, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Living in the Aerodrome

Have you heard about Viktor Navorski - a native of Dalmatia, I think (or was it Erdeka?) - who lives in an international aerodrome because no country will give him permission to enter its territory? A story worth detailing, I think! Kyrmse 09:36, 20 March 2006 (PST)

There was a movie to that effect last year or so. Tom Hanks, I think, played the poor soul so caught between a rock and a hard place. It could have been about this very fellow. ... Indeed, The Terminal. Unless his story is strikingly different *there*, I'm not really sure what the point would be?... Elemtilas 17:33, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Question regarding war crimes

Interesting, after the GWII, did any war trials committed, similar to Nuremberg here, and any other similar ones in post-GWII world, just curious. Lordziba, 20 March 2006.

Probably not. There was no genocide and charging anyone with the use of the atomic bomb on Lodz would have been tricky considering the Allied themselves used nuclear weapon too. --Marc Pasquin 15:16, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Yes, although it is a common practice to try enemies for their crimes while overlooking own crimes... E.g. after World War 2 nobody tried the Soviets for countless crimes they have done (actually, more people perished under Stalin's regime than under Hitler's, and there were many ethnically based massacres as well), but this couldn't have been the reason not to try the nazi leaders. As somebody said at the Nurenberg trial when he was reminded of the Soviet crimes, "The trial will only investigate the crimes of the people that are being tried". Therefore, I do believe that indeed such thing as trial for Lodz might have happened, maybe partly to appease the Veneds. As well, I would assume various other leaders would be tried as well, such as some leaders of Ethiopia. At the same time, the Russians might have organised similar trials (or maybe secret trials) for the former leaders of the newly-SNORist nations. Abdul-aziz 15:24, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Much as I like the Nürnberg and the Tokyo process, given the nature of GW2 I don't really think a similar thing would be the case *there*. No matter how belligerent Hessler was, he wasn't really backed up by a party, or an SS-like thing, that could be qualified as a "criminal organisation". Some German leaders were undoubtedly tried, but I suppose that will have been done on a more individual base, not the kind of group process that we had *here*. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 16:05, 20 March 2006 (PST)

As for appeasing the Veneds, I imagine the same thing happened: the guilty people were tried separately for that crime, not for the whole bunch of crimes committed during the course of the entire war. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 16:06, 20 March 2006 (PST)

I concur. The GWII *there* was really nothing more than a continuation of GWI after a short hiatus. No great personalities (we like to compare Hessler with Hitler, cos they both start with "H" -- but that's where the similarity ought to end). No great crimes (beyond the usual crimes perpetrated during war, including the war itself!). No great tragedies (apart from the tragedies that war always brings with him!). I often refered to GWII as something like "Twentieth Century, Second Chapter of the Great and Neverending Eurowar". I think the Balkan War was the Third Chapter; and we're probably about due for the First Chapter of the new century...

That said, I would suppose that sòme kind of trials must have taken place. Somebody somewhere must have done something wrong while commanding a prison camp or similar. Small trials for small crimes -- but nothing so grand as Nuremburg. Elemtilas 17:42, 20 March 2006 (PST)

New France/New Francy

I can see that there are some misunderstanding regarding the names New France & New Francy so i'll try to give a longer explanation. All that follow are things that have been mentioned before (and this is not my subtil way of saying "You should know that !", its just so that people understand these are QSS elements).

First off, *here* "Nouvelle France/New France" was the name given to *all* the french north-american posession which included some fur trading posts, some forts and some colonies. One such colony was the Royal Province of Canada (covering a little bit more then what nowaday is the southern part of the province of Quebec). I know that some people sometime confuse the 2 but they were distinct entities (in the same way that nowaday "netherland" and "holland" are sometime wrongly used interchangeably).

*There*, the same apply except for the fact that the colony I mentioned was never named canada (which was based on a misunderstanding with a native word for "village") but rather was called "Nouvelle-Francie". The "Francie" refered here is not the current northern part of IB France (which only came about less then a century ago) but to the central region of France during the ancient regime also known as "Domaine Royal" or "Ile-de-France". *Here* the term is rarely used but it was said that *there* it was more common (explaining why it was chosen for the modern division). The choice of that name for the colony had nothing more to do with the nature of its denizens then with those of New Brittany (the name originaly given *here* by the french to modern day Nunavik), New South Wales or New Brunswick.

As for the way "Nouvelle Francie" is spelled in english, it had nothing to do in my mind with the way it is spelled in Lawrencian (I never considered the spelling of that particular noun in english incidently so have no problem with using this one instead of "laurentian"). Rather, it was meant to be a phonetic transcription of the sound "Fra(n)-see" in english. As I couldn't find any placename in english that use a "ie" ending for the sound, I chose "y" in immitation of Italy, hungary, etc...

