Alternative History:Featured alternate history/former nomination archive

1983: Doomsday

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

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

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

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

• Discussion
• Though I got one rational remark... If DD is featured (for too long at least)I fear a bit that some of the less often visited TL#s and their respective authors/contribs feel a bit underrepresented or pushed aside given the fact DD would then be mentioned on the start page, in all widget links: "TOP-Content", Most Popular, Timelines etc...

But nonetheless I think if there is one TL around here that fulfills all defined criteria and deserves to finally become featured than it is 1983: Doomsday. Xi'Reney 10:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Chaos

I've read most of the timeline; I think it's really good. I'm surprised it hasn't been featured yet. --DarthEinstein 02:40, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • It has in the past, before the change to how featured TLs were selected. Mitro 12:45, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
  • It is well written and very detailed. User:Riley.Konner 9:47, September 25, 2009.
  • Agreed, Louisiannan 17:48, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
• Objectors
• Discussion

Viva California

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

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

• Discussion

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

1. If Mexico won the Mexican-American War, why did California secede? Generally, with a few historical exceptions, a victorious nation doesn’t suffer independence movements shortly after being victorious.
   :Mexico had been in a state of revolution and unrest since around 1830 -- the Yucatan and Tejas had pushed for independence from the central government which was seen as (and was) corrupt. I posit that since Tejas gained independence the land-owners of California thought to secede themselves and be free of Mexico City.
2. Do you mean the Monterrey in Mexico, the one just south of Texas? If Texas is not in the war wouldn’t the US have to go the long way around Texas to attack that town?
   :Yes, Monterrey in Mexico. The timeline (if I haven't written it down, I apologize) is that Texas was considering joining the US, and winning the Mexican American War is what cemented the unity. In OTL the US traversed Texas to fight that very battle, and Texas was more or less letting the US fight the war for it.
3. The Confederates are victorious at Gettysburg but are still driven out of most of Virginia? It seems unlikely for the CSA to do so well and yet be driven out of the North and Virginia.
   :I can't remember the exact reasoning behind it, but I remember as I searched through the annals of the Civil War, it seemed that one of the plans was a push toward Richmond.
4. When did Canada become a kingdom?
   
   Canada was always a kingdom -- under England. It was not named the Kingdom of Canada when it was granted self-rule in the 1860's *here*, but I posit it did, *there*.
   
   In this TL do they have their own separate royal family, I believe that was one proposition concerning the future of Canada, or are the British monarchs their monarchs? Mitro 22:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
   
   The royals were the British Monarchs, yes. I figured the Canadians would have home rule -- but all the same, they and Australia are constitutional monarchies under Queen Elizabeth, *here* and *there*. Louisiannan 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
5. How did the American forces sent to Europe to aide the Kaiser get past the British/French fleets that would be likely blockading the area?
   :The U.S. was building its own navy at the time. With collaboration with the Germans, the US could've turned out several Bismarck-style ships and easily taken on the British/French fleets, IMHO.
6. Why did Texas attack the US in 1931? It really does seem like a dumb move considering that the US is larger then Texas in both area and population, and probably has a larger industrial base.
   :Because they're Texans? Texas was always somewhat bellicose. They had easily taken Arkansas and Louisiana in the Great War -- they were headstrong and thought they could "liberate" more southern States. (A bit like our attempt to "liberate" Canada during the Revolutionary war.
7. After only 10 years since being annexed by the US the Texans are happy citizens? Seems unlikely since Texas has almost a century of independent existence at this point.
   :They were ruled by a ruling aristocracy who was both Bellicose and punitive. The government of the United States was a breath of fresh air.
8. Forced relocation? How did this happen without rebellions and death?
   :Didn't say it didn't happen without rebellions and death. By the time this was happening, the US resembled a fascist state, and we didn't hear much of the forced relocations the Nazis did, either.
   Granted I'll give you that, but the article reads like things are going good for the US and sometimes not mentioning the details will get people thinking it happened another way. Mitro 22:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
9. The available info on Sherman in this TL seems contradictory. According to the TL page after Bull Run he requested not to be given independent command and later committed suicide in Louisville. However on the Civil War article he leads an army, an independent command apparently, that conquers Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana.
   :Good Catch. I've fixed that one.
10. Can a solar flare really knock out a satellite network for that long?
    :I've been looking for that just now -- spent about 20 minutes trying to find it -- I'd based that on the strengths of satellites and the effects of a later (or earlier) solar flare on satellites.

Mitro 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Just one insignificant detail that I'd like to see explained. More out of curiosity really. How did the nation that spans the Low Countries come to bear the name 'Flanders'. Did the habit to refer to the whole of the area by that name resurface somehow? --Karsten vK (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
   Given that for most of the 20th century the Netherlands as we know it were part of Germany. I think they were casting about for a name for themselves following the Spasm, and settled on that. Louisiannan 14:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Even though we don't have a third vote, since no one has objected yet and we need a new TL to showcase for next month, I see no reason why this shouldn't be promoted to featured status unless someone has any objections. Mitro 14:28, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Fall Grün

This timeline is well research and in a word: epic. Great use of photos and maps. Also it already been featured on the main page in the past. Mitro 17:09, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

• Supporters

--Riley.Konner: Its been featured before and it should be featured again.

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

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

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

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

Finland Superpower

Iamtheggman 03:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Washington Shot at Murdering Town!