So, I hope this clarify the matter a bit. --Marc Pasquin 16:04, 21 March 2006 (PST)

I wonder, though, might "New France" be a common error *there* as well? While New Francy would certainly be the official English name, I imagine many Anglophones might think "Francy" was just a strange way of saying "France" Nik 19:39, 21 March 2006 (PST)

It might happen with some oversea but I would assume that those who have regular dealing with the intendancy would know what's what, especialy considering the use would go back to colonial time. --Marc Pasquin 15:48, 22 March 2006 (PST)

This certainly explains some things! If "NF" is names for Francie, then the correct and officially used English name is "Intendency of New Francie". This doesn't rule out the misnamed "New France". I really can't buy "Francy" as an actual English word, though -- though I understand you to mean that it was some kind of transcription. I would expect that Americans would get it right (New Francie -- or simply "The Intendency") more often than other English speakers (on historical grounds), who probably wouldn't understand or care about the difference between France and Francie. (Now, to make a more concerted effort at refering to the place as New Francie / Nouvelle Francie myself! ;) Elemtilas 16:12, 22 March 2006 (PST)

Generally the trend in English is that new words for things keep their original spellings (as in the case of "New Francie"). While "Francie" isn't particularly new, the country Nouvelle Francie is, and since I doubt English speakers there are any different than here (language wise), I don't think they'd respell it as "Francy". Italy, Hungary, etc. came into English a lot earlier, and my guess is the word would retain its French spelling, rather than being transformed into "Francy". Doobieous 16:27, 22 March 2006 (PST)

I agree, and that's where I was headed. You said it much better, though! Italy and Hungary *here* are and have long been actual countries. New Francie has only been around about as long as the NAL -- pretty new, when compared to Italy!

On the other hand, there are a couple rival forms of Good English (not to mention Scots) -- so it is entirely possible that óne of them might have reduced -ie to -y. We'd have to look into the history of the dialects to see if this is feasable, but it is a possibility. Elemtilas 17:55, 22 March 2006 (PST)

Ah, yes, I meant to say that of course :)! Perhaps there are several versions of "Francie" there, but maybe the popular form is to use "Francie" instead of "Francy" for the American dialects? Doobieous 20:09, 22 March 2006 (PST)

Considering I've been using the -y ending for a while now, how 'bout going with that one for the sake of simplicity ? [MP]

no worries there. For simplicity sake I see no reason to ask you to rename all the files and similar. We'll just have to chalk it up to whatever dialect the people in the regions around New Francie were speaking used the -y form. You get lots of Scottish and similar up that way, perhaps it's Scots that has the -y form. From there, it makes some sense that the -y form would be seen alongside the more popular English via French -ie.

This may seem messy to some, but that's by no means as messy as it cán become! The situation of English *there* is not monolithic. So let's agree on that: both Francy and Francie are acceptable. Francie should be seen as more usual (world-wide) and official, in whatever respect a language is "official" in the IB! Francy should remain in the article titles et al, since it is thát form that would be used by Scots and English souces in that region (you know, papers up in Massena and Ogdensburg and that part of New Castreleon.) And we're áll just going to have to get used to seeing both. Elemtilas 13:01, 23 March 2006 (PST)

Laurentian

Actualy, scratch that about using "Lawrencian", after doing a quick check, laurentian seem to be the usual english translation *here*:

www.laurentian.ca/ <laurentian university>

www.laurentianweb.com <laurentian news>

www.laurentianbank.ca <laurentian bank>

--Marc Pasquin 15:48, 22 March 2006 (PST)

OK -- Laurentian (in both) it is! Though I suspect the French form would be Laurentien, no? Elemtilas 16:13, 22 March 2006 (PST)

English Counties

[2] and [3]. Would Cumberland, Lancashire and Westmorland exist? War of the roses? Yorkist.

Hmm. Not sure I understand what you're asking, especially with that last bit. The premise vis-a-vis the Wars of the Roses is that they did indeed happen, but never entered their last phase because the Tudors were a family in Kemr not England. So Richard III was the last Yorkist King, succeeded by his son-in-law, the then-heir to the Scottish throne who had married Richard's only daughter. Because Lancaster would seem to be in Kemr, I've suggested the two sides of the conflict be York and Kent. Zahir 09:30, 24 March 2006 (PST)

What are Rheon, Saeson, etc? Political or historical? A more HR would be much appreciated. And the counties listed are not on the county list, but their location on most IB maps look as though their location *here* would be English. Part of durham/northumberland?

A more HR? "Rheon" is Brithenig for Kingdom. "Saesoin" is Brithenig for "England". Deiniol 11:45, 24 March 2006 (PST)

Edit: and Quentin- sign for the love of the gods. Deiniol

Whats an "HR" ? --Marc Pasquin 17:27, 24 March 2006 (PST)

Oh. Forgive me for my brevity. On the map, England is divided up in a way other than the counties listed at the England page, into Rheon, Saeson, Yorkshire, Cumberland, Northumbria. Also, the map is hard to read, so a more High Resoloution copy would help. Would that be hard to manage? I'm sorry if I sound rude. I am still entrigued as to whether or not the Saxsons reached the west coast further North, too. Cumberland, Lancashire, and Westmorland. But if the Tudors are a Cambrian family, is Lancashire in Kemr? --Quentin 23:55, 24 March 2006 (PST)

I could work on making a high resolution version, as I have the original map. The bloody Saxon did indeed manage to reach the west coast, as the once large Kemrese province of Rheged / Cumbria reached all the way up to the once large Kemrese province of Gwododdin / Votadinia, which of course is now in Scotland. Elemtilas 06:13, 25 March 2006 (PST)

Thankyou! You are so kind. <Blushes> I would really appreciate that. And what about Cumberland, Lancashire and Westmorland? --Quentin 10:04, 25 March 2006 (PST)

Just in case Daniel's note wasn't entirely clear, "Rheon Saeson" means "Kingdom of England". "Rheon" is not the name of an English county. I think it's safe to assume (and Padraic will correct me if I'm wrong) that the counties *there* correspond more-or-less to whatever traditional counties are *here*, where they are within the borders of *there*'s England. Lancashire *here*, in my mind, is split between Kemr and England, with the northern part (Furness) in England and part of Cumberland/Cumbria. Westmorland similarly is part of Cumberland according to the map. What's odd is that Cumberland is omitted from the list of counties. I'd advocate that Padraic changes the map to rename what's marked as Cumberland as Cumbria. That might stem some of the confusion. --Kgaughan 20:11, 25 March 2006 (PST)

For Quentin: no gurantees the map will be done toot sweet, but it is long overdue! For yez both: *here*'s Cumbria and Westmorland are both in England, though I suppose a tiny slice of the latter could be in Kemr, if it Av. Rewla / Ribble. Hawes is just north of the border in England, Aysgarth is just south of the border in Kemr. Buckden is very much in Kemr. Lancashire is half in Kemr and half in England. The counties are indeed those of pre-1974 borders, with the exception that the "left over bits" of counties that are mostly in Kemr (like there's a small part of Wilts in England, but not enough for a proper county) get added to existing English counties.

I don't have anything marked as "Cumberland", do I? At least on the paper map, I have Kemmrea (which is Kerno for Cumbria). Elemtilas 20:53, 25 March 2006 (PST)

Woohoo! I was right! But check the map again: it's definitely marked Cumberland. In retrospect, I think that's probably just fine. --Kgaughan 16:09, 26 March 2006 (PST)

Well, there's a thing. I don't even know where thát map is anymore! Cumberland I think should be OK for the English county -- but certainly not for the Kemrese province! Still have to come up with a new map, though... Elemtilas 17:54, 26 March 2006 (PST)

After some analysis, I found that Lancaster (the city, that is) is in England. Judging by its location, I'd say that Lancaster would be more of a border city, and that Lancashire (as a county) might not even exist. I doubt that it would gain the status of a County Palatinate, like *here*, although *English* Lancashire could be a small county, or one or more hundreds of Cumberland. Alternatively, the County of Lancashire could include most (if not all) of *here's* Westmorland. Have a look here, and see what you think. --Sikulu 01:53, 27 March 2006 (PST)

New Mersey

A problem has come up with the name of New Mersey. The River Mersey is in Kemr *there*. I had stated that it was named after the old Kingdom of Mercia, but it doesn't make sense that it'd be changed to Mersey. A few possibilities come to mind

• Easiest possibility: Change the name to something else - it's stil a proposal after all
• Named after the "Earl (Baron? Viscount? Duke?) of Mersey/Mercia". There was a Earl of Mercia title *here* that went extinct in 1070. Perhaps the title survived there, or, alternately, was regranted at some point. If the title was old enough, it could've been worn down to Mersey by the time the colony was established
• There's a Mersey County *there*

Nik 20:05, 26 March 2006 (PST)

Well, as the Anglo-Cambrian border *there* was more significant, I'm sure the Earlship of Mercia would have remained an important strategic position. Perhaps "Mersey" there is pronounced as /mErsi/ not /mErzi/? Deiniol 05:28, 27 March 2006 (PST)

Iosif Dzhugashvili (Stalin) proposal

Hi everybody, i'm new here...

Well, I have made a Iosif Dzhugashvili's (*here*'s Stalin) proposal (i have not published it yet), so tell me what do you think.

Excuse for my English, i'm not a native speaker.

Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili was a Georgian Socialist and Orthodox priest.

Dzhughashvili was born in Gori, the first (and only) son of a poor family in December 18, 1878. His father died in 1880, and his mother and him moved to the capital city, Tbilisi, where she worked doing laundry and housecleaning. When she died in 1890, Shota Chelidze, a priest and one of the people whom Dzhugashvili's mother worked, took care of the young Iosif and introduced him to the Georgian Orthodox church world. Dzhugashvili started to attend a seminary at age 16, and graduated after ten years. At the seminary he met another students of revolutionary ideas, and soon they founded an Orthodox Socialist organization, and began publishing a newspaper against the Tsarist Russian domination. Dzhugashvili was exiled to (where?) in 1907, and he was authorized to return to Georgia once it became independent, in 1918.