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

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

President Perot

Nominator: Emanresu11

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

Aztec Empire

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

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

Sorry but nominators can not be supporters. Since you are nominating it you are already a supporter, you need 3 more not including you. Mitro 15:46, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

• • Plus you need supporters to outweigh objectors. User:Riley.Konner

TL is now a featured AH. Mitro 14:54, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian World

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

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

• Discussion

President McCain

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

• Supporters

• Objectors

• Discussion

Hmmm this is kinda iffy for me I like its originality but I do question a few things probability. User:Riley.Konner

I hear you. One thing that sets this site apart is that less-than-likely scenarios frequently play out. What results is sometimes less-than-good alternate history, from a strictly historical point of view, but good reading and good speculative fiction. Vegetarian World is a perfect example. The League of Democracies in this one is the most ASB thing in this TL. Benkarnell 22:33, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

I will stay neutral in this matter. Although I had thought of changing some parts of this timeline, I would just like to say that I agree with Benkarnell's classification of this althist as "speculative fiction". My main althistory here was the Fall Grün timeline, which I also spent the most time gathering information and made the most research for. This timeline was, originally, merely meant as a break timeline - when I needed a break from the other timelines.

Whether this actually gets featured or not, I in a way don't care. Sure, it would be cool if it did, but if it doesn't it wouldn't bother me. My main project was, and still is, the Fall Grün timeline. :)

Kindest regards,

Realismadder 19:21, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my nomination. Though no one officially objected to the TL I feel consensus is that this TL is not ready to be featured. Mitro 19:26, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Ætas ab Brian

An oddball timeline, but a very well-made one. Almost 1400 years of history complete with maps of extraordinary detail and a very distinctive, enjoyable writing style. Based on an ASB premise - basically Roman technology is "wanked" to help build it into a permanent superpower - but it explores the idea of an enduring Roman state very admirably, and the Roman focus is balanced by attention liberally lavished on other cultures as well. Benkarnell 22:42, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Agreed. Mitro 15:39, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
  • nanoleopard201 16:48, November 7, 2009
  • An intriguing piece of work. Red VS Blue 10:13, November 8 (UTC)
• Objectors

• Discussion

Soviet defeat

User:Buk5 5:43, 12 October 2009

• Supporters
  • Das Taub 01:17, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice argument --Ed9306 20:32, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
  • Good story, but bad typing. FireFootball 02:14, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
• Objectors

• Discussion

Puget Sound-1

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

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

• Discussion
  • I firmly believe that once in a while there should be a timeline that has humor in it. What is the point of this wiki if we cannot have fun while using it.

--Yankovic270 04:30, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's fun, and I love it personally, but it's not really alternate history by any normal definition. If that's OK with everyone, then OK. Benkarnell 23:19, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

No Islam

I figure this would be interesting to show what the world would be like if Islam wasn't around.

• Supporters

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

British Louisiana

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

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

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

Papatlaca

Thoroughly well researched and imaginative, and very well written besides. A little short, but it does have a small body of pages to support it. Benkarnell 22:36, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

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

Superpowers

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

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

• Objectors

• Discussion

Rebellion of 61

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

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

Easternized World

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

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

• Discussion

Napoleon's World

I'm not sure if one is allowed to offer up one's own AltHist for nomination, but I've put a lot of work into this TL, and if anything needs to be added (especially in the 19th century) let me know. I want to hear everyone's opinion. KingSweden 22:12, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • I believe this is a good, well written timeline, with a bit of surrealism thrown in, just to verify that this is an Alternate History, but also with a hint of plausibility, knowing what Napoleon is like from research into my own timelines. I support this whole-heartedly. Tbguy1992 15:21, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Mitro 18:15, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • I like it. It's well written with pictures and maps. --CheesyCheese 16:14, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Objectors
• Discussion

South American World

Nominated by: VENEZUELA 00:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

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

• Discussion

Great White South

It's well written, has a team of contributors, is fairly realistic and also has good maps and picturesVegas adict 15:37, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Simply one of my favorite timelines! Eastward Expansion 19:36, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of great articles, it has several contributors and it's refreshing to see such a new TL get so much traffic so quickly. KingSweden 18:17, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
• Objectors
• Discussion

Cabotia and Brasil

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

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

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

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

Basileus' Interference Timeline

It has been featured before. Mitro 13:41, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Louisiannan 22:58, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Very detailed. And complex. And hard to understand. But I like it. Eastward Expansion 12:57, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • I just became a member of this wikia so that I could vote yes on this one!

• Objectors

• Discussion

Welsh History Post Glyndwr

An excellent timeline that details an independent Welsh state. Mitro 16:51, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Owen1983 23:47, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • I like it! Even though that's basically what I say for all of these.Eastward Expansion 23:48, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
• Objectors
• Discussion
  • there is a lot of info here I like itOwen1983 23:47, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

2nd Punic Victory

Has a great portal page, and is covered with maps and other goodies Eastward Expansion 22:00, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

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

Soviet Defeat

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

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

• Objectors

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

Quetzalcoatl's World

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

Most of the current stuff is in these articles, 1300-1350, 1350-1470, and 1470-1510