Once in Tbilisi, he restarted doing political activities, and founded the Georgian Orthodox Socialist Party (GOSP). During the Second Great War, he directed some resistence actions against the Russians. The GOSP was outlawed by the SNORist regime inmediatly after the war, and the party began to work in clandestinity. It organized lots of subversive actions like sabotages or bombing against official buildings, and Dzhugashvili's figure developed into sort of a legend. He was captured in 1946, and sentenced to death. He was hanged in the Tbilisi town square in March 5, 1948.

After the instauration of democracy in 1993, Dzhugashvili's figure and legend experienced a revival. A monument on his honor was builded in the Tbilisi town square, over the place of his hanging, and an important avenue of the city was named after him. Is not unusual seeing Georgian young people using t-shirts with Dzhugashvili's figure printed on them.

Guru

Iam wondering, do we need yet another Stalin? It is just like Hitler and Hessler, or Arnoldo Schwarzenegger or Arnold Schickelgruber. (That is more rhetorical). I have another more like counter-question what is a situation and status with Che Guevara?:::

Lordziba, 26 March 2006.

I don't think we need another Stalin but I haven't got anything against it. Do we want to make some kind of rule-of-thumb about the number of doppelgangers allowed? Zahir 07:15, 27 March 2006 (PST)

I Prefer characters that *here* are harmless *there*, like Adolf Hitler's IB counterpart. Doobieous 22:47, 26 March 2006 (PST)

Che Guevara ended up moving back to the old country as a child and later ended up as a suitably controversial Minister for Health and Children. --Kgaughan 02:20, 27 March 2006 (PST)

In the article on Vissarionov mention is made of one Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, a radical georgian priest. I think that Guru has simply created the article for what we've previously alluded to. As there was already an established doppelganger, I think we should use his fine work (less any objections, of course) and call it good. Comments? BoArthur 07:57, 27 March 2006 (PST)

I agree. If he was already mentioned somewhere, then this sort of proposed idea should work out fine. Elemtilas 13:10, 27 March 2006 (PST)

We don't need to necessarily limit the number of doppelgangers, so long as they remain sensible in number and scope, and for preference, name. Mr and Mrs Clinton seem to have attracted several. So long as a doppelganger is not too obviously a doppelganger, we can get away with it. There is absolutely no reason why someone who is interested in Mr Clinton can't create a new character based on the interesing parts of his personality or career -- but then make him otherwise a quite different man. Obviously, he would have some qualities of the original, but would otherwise be very different. Once they become transparent copies, we run into trouble. A note for Lord Ziba: Hessler is nòt a doppelganger of Hitler. Don't let the aitches confuse you! ;) Elemtilas 13:08, 27 March 2006 (PST)

Agree with Dan. This article is entirely based on what we already know about an established doppelganger + some added facts. I don't have the slightest problem with it!
As for Doppelgänger in general: I don't think there's a need to limit their number. What we always need to be careful with it keeping them too closely to their originals. Let's keep in mind that because history is different *there*, family compositions, names and the like are bound to different as well, and the whole gene pool is mixed up differently. As a result, NOBODY is supposed to look exactly the same like *here* and be exactly the same person. I think what we really should be careful with is using pictures of existing people which are very obviously pictures of existing people. My favourite portrait is still Marc's picture of Vissarionov, a mix of Stalin and Göring (thus representing fairly well what the SNOR was about!).
So, Guru, care to tell us a little about yourself? —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 11:22, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Well, i'm from Chile (wow, it also exists *there* xD) and i'm 16 years old (almost 17), hmmm I don't know, what else do you want to know?

See ya, Guru

Everything! Your name would be an excellent starter. How you found us; are you interested in conlanging or conculturing or alt-history; what your interest in the project is; how are things in Chile (gosh, this is what, three South Americans now!) -- basic introductory stuff in other words. Elemtilas 17:26, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Well, my name's Javier, and I'm more interested in alt-history, i'd like to contribute on the project by that way. Things here in Chile are fine, I think. I mean there are lots of more to do, but I think we're going on the good way, by the moment. :) Guru

League of Righteousness

Based on anything *here*?