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

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

Wasteland Europe

The timeline tells of a world without the Marshall Plan, the plan that rebuilt all of West Europe into the superpowers they are today, and America choosing to concentrate on its Pacific theaters, stopping the rise of Communism in Asia while letting it run rampant in Europe. Arstarpool 00:00, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
• Objectors
  • Simply not fleshed out. Just a week before Arstar nominated it, he said it was dead.Eastward Expansion 23:13, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why Europe would be divided in various countries just because of the Marshall Plan? VENEZUELA 23:22, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Arstar, I think it still needs some work. -Fedelede 23:32, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd have to admit that to me this timeline over-exaggerates the potential consequences of there having been no Marshall Plan. Considering that Europe never lost the technical know-how and greater part of its infrastructure to reconstruct itself (and considering that my very own country used the Marshall funds mostly to wreak havoc in Indonesia but did not recover in a noticeably different way from the countries surrounding), the results of the lack of input of external funds would, however tragic, have been nowhere near the scale of Europe deserving a name like ‘wasteland’ or having entire countries fall apart. --Karsten vK (talk) 13:44, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

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

Central Victory

I think this is really one of the great timelines on this website, that have gotten no recognition. Eastward Expansion 17:48, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • That's true. VENEZUELA 05:01, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. World War I ATL's don't get the recognition they deserve. Therefore, I cast my vote. Tbguy1992 13:12, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I change my mind, the fact that he's making this a community project is great! Ownerzmcown 00:02, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
• Objectors
• Discussion
  • Your page hasn't even been started yet, Owner!Eastward Expansion 19:43, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Can Mitro or someone make it featured now?Eastward Expansion 23:15, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • He's not making it a community project? VENEZUELA 23:23, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently in U.S. Army basic training. Editing from me will cease temporarily. After my training is complete I will begin editing again. If you think you can help feel free. Also this a new community project.--Central Victory Creator 13:11, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Dai-tō-a

In the Dai-tō-a timeline the Japanese Empire decides not to attack the American fleet at Pearl Harbor, which culminates in a successful conquest of most of East Asia and the establishment of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere, or in Japanese "Dai-tō-a Kyōeiken".

• Supporters
  • Its a great TL! Eastward Expansion 18:40, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • One of the finest Classics on this wiki and certainly deserving of a spot as a featured timeline here! Red VS Blue 18:47, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Really not a bad timeline, though it could still use polishing, obviously - but we need something new as the featured althist, and I think this'll do very nicely.Lordganon 19:44, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
• Objectors
• Discussion
  • Unless there are any objections, I will move to mark this TL as featured. Mitro 20:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Puget Sound-1

I think we were overly hasty in making this a featured TL. It has a lot of articles but very little actual content. I think it featured status should be removed. Mitro 16:24, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • I support the removal of PS-1's featured status wholeheartedly, as it really is lacking in content and story. Jazon Naparleon
  • Same here. While a neat idea, it needs a major improvement. Tbguy1992 01:47, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly with the above. Red VS Blue 20:26, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

• Objectors

• Discussion
  • Unless there are any votes in favor of keeping the featured status, I will remove this TL as a featured TL. Mitro 21:11, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Day of Glory

Was featured once before. Mitro 17:10, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Louisiannan 20:20, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • Personally I don't really like it.Babylonanian Siberia 20:07, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • As the creator of that timeline, it would be helpful to me if you could say what it is that you don't you don't like about it. --Marcpasquin 23:38, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Emperorjames 22:02, June 20, 2010 (GMT/UTC)
• Discussion

Chinese Meiji

Was featured once before. Mitro 14:55, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • Ecthelion83 18:14, April 6, 2010 (UTC/GMT) - my issues are 1) I think the point of divergence is too late (i.e. the Qing dynasty was already in great turmoil at least several decades prior to the noted point of divergence, to include the White Lotus Rebellion, which was an open revolt against the dynasty) - this would have had the notable effect of galvanizing anyone not sympathetic to the rebellion in favor of conservatism, not modernization, 2) Japan does not really modernize until after 1870 in real history, and thus, despite technically being an "empire," it does not expand or start growing until its modernization (this is implied to have begun in 1861 in the timeline by the topplers of the Tokugawa Shogunate), 3) the factors leading to the fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate are so far from accurate as to be ludicrous (for one thing, the daimyos said to have rebelled in the timeline were noted to be staunch conservatives in real life; in fact, they were among the ones who, having met with defeat at the hands of the Imperial armies, led the Satsuma Rebellion against modernization; in addition, the daimyos even in the late Tokugawa era were certainly not capable of ending the Shogunate, which in real life was achieved only through the actions of the Meiji Emperor - notably, both were in favor of modernization and thus would not have closed Japan to European influence after 1850), 4) Korea (Choseon/Joseon), while a tributary state of the Qing, would never have become a Chinese protectorate per se (nor would the Chinese ever have considered to make it so - successive Chinese dynasties were very much content, no matter how expansionist, to leave the China-Korea relationship as suzerain-tributary with little practical or even legal impact on Korean relations, except when Korea could be used as a buffer against foreign threats vis a vis Japan), as China never considered Korea at all "Chinese" - in addition, Japanese expansionist tendencies would have inevitably led to war with China regarding influence over Korea (if Korea is, in alternate history, unable to overcome the weaknesses of individual kings and factional in-fighting at court by 1860; if Korea does overcome this before then, it is actually more likely that it would have exercised more independence of China in the event of a Qing collapse, possibly countering or even overcoming Japanese influences/tendencies since Korea would have had time to modernize effectively before Japan instead of the other way around, as it happened in actual history), and lastly, 5) the northern Korean boundary with China was constantly in factual dispute (since before they became the Qing, the Manchurian tribes were frequently at war with Korea, even before the Choseon dynasty, and incursions by the Manchurians south of the Tumen/Yalu and by the Koreans north of those rivers were common); despite this border having been negotiated (with some discrepancies) in 1712, the Qing did not allow settlement or migration into Manchuria proper until the 1870s and the first Chinese to enter there already found Koreans occupying some of the territories they had been told to settle, which led to continued inconclusive negotiations into the 1880s - due to an ambiguity in naming some of the boundaries (Chinese characters were used in the official treaties, but the word "Tumen" is not Chinese and several different Chinese character versions were used to transliterate the name), those Koreans in the disputed territory claimed that they were in Korean territory (which developed into official Choseon policy in the 1880s), but after 1905, due to Japanese interference, these policies and claims could no longer be pursued or negotiated until 1945, but the occupation of Korea in halves prevented a united claim and thus prevented any real negotiation (though one was concluded between North Korea and China in 1962 recognizing the current borders). In an alternate history, all of this may have been turned on its head. - My primary objections would be 1) it's not comprehensive, and 2) it's not very plausible, for the major reasons I've pointed out in boldface.
• Discussion
  • Wow you really point out some good reasons. Babylonanian Siberia 20:07, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ready for the Mother Country

Featured once before. Mitro 16:51, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Bill Potter 1:40, March 9, 2010 (EST)
  • I admit that this timeline is well put together, so it has my vote. Tbguy1992 04:42, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • Just don't like it. VENEZUELA 00:33, March 28, 2010 (UTC).
• Discussion
  • Is there a reason why you don't like the TL Ven? Mitro 22:10, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • I decided I wouldn't vote on this one. Eastward Expansion 19:43, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Kornilovshina

Was featured once before. Mitro 13:00, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • yougo1000: I really liked the POD it was very good.
• Objectors
  • Emperorjames 16:55, May 12, 2010 (GMT/UTC)
  • While the idea is intriguing, and the story is already roughed out, it needs more improvement before I would vote for it. Tbguy1992 04:59, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Discussion

Civil War on Third Reich

It's very imaginative and includes some additional info, (maps, photos, etc.). User:Unregistered contributor 195.77.128.223 19:47, April 5, 2010

• Supporters
  • The pictures are impressive, the history is long and complicated, and the idea is good.I like it a lot. I'm willing to vote for it. Defender of the Fang 13:55, April 9, 2010 (UTC) PS. Anyone want to help with my althist, Defenders of the Fang?
  • One of the more original althists of WW2, good geography and realistic political possibilities. I'm always sold with good images, maps and flags! Would like to see some more effects beyond the 1950's. P.S., Fang, you have quite the imagination! Looks like an interesting novel in the making. - Biker Empire, June 17, 2010 (Invalid vote, must be a registered user with 100 edits to vote -Mitro)
• Objectors
  • Too short. Currently its only one page. TL needs to be expanded before it can be marked as a featured TL. Mitro 18:47, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Anything that is only one article should never become a featured history. All these unregistered contributors are really annoying!!! Eastward Expansion 20:08, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Far too short to even merit nomination here. Whilst quality should always be emphasized, as this TL does, quantity should still not be overlooked entirely. Red VS Blue 20:44, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion

An Independent in 2000

It's a very well thought out and written, their is a lot of good work going into making it. Ownerzmcown

• Supporters
  • Riley.Konner 16:27, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes and yes. Fegaxeyl 16:00, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't believe this isn't already a Featured TL! Eastward Expansion 20:18, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Simply an amazing Timeline. Mitro, maybe it is a little less plausible than some, but it explains it very well. This is the Utopian World that I wish was our own. Sigh. French Victory 20:21, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • I have to object. I find it very implausible that a different president in 2000 would lead to the US covering the entire continent of North America and building colonies on the moon. -Mitro
  • Despite the fact i like the timeline it's just to implausible for it to become a featured TLVegas adict 21:36, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree mostly with the above, although I have a more personal dislike towards it as it is one of those "What if...(US President)" ATLs. Especially though, its just far too implausible, and I'm usually really lenient on plausibility lol Red VS Blue 21:53, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Too unlikely for my taste. I listed some of my objections on the EU talk page. --Karsten vK (talk) 19:27, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the human and technologicla detail is great and creative, but the underlying hate towrards conservatives (see difeerences fom OTL) is too evident to make for an even-handed story. Leave Rick Warren alone and focus on the jets! - Biker Empire, June 17, 2010 (Invalid vote, must be a registered user with 100 edits to vote -Mitro)
  • While impressive in the depth and breadth, it just seems to implausible that a man, appearing out of no where, winning the presidency, uniting all of North America under the US, then redrawing the lines of the states, and then disappear again as if he never existed, plus the sudden advancement in technology to something along the lines of, say 2030, in eight years? It would take that long for both Canada and the US to agree to think about hosting a conference to plan a meeting to discuss a summit to propose an idea to consider the possibility of putting together a treaty to lay the ground work to design a program to even start trying to join them together. It would take years of planning, as well as measured steps to integrate the nations. And would a bill to divide up the United States in larger states, creating new ones, destroying or expanding old ones even make it to committee to propose? No congressman or Senator who would want to keep his seat in the next election would dare propose such a law, even if the president is of the same part and wants it. The US too divided on such measures as Health Care reform and Banking reform, which almost every other nation on earth has to do anything so drastic or monumental in this current situation. But then again, this is fiction, right? I do not support it becoming the face of the AltHist Wikia. Tbguy1992 05:16, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think you read the timeline thoroughly enough. He doesn't appear out of the nowhere as you claim it mentions he is notable across the U.S., he also doesn't disappear it still mentions him as the TL goes on further and further. He doesn't achieve the technology over the span of eight years but works to achieve it in the span of 20 years. It doesn't go into Senators or Congressman enough for anyone to make bold statement on that subject. He does help the U.S. by shutting down opponents and critics and is able to intergate the whole of North America and the States into a "true American" way of life.Riley.Konner 09:40, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • And the fact that he is able to do all of that so effectively is one of the reasons why I personally feel this timeline is implauisble. Tbguy, even if mistaken on some points, does make the point that this TL seems to much like a liberal utopia to be realistic, especially on the expanded US. -Mitro
• Discussion