It's a bit like the JLA (DC) or the Avengers (Marvel). Its actually based on both (more the Justice League though). --Sikulu 02:35, 27 March 2006 (PST)

Towns,

Does Washington DC and Brasilia not exist in IB? --Quentin 02:16, 27 March 2006 (PST)

Washington D.C. was built especially to be the capitol of the US *here* (*there*, it never moved from Philadelphia). There might be a settlement in that location *there*, but its going to be in Ter Mair. Since there is no Brazil as we know it *there*, Brasilia probably wouldn't exist *there* as we knowit. Again, there might be a settlement in that location *there*, but it would just be another city in the Goyaz province of Brasil. --Sikulu 02:41, 27 March 2006 (PST)

There is the gleaming city of Georgetown on the banks of the Potomac with a renowned college (or three). As for Brasilia, it wouldn't exist, because the nation of Brazil as it exists *here* doesn't exist *there* and I would think that nearly all of the bits that would be Brazil *there* would have their capital along the coast. BoArthur 06:31, 27 March 2006 (PST)

A tidy agglomeration of several smaller cities and towns, actually. Georgetown and Coachmen are pretty sizable cities; Rome, Calverton, Anacostia, Benning and an as of yet unnamed town make up the area. Georgetown sports a cathedral, an old university and one of the very best medical colleges anywhere. Along with Alexandria down in Virginia, it is a bustling transport hub (canals, rail (light and heavy), roadway and port / navy yard, aerodrome). Rome sports some very fine palaces, Il Palacio (with its lovely view of the Tiber harbour) itself being the most opulent on the American continent (or it certainly was at the time it was built!). There's a hippodrome in Coachmen and a couple sporting arenas around. There are also the great Naval Hospital, the Mint, the Arsenal and the City Library (largely bequeathed by Mr Jefferson). It's a low slung town, though, there being a statute that no dwelling may exceed four storeys and no commercial building may exceed six. Church steeples are exempt, but may not exceed three storeys above the roof beam. You can get the best Bay seafood here outside of Annapolis and Baltimore. The streets of the late XVIIJ and early XIX century city were laid out by one M. L'Enfant, an ex-pat French architect and what we'ld now call "city-space artist".

Apart from that, "Washington" remained no more than a retired surveyor and gentleman farmer. Whittington was the hero of the day! Brasilia was, and I know Ron can amplify, and largely remains a Dream city. A sort of statement about what Brasil is all about as a nation. There is no Brasil *there* ... so, no Dream city. Elemtilas 13:03, 27 March 2006 (PST)

What can I say in addition to that? Indeed, Brasil *there* is one of the republics occupying the territory of the Federative Republic *here* (besides Bahia, Equador and Paraná). Brasília was a plan from the Second Empire (Emperor Pedro II, deposed 1889) which was taken up during the Kubitschek presidency and inaugurated in 1960. No such things (Empire, Kubitschek, a single Brasilian territory etc.) in IB... Kyrmse 14:01, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

Image copyrights

Just a note — I know most of the content on here is user-created or otherwise free, but I'd appreciate if any items (images especially) known to fall under copyright of non-IB folks be marked as such with source & license/fair use reasons (a la Wikipedia), for our webhost's TOS. —Muke Tever | ✎ 17:26, 27 March 2006 (PST)

Hey Muke, is there an easy way for us bureaucrats/sysops to review all the images so that we can cooperate with your ISP? BoArthur

There's about three auto-generated lists of image stuff: Special:Allpages for the Image: namespace, Special:Imagelist, and Special:Newimages (the last one has thumbnails). —Muke Tever | ✎ 04:02, 28 March 2006 (PST)

How should images that are homemade but *not* meant for copyleft be identified ? --Marc Pasquin 18:13, 27 March 2006 (PST)

Well, we do say below the Save Buttons and such "All your contributions will be considered the common property of the Ill Bethisad project as a whole." So I would suppose anything that's uploaded is (c) the group, and not "copyleft" at all. BoArthur 18:21, 27 March 2006 (PST)

I should point out that even though we do that, it's not considered to be legally binding (just like those EULA's MS and other companies get us to click through aren't legally binding). I think that we should still require a declaration of the source. --Kgaughan 02:12, 28 March 2006 (PST)

In that case, anything that's uploaded is still © the owner, and wouldn't go under copyleft unless the owner explicitly so releases it. —Muke Tever | ✎ 04:02, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Darkest Hour?

I suppose this says something about the way my mind works, but something that has been kinda nagging at my mind for awhile...

Generally speaking, IB is a "nicer" place that the world we know. True, we have some greater medical advances but they have fewer atrocities, generally greater political stability, less pollution, etc. GW2 lasted longer than WWII but when you consider there was no Holocaust and no (evidently) mass murders in Russia, methinks IB still comes out ahead.

So what is the real darkness in IB? What is its real darkest hour as opposed to *here*? Deseret seems to me a much smaller scale than, for example, Palestine. The Florida War seems to take up all the violence that the US was involved with (for one reason or another) in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, etc. Even the worst SNOR-ist leaders are fairly small fry compared to Stalin or Ceaucescu. The civil rights movement hardly seem to have existed in the NAL, because there was hardly a need (it seems). Slavery was abolished years earlier and with far less bloodshed. No Cold War.