• I will clear up what I mean: by that he appears out of nowhere, I mean Charlie Edwards is found in a forest by some campers, which is odd, and then is walking and talking months before any other child his age, and being actually able to read Forth Grade books by age two? I highly doubt that. On his first day of school, he's suggested to be moved up to Grade Five, and graduating school at 13, then going to collage. This seems utterly ridiculous, as he wouldn't have the maturity to make it through, even if he was a gifted child. This seems crazy. while it is still possible for him to create this new kind of jet engine, and that part's alright to my point of view, but from 2000, the world starts going crazy. First, Edward is elected, which seems plausible, but then his programs: Healthcare, basically the realization of "Manifest Destiny" with the unification of Canada and Mexico, the over-liberalization of America, space exploration that reaches the moon and Mars, etc. etc, are all achieved in eight years. In real life, it would have been impossible to try to get a few of these things through Congress or accepted by the majority of the people without major compromise or complete back tracking on some things, and then still most likely not being accepted. I see this TL, after 2000, as completely unrealistic, as it seems that not one thing can go wrong for Pres. Edwards (even 9/11 is better, as Afghanistan is brought peace and security within a couple of years), and that all opposition is either muted or brushed aside easily. Even though I'm from Canada, I know from watching any new program or reading anything related to the US since 2005, I know that this is technically, physically, and plausibly unrealistic, as opposition on almost everything can be encountered, with everyone calling their opponents "Nazi" or "Socialist" over anything that Bush or Obama does.

This story is an interesting fiction, and maybe kind of plausible, but I see this as totally unrealistic Alternate Histroy without several major divergences before 2000, and I will not change my vote. Tbguy1992 01:40, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Finland Superpower

Nomination by Iamtheggman.

• Supporters
  • it has a nice portal page with good photos and a timeline and it has good links--Owen1983 22:59, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, is very unrealistic, but it still cool--Ed9306 03:56, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agee that it's a bit Alien Space Batty,,, but it's a little more plausible than some. I say, give it a chance. Defender of the Fang 13:50, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Implasible yes, but has a nice ring to it. I feel it can be made better, yet I give it my approval. LizardKing12 12:43, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • My biggest problem with this TL is the implausibility of it. How Finland expanded just seems so unrealistic. If Finland is so powerful, how come it never expanded into OTL Russian territory? Mitro 16:45, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. It shouldn't be nominated for being featured. It should be nominated to be deleted. Until the creator shows signs of improving it, and I have checked many many times and he/she shows no interest in doing so. Until it is given the needed changes to be more plausible there is in my opinion no chance for it to become featured. If we did make it a featured history, then this page would be flooded with nominations for wank timelines even less plausible than this one. Yankovic270 20:27, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • Very Implausible.VENEZUELA 00:29, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • --Karsten vK (talk) 19:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Very creative but I see little reason other than that. If it were expanded on a little more than I'm completely ready to switch my vote. Red VS Blue 21:58, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • Well it was expanded quite a bit since the last time I took a look at it, I am still not though whether to support or object. Riley.Konner 10:29, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
  • There are three supporters now for this TL, however when there are objectors general policy is to only mark it as a featured alternate history when the nomination has three supporters + a supporter for each objector. This TL needs 3 more supportors before it becomes featured (unless there are more objectors). Mitro 14:02, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Perez Jimenez's Venezuela

I think is good and plausible, also it just need some article because it doesn't tell and alternate world but and alternate Venezuela. VENEZUELA 05:35, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters

• Objectors
  • Only 4 articles, not developed enough to be featured. -Mitro
  • This is an article that wouldn't interest anyone else but a Venezuelan. Arstarpool 05:18, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, it does not qualify since all candidates are supposed to keep a nationalism-neutral tone. Arstarpool 00:03, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
• Discussion

Arstarpool I think your comment is extremely nationalist, and if it one interest to a Venezuelan why not to featured, it's different to other timelines, I know 4 Venezuelans in the page:

1. VENEZUELA
2. dafg
3. Migue325
4. the truth finder

VENEZUELA 23:12, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Nationalist? Do you know what nationalism is?

Here are your so-called Venezuelans:

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

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

3. Migue makes future hist map games.

I'm sorry, Vene, but it's the truth. Arstarpool 23:46, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

1. DAFG IS NOT A PUPPET IS A REAL PERSON AND I KNOW HIM IF YOU WANT SEARCH HIS HISTORY ALSO MIGUE325 KNOW HIM,.

1. THE TRUTH FINDER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE WIKIA

1. MIGUE IS A VENEZUELAN THAT HAVE SEEN MY TIMELINE.

VENEZUELA 23:51, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Choose Your Own Alternate History!

An innovative new althistory project where it is us, including me, you, and even you(!) who are the writers. It is already very extensive, with more than 60 full pages made in the last month, and shows no sign of losing steam any time soon. Plus, it'd be a very unique addition to the featured timelines list! Red VS Blue 23:34, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Mitro 14:15, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I too, support this great timeline! Jazon Naparleon 15:54, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Vegas adict 17:33, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • --Karsten vK (talk) 19:04, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • It's a nice principle, but I think that it still needs some work. For instance, different strands of the story are redlinked before others, and we haven't seen any one of the possible timelines reach a conclusion. I also feel that lots of the pages in CYOAH are very implausible, though there are some that are of higher quality. I think that this could be a featured timeline, and definitely a unique one, but it needs lots of work until then. Fegaxeyl 07:53, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a very nice TL, but I think at least one of the PODs should be finished first. Until then, my vote is (sadly) firmly against having CYOAH as a featured alternate history. Eastward Expansion 16:31, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • This is simply put, laughable! Its just like those map games! Do you see any map games being nominated for featured alternate history? French Victory 16:36, August 6, 2010 (UTC) (Invalid vote. As stated in the rule that went into effect on 6/9/2010, only registered users with 100 or more edits are eligible to vote. Mitro 17:04, August 6, 2010 (UTC))
  • A very cool and innovative idea, but it just does not "feel" like an alternate history, if that makes any sense to anyone.--Smallpox 18:36, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Needs improvement; some options are too abrupt (don't really know how to explain it), while others are simply unrealistic. --XterrorX 19:00, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • Fegaxeyl, your comment is folly in its entirety. I, among others, am working on fixing the redlinks so they are all at the same "pace," besides, why don't you make an article where a redlink is? You might be good at it. Also, seeing as how we tend not to jump ten years in a single page, it will take a while before even one of the '71 era pages reach 2010, or have a decisive event that alters the world so radically the story ends. Secondly, I, again among others, am working to remove any and all implausibility. My mission should be done by 11:59, Saturday, next. Though it may last until the Saturday after that, depending on various factors, such as community help, my own slothfulnes or lackthereof, weather conditions, etc. I hope that answers any and all of your questions, and prepares you to remove your objection once the aforementioned changes have been made. LT.FGN, Second-In-Command CYOAH, Jazon Naparleon 15:54, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I will admit that I've been looking at helping out with the timeline, though I'm not sure if my way of doing things - stacks of details that would make individual pages utterly vast - would fit in, though I might give it a go. And I'm fully prepared to change my stance once the various problems (in my eyes) are sorted out. Though I do have another issue - scale. It is a bit jarring when we go from deciding the fate of single people (the teams sent to kill Hitler) to the fate of entire nations. Fegaxeyl 16:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Look at it in terms of the butterfly effect. A butterfly flaps its wings in China and later a storm hits the California coast. The TL embodies the same idea. One individual kills anothers, deciding the fates of millions more. Mitro 16:13, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think what French is trying to say, is that like map games, CYOAH is a 'do it yourself' sort of thing and nor genuine alternate history. Thats not what I'm saying, but I think its what French is saying.Eastward Expansion 16:38, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well I have to disagree with what French is saying. It certainly does not follow the same format of the Map Games, which in many ways is like an RPG. Simply put it allows editors to take just one POD, but make several sub-timelines in regards to it. Mitro 17:01, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

• The idea behind CYOAH is that the story would ultimately form a timeline, but the reader gets the chance to decide how the story plays along, and by choosing different divergences, the story will never be the same way twice, as long as everyone chooses at least one different link. By the time CYOAH reaches a higher stage of development (it will never be done, I'm sure), that it would form dozens, if not hundreds of different TL's, and would therefore count as a "multiple alternate history".

Since this is my creation, I'm not going to be voting for it, to eliminate bias, but you know what my vote would be.Tbguy1992 18:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Under the two weeks time limit, if this nomination is not passed by tomorrow, it will be automatically withdrawn. Mitro 15:17, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Toyotomi Japan

A Great timeline that includes pages for maps, nations, and languages, as well as being very well fleshed out. Is one of the first timelines ever written on this wiki... Eastward Expansion 13:09, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Surprises me this one isn't featured yet. --Karsten vK (talk) 18:43, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Haven't read the whole thing yet, but from what I've seen it has my support. --XterrorX 19:00, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Tbguy1992 16:02, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Although the history needs to be expanded, I did enjoy this TL. Riley.Konner 09:00 August 22 2010 (UTC)
• Objectors

• Discussion
  • Even though I can't vote on this...I WOULD IF I COULD! French Victory 20:26, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • If you had 100 valid edits you could. Mitro 21:22, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Unless there are anymore votes I will be marking this as a featured TL soon. Mitro 21:22, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Perez Jimenez's Venezuela