What is IB's Khmer Rouge? Who is IB's Pinochet? Frankly, without some kind of darkness, IB's relative light doesn't feel realistic. Or am I missing something from this particular alternative history? Something feels unbalanced to me.

Just looking for some feedback, because frankly I'm inclined to go looking for this darkness that--to my mind--must be there. Somewhere. But then, what can I say? I like horror movies. Zahir 09:38, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Interesting -- I've often thought of IB as being rather darker than I'd prefer! And I'm the one that came up with IB's first dark spot! I tend to think on IB's darkness as more diffuse and harder to uproot. It was kind of obvious *here* that Nazism and Communism were Bad Things and ought to have been dealt with. Only future history can decide regarding the ideologies we now consider evil. IB's ills tend to be smaller -- low level racism and cultural superiority issues; the almost blase attitude towards atomic and chemical weapons (just one of the horrors of war, eh, what?); IB has also had so many modern wars it's almost ridiculous. It seems that every year for the last four anyway we've had one or two of the things! Elemtilas 17:19, 28 March 2006 (PST)

I think that there have been the shares of wars...and surely the atrocities the Tejans and Alta Californios have exacted on one another can count for that. It seems that IB has had less "final solution" wars, but rather LONG, drawn out wars of attrition. Florida was an ongoing cold-war, and the Louisiannans and Cruzados have all been affected. Africa is just as dark (or darker, methinks) than *here*. In many ways there are atrocities, but just not something we've focused on, as yet, just as up until the last 3 years, we hadn't touched on popular culture or companies or anything like that. We barely "canonized" Europe, Asia, SAm, NAm and Africa in the last 5 years. I think that perchance the time has come to explore the "seamy underbelly" of IB. BoArthur 09:45, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Well, I dó have to agree with David. It's a matter of taste, really. Some of us just prefer to focus on the nice things, at least one person has left the project because IB wasn't utopian enough in his opinion!

Two, but one came back.

So tastes differ, and mine happens to coincide with David's. I have indeed found it sometimes disturbing that there are only véry few réal villains in IB. Mass-murders, genocidists and the like. I think we have done some really nice work on Hessler, but all in all I'm afraid we have made him a little tóó nice: more like a second Napoleon than an (even soft) copy of Hitler.

Quite. Mind you, Hessler was never supposed to be Hitler in any respect! I think looking on him as a sort of Napoleon figure is about right. Not that he played a particularly "light" role in IB anyway! Elemtilas 17:19, 28 March 2006 (PST)

As for the SNOR, I can't recall I've ever said that there were NO mass murders. My idea has always been that the SNOR was something of mix between *here*'s nazis, *here*'s Soviet communists, and *here*'s Pan-Slavistic Russian nationalism. So don't worry: Vissarionov was equally feared and hated (and oddly, loved) as Stalin was, and his later successors were equally incompetent and corrupt. I also can't see why there wouldn't have any psychiatry abuse like *here*.

In our previous bogeyman discussion I mentioned the possibility of some international terrorist organisation, modelled after James Bond's S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Perhaps something to reconsider after all?

For the rest, feel free to turn your Oltenian SNOR leaders into the worst monsters imaginable! You are undoubtedly aware of weird stories that used to be told about Ceausescu *here*, about his alleged vampirism and the like...

—IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 11:15, 28 March 2006 (PST)

I know there were a number of atrocities during the Japanese Civil War, and I've proposed (no objections so far) that the Chinese used biological weapons during the Great Oriental War. The SNORist Republic of Ezo was quite oppressive. The Kurile Islands are populated, in large part, with the descendants of political exiles.

The fact that the far eastern part of Russia seems to be roughly the same population as *here* argues that there must have been a gulag-analogue *there* in Russia Nik 11:31, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Absolutely! I've never delved REALLY deeply into Russian history (mainly because I still consider the RTC my main focus point), and only set out a few basics. One thing which I - for example - don't know yet is what precisely snorist Russia's policy was regarding its national minorities, especially the non-Slavic ones. They all had a tough time; we know thát much. But I don't think I've ever spoken about genocide or ethnic cleansing. Perhaps Vissarionov actually planned on wiping out, or at least deporting, entire non-Russian populations that he considered treacherous. Perhaps he even succeeded.