It's a good Timeline, easy to understand, many photos, and it's different to most timelines, because it's about how a country which it's now in OTL on it worst moment in history, one of the 1st world countries of the world, famous for its cultural and natural things, and as a big tourist attraction. Also I think is time to featured a timeline based mainly on South America. VENEZUELA 17:03, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • I like it. --Fedelede 21:37, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • I support this althistory. --Katholico 22:33, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Its one of the best timelines i`ve seenMigue235 21:09, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • Ven, I really hate to burst your bubble, but it is mentioned that overly nationalist TL's aren't supposed to be featured AltHists. It has been mentioned before, and one of my personal reason's that I did not support "An Independent in 2000", as it makes the US virtually perfect. I'm going to have to vote against this one. Sorry. Tbguy1992 21:22, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • I still feel its to short and could be expanded more. Also this TL ignores the butterfly effect. I think more research should be done to see how the changes to Venezuelan history would affect the outside world. Mitro 01:40, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's got fine quality in its ideas, but its not that long and a little bit too focused. Some work to expand to other countries, or at least mention them would be a solid improvement. Red VS Blue
• Discussion
  • Just to know, why it's nationalistic and why Mitro objects. VENEZUELA 21:34, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Vene, I think it is nationalistic because it only speaks of the changes on one country. --Fedelede 21:37, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but how would the world would be affected just because a latin american country has a military dictatorship, it's like saying how the world would change with a dictator in Zambia? VENEZUELA 21:50, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Mitro, but the only change in an outside country is Guyana which enter at war with Venezuela and transformed into a small country. VENEZUELA 03:38, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
    • Then I don't think you are doing enough research. Consider recent history. The domestic problems of Greece almost threw the whole world economy into the gutter. That is the butterfly effect, a tiny event with massive consequences worldwide. It is utterly impossible for POD set sufficiently in the past to have no affect outside of its own nation. Mitro 03:41, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, the only thing I think would be different, would be a more-Venezuelan oil dependent USA, similar to the pre-2002 times, when after a massive movement against Chavez, which the movement stopped the oil industry, and USA oil prices grew a lot. If you want you might say me some other effects, but I don't find another one, but at the time of Perez Jimenez Venezuela was always ignoring Latin America and instead just interest in USA, and mostly in at the time borning Venezuela. VENEZUELA 04:26, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

New Union

I nominate This TL because it has a well thoughtout POD. The TL line is good and original. With work it could become the next doomsday. --Chicagoan 00:26, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Mitro 16:38, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Lordganon 21:03, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • PitaKang 20:03, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • XterrorX 18:52, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • ChairmanSanchez 21:56, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

• Objectors

• Discussion
  • "The next doomsday" Wow. I don't know what to say. I am pretty sure you all know my position, and I don't think it counts for the creator to vote. But again, thank you. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:11, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Russian America

I feel that this timeline is well composed and well thought out. It may not cover very much, but I feel that this is because of the lack of knowledge of its existance throughout the Alternate History Wikia community. If featured then it may increase the awareness and the comprehensiveness of this timeline may grow. --Bofriu 23:45, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

• Supporters

• Objectors

• Discussion

It is still a work in progress, but I am honored that you would consider it to be featured material so soon. I am pretty sure you all know my position, and I don't think it counts for the creator to vote. But again, thank you. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:11, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Austria and others

It would be a good candidate for being the featured Althistory of the month of February. It meets the most part of the criteria. However, it still is incomplete.Collie Kaltenbrunner 08:31, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters

• Objectors
  • I'm sorry to say it, but it makes no sense - you have a second homind race present, yet more or less the same world as otl, among other things that I've left in various notes on talk pages. You've also only got shell articles that look largely copied from wikipedia, for the most part. Lordganon 10:41, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • In agreement with what LG said above. Mitro 14:10, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • LG's got it spot on. I think the concept of the timeline might need rethinking. Red VS Blue 14:21, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • Please sign your name. Mitro 17:49, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
  • Also featured TLs are chosen at random. Even if this TL is promoted there is no guarantee it will be featured in February. Mitro 14:11, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Cotton Party

I personally think this is a good althistory because of its uniqueness (I mean how many have thought of the North seceding from the South), good use of pictures, also the story takes many parallels from real world events Bobalugee1940 02:46, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters
• Objectors
  • TL is only four articles long, not comprehensive enough to be featured. Plus a TL paralleling real world events is not new (ever read any novels by Harry Turtledove?) and neither is the idea of the North seceding from the South. Mitro 03:19, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and it really is rather... convoluted as well. Little mention of the rest of the world, and indeed, how the USA ends up, too. Lordganon 05:24, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • @ LG the USA ends up changing into the USSA, and I did mention little of the rest of the world and really just settled into only talking about the cold war between the USSA and CA Bobalugee1940 20:36, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
  • And that is why this TL is unlikely to get featured. One of the requirements is that the TL be comprehensive, which has always been interpreted to mean that it covers the changes of the entire world and not just one nation or a specific region in particular. If you want to get this TL featured, you are going to have to write some more about the rest of the world. Mitro 21:00, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
  • What I meant, Boba, was that you don't really say how it ends up like that, at least in a logical way. Quite honestly, it reads like another biased timeline, and needs some serious clean-up before it could remotely be considered. Lordganon 22:30, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey I added more international issues to the Uneasy Peace and Change section along with United Socialist States of America section could you tell me if I'm on the right track or notBobalugee1940 23:15, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • An improvement, but still far off what is needed to even be considered as a candidate. Compare yours to the current featured list. You'll find that in quantity, and definitely in quality, yours is nowhere close. And it needs to be. Lordganon 03:56, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanx Mitro for supporting it Bobalugee1940 17:39, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not supporting it. I struck out the anon vote and signed my name so people knew it was me who did it. Then you signed in as yourself and accidently (at least I am assuming it was an accident) kept me on there. First off, nominators cannot be supporters. Second, I am still opposed to this TL as you can see I was actually one of the first objectors. Mitro 17:51, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • :-( Bobalugee1940 19:33, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • @LG read United Socialist States of America (Cotton Party)
  • @Mitro read the article again i totally refurnished it so it has foriegn events as well
  • Bob, you have barely done anything at all. This timeline of yours, with its tiny number of pages, is too small, and quite honestly, poorly written, to even be considered. Lordganon 03:45, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • what i meant was that you asked how did the USSA come into being so i told you to read United Socialist States of America (Cotton Party) Bobalugee1940 17:56, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • That is not an explanation, and quite frankly makes no sense. You say an "event" that starts it, but how on earth are those two things connected? You say nothing of the like. Lordganon 00:04, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • alright the events are now connected Bobalugee1940 03:41, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nope. Not connected at all. Bob, there is nothing without months of work that will get your timeline even close to being featured. As I said, it is not nearly as good as you think it is. Lordganon 04:00, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