There's only one thing that would contradict that: the existance nowadays of a Volga-German republic. Candidate #1 would undoubtedly have been the Germans, and if they'd all been siberised, it's not that likely that they suddenly would have been able to proclaim their own republic on their native ground. But we cóuld always find a different explanation for that! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 12:34, 28 March 2006 (PST)

As for various radicals, I have written several articles: Tautos Garbės Brolija, Cossack Force. I've been feeling the same and adding various darker elements of history, such as almost-apartheid at Pakštuva (Naujojo Vilniaus apskritis), ethnic disturbances in Vilnius Free City or Miroslauje during the Great War 2. I would assume SNORists would probably have murdered many influental non-Slavs as well. Abdul-aziz 12:56, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Also, don't count out individual cases (mass-murderers, child-molesters, cannibals, mad generals and the like). —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 12:58, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Yeh, Esperanza Rios didn't have a nice childhood... Abdul-aziz 12:59, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Well atrocity wise, those 4 atom bombs on china during GW2 would count (propagandist rationalisation aside). --Marc Pasquin 15:26, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Hear hear. Not to mention the atomic weapons used in the Caribbean. Elemtilas 17:19, 28 March 2006 (PST)

We have sadistic and horrible Bjlaa Lekgie of Czechs (smth like *here's* non-German SS-Waffen divisions), who served Whites&SNOR; they were feared wherever they appeared for their ruthlessness and deadly efficiency. Still Germans let die their polital opponents in prison camps (as Jan I. proposed in Kárl Čápek article). *There* seems to me not to be much calmer place than *here*, number of wars goes in a same order, the only difference is, that genocides are less frequent *there*, although from biology/ethology of man we should expect more of them... Jan II. 22:28, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Did I say that? Hey, I didn't know I was thát clever! ;))

Anyway, here's another one: Sanjak. Nasty regime, pretty much like Europe having its own little Taliban! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 05:10, 29 March 2006 (PST)

I think that Deseret gets downplayed due to a lack of details on it. It's not like Deseret is occupied by rebels and then contained by AC, it's more like constant turf battles as I understand it, sort of like a large scale gang battle where each faction is constantly trying to take control and defend its territory. If I am wrong, let me know, because it kind of fell into my lap when I took AC on, and I wasn't the originator of the idea.

With the Tejano-Californio war, I think that because there isn't an official write up on it, it doesn't sound like much other than a simple border dispute. We know that both sides have rocketed either side (this is what the ammonium perchlorate factory that exploded near Las Vegas was involved with.) Alta California even set up vast mine fields along the Rio Colorado (nicknamed the Rio de Sangre) out of fear of a Tejano invasion along that border. Alta California at least had a "shoot on sight" policy towards anyone crossing the river. Much of what AC was doing was defensive, Tejas tended to be the agressors.

I think it was also one of the longest running wars in IB. It started as soon as Tejas and Alta California gained independence. Didn't Tejas also swallow up some of AC's original territory? What else is known about the war? Doobieous 13:25, 29 March 2006 (PST)

I wrote some dark things in the history of Ashanti as well. Abdul-aziz 11:22, 30 March 2006 (PST)

I included two semi-dark spots: the Mapukra in Xliponia - which can still be expanded, especially considering that XL was "a hotbed of international espionage" (see Balkan Campaigns) - and the MNP in South America, especially Paraná, which may also have some nasty outgrowths. Kyrmse 14:09, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

James Bond and anti-SNORism.

James Bond; "From Russia with Love" etc. Anti-SNOR (USSR)? And what about George Orwell? Animal Farm? Somehow the anti-Stalinist state becomes the Anti-SNORist state. Especially after Trotsky and Chikotka. --Quentin 01:12, 30 March 2006 (PST)

Quentin, maybe its simply because I'm not a native english speaker but the way you post is very confusing. What is it you're asking ? --Marc Pasquin 03:30, 30 March 2006 (PST)

James bond films and books and stuff are blatantly anti-communist. We needn't import everything anti-communist as being anti-SNORist (although that seems to happen alot). Is the American SNOR al ot like the KKK? and what is about Trotsky and Chukotka, for 1984 and esp. Animal farm? I hope to get proposals up soon!

Well, James Bond may not be the best example. IB already has a James Bond counterpart: Jaunge Blone (see Movies). He's not English but Jervan, and instead of fighting communists he spends most of his time spending a lot of money fighthing universal bad guys in general. Among his fiends are probably also Russian SNOR agents; but it's not like they are the only, or even the worst, enemy or something.

For the rest, I agree of course: not everything anti-Soviet *here* should be imported wholesale as something anti-SNOR *there*. The situation was fundamentally different anyway. There wasn't even a real Cold War!

I'm afraid I still don't understand your question about Trotsky and Chukotka.

As for 1984, see 1994. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 04:16, 30 March 2006 (PST)

Well, Seoirse Fferreir's Animal Farm would be very different, considering what happened to Trotsky in IB. Everyone is really helpful here- thanks. --Quentin 05:59, 30 March 2006 (PST)

On the other hand, who's to say spy fiction need parallel our own that closely? Jaunge Blone may represent one end of the spectrum, but would we have the equivalent of Le Carre's George Smiley? Not a simply copy of that character, but maybe another archetype--the totally unglamorous secret agent confronted with genuinely complicated moral dilemnas. Then again, if Blone is quintessentially Jervanese, perhaps some other character is quintessentially Japanese? Or Scandinavian? Or how about going the other direction--an immensely popular fictional spy who worked for the SNOR! Maybe he was a big franchise in Russia, and proved surprisingly popular elsewhere (much to the disgust of the Anti-Snorist Movement)...? Zahir 06:31, 30 March 2006 (PST)

One of my comic-book characters (when I actually get around to writing about him) is a bit like James Bond/Nick Fury. --Sikulu 07:03, 30 March 2006 (PST)

Old-fashioned.

I don't know if someone else pointed this out; We ought to avoid making IB into an old-fashioned version of Earth, or something sweetness-and-light. (That's not to say it would be sci-fi or dystopic either.) Because IB is behind the RW in a lot of stuff, can we push it forwards in other areas? And although the AÉ are the home of the computer, there isn't much info about it. TELIDON --Quentin 03:39, 30 March 2006 (PST)

The lack of information on the wiki concerning computing is in part because I haven't had as much time as I'd like to work on IB. There's an awful lot more in my head and in the list archives than you'll find here. To sum things up, computing in IB is better said to be differently advanced than more advanced, though because the market for consumer machines took longer to take off. Where computing in IB excels is that it's concentrated on making things highly parallel rather than just plain fast. A few highlights: IB has had greater successes in the field of AI than we have *here*; von Neumann didn't die from cancer and Turing wasn't forced to take his own life, and both ended up working together at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the School of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, and (like Schroedinger), took up Irish citizenship.

Now, IB hasn't had the same pressures upon it from a military perspective to push practical computing forward, so much of the work has been highly theoretical. However, as Daniel notes, you can expect IB to outstrip us within 20 years. *There*'s internet-equivalent, an t-Idirlíon, is beginning to get noticed after an as yet unnamed Kemrese physicist created a hypertext system similar to the WWW *there* during the abortive Euroconsortium space program, and the network, integrated as it now is with the consumer Teiliteacs/Bycopel system has been used in academia and business for the last two decades.

Appearences can be deceiving. :-) --Kgaughan 06:06, 3 April 2006 (PDT)

Well, in OTL the Cold War has been the motor for a lot of technical progress. In a situation without it, there wouldn't be an arms race, a space race and all that. Even a lot of our contemporary computer stuff has its earliest background in the military. Add to that that GW2 ended four years later than WW2, and the conclusion must be that it isn't at all thát strange that IB looks a little more old-fashioned! Besides, not éverything is old-fashioned. Airplanes aren't much in use, while airships are. But I'm sure that IB's airships are fár more sophisticated and modernised than any airship we've ever encountered in OTL. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 04:21, 30 March 2006 (PST)

Also, remember that IB materials science is just as advanced, that while computers are not yet as advanced, they will pass our own level in another 20 years. I don't think it's harking back to "the good old days" so much as the world itself is different. There hasn't been an American culture to cause the dependence on oil and personal autos; trains are more widely used, and all in all the world seems to be a slower place, probably because of the differences from the snorist period forward. BoArthur 08:14, 30 March 2006 (PST)

I think one area where IB may be slightly or even more ahead is ocean exploration. Without governments pumping money into getting into space, they probably focused on exploration of the seas for new resources. Perhaps the technology to mine methane hydrates has been developed to where it is viable? (Yes, I know, why use methan hydrates for fuel when using petroleum would be cheaper?). We already know that zeppelin technology exceeds ours, and I believe that trains are more developed as well. Remember, it's not like IB looks like the 1940's or 1950's. I'd expect things to look a lot like here. Doobieous 17:26, 30 March 2006 (PST)

I suspect that, in general, the biological sciences are more advanced as well, with fewer research £ going to nuclear weapons. Especially if things like biowar and chemical weapons are less stigmatized *there*. Maybe they're a lot closer to figuring out the origins of life than we are. Of course, the problem with that is that, while it's easy to project, e.g., a space race that's 40 years behind *here*, it's harder to project an area that's *more* advanced. At least, not without running the risk of looking hopelessly out-of-date in a few years :-) Nik 18:32, 30 March 2006 (PST)

I really wouldn't be surprised if they haven't conquered some of the disease families we're waging war with *here*. I don't want to speculate as to which, because there réally be dragons there! Elemtilas 17:53, 31 March 2006 (PST)

Personally, I don't think of IB so much as "old fashioned" as simply more patient, and to some extent that patience is a gift of providence. In many ways things simply went better there, and we only have to look around us at how troubled things could have turned out. (What is often forgot is just how badly things could have turned out *here* if, for example, Lord Halifax had been PM instead of Churchill in 1940, or the South had won the American Civil War). *There* society was more inherently conservative in some ways, which allowed it be more liberal in others. Plus (I am convinced) the benefits of Tesla generators allowed for a world less driven by the internal cumbustion engine yet able still to recover from the long, terrible nightmare of GW2. Zahir 19:25, 30 March 2006 (PST)

Agreed. Practically free energy leaves a lot of cash to throw at other problems. Elemtilas 17:53, 31 March 2006 (PST)