No Supernatural Intervention

A TL which wonders: What if God disapperared after he created the world? This TL is not very large (Only 5 pages), but I think it is very well thought out and well written. SouthWriter is an experienced Alt-Hister, and I believe this TL has a lot of Potential. PitaKang 01:56, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters

• Objectors
  • No offense to South or anyone, but I think this timeline is too Christianized to be featured. It's also pretty short and only realistic if you take all of the Bible to be literal. Fedelede 02:10, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • Just not complete enough. Lordganon 04:55, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem very possible beacuse God (according to the Bible wich you take literally in this TL) made man and all creation to please and worship him so if he just disappeared what wld be the point of him making the universe. But just for the sake of argument and lets say he did just disappear he wouldn't have had created the Eden beacuse he knew that if he wasn't there man would eat of the fruit and perish, that and beacuse he made Eden ecspecially for Adam and Eve so if he just disapeared he wouldn't have made the garden or the fruit. But again for the sake of argument lets say he did, why did Adam and Eve not eat the fruit of the Tree of Life as well if God just wasn't there?Bobalugee1940 14:08, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • Thanks Pitakang, for the nomination. Sorry I took several days to check here. I assume you support the article, so put your reason and signature under "Supporters." Also, it is not that God is "not there," but that he just doesn't communicate or interfere. This is the belief of the deist - the "clock-maker" God who creates the world and lets it run itself.
  • To Fed, the fact that it is taking the literal account of the Bible (Christianized?) is definitely NOT a reason to reject it as "featured." That is showing a bias and prejudice that is unbecoming of this community. I have explained that the purpose of the time line is to have readers actually look to the Bible to see how God worked in history. To assume that history continued without any intervention, leads to a deist approach and is fully in line with how most historians approach history anyway.
  • To LG. I laid out the outline of the history with hopes that contributors would offer ideas on how things would have gone if the secularists are right. I had other work to do, and beyond the that outline did not do much on it. There is an article on Abram, the Ancients, David, and a large article on the Renaissance. Pitakang is young, but appreciated the attempt so he nominated it.
  • To Bob. The fact that I take the history of the Bible as an outline is immaterial in this time line, actually. The original pair could just as easily developed from pre-human homonoids, I guess. The point is, they didn't, and I was not going to create a time line based on that premise. If you read the article, I dealt with the garden as a rain forest with the trees in its midst. Eve found the Tree of Knowledge first, and in picking the fruit failed the test of the unseen God. The tree of life was discovered later, and used by the Ancients to great advantage. The God of the Bible just isn't here in this time line. The purpose that He gives as for creation in the Bible is not the revealed, but can only be a matter of conjecture without supernatural intervention (Divine Inspiration). God did not "disappear" in this time line, He just never "appeared." He is, in fact there, but mankind just has natural revelation - His creation - to show that He exists. It is the "Intelligent Design" argument - many people who do not personally accept the God of the Bible believe that there had to be a creator. SouthWriter 15:37, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
  • The rules state that if three editors oppose, the banner is removed. I will personally remove the banner at the end of the day (Feb. 15), if the objections remain. I did not campaign for this, and I can live with it not being considered any further. Have a good day. SouthWriter 15:46, February 15, 2011 (UTC) Sorry, Mitro, I read the review process below, and reacted to that. SouthWriter 17:53, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
    • FYI: Nominators are not counted as supporters. It is already assumed they support the nomination since they are the ones who made it. So Pita does not have to sign his name again (you South can list yourself as a supporter, there is no rule against the creator voting). Also where do the rules state that the nomination is defeated if 3 editors oppose the nomination? The Rules state that you have two weeks to get 2/3 of the vote in support. Mitro 16:03, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
      • @SW: This would seem to violate the "neutral" guideline above - "the alternate history does its best to give an objective view of the altered history without being overly influenced by politics, religion, nationalism, etc." I wouldn't reject an AH project based on just one guideline, however. I'm not going to vote for or against. Benkarnell 16:10, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
      • I think it is a good TL and the reason for Fedelede's objection comment violates the "No cross, no crown guideline and he should find another reason for objection. PitaKang 22:51, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
        • First off Pita, don't forget to sign your name. Second, NCNC does not apply here. It would be different if Fed and South began debating Christianity with no intention of discussing any AH. Then an admin could step in to prevent a flame war from developing. Read Ben's comments above, I believe Fed is using the featured TL criteria we use when making his vote. Mitro 17:01, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

I went through that discussion when I first created the time line. And I am one of the Admins who would "step in" to prevent a heated argument from beginning. I stand by my defense of my use of the Bible as source material. That is not an invalid assumption in presenting an alternate history. Fed stated it is "only realistic" if I take the Bible literally. But I am taking the Bible as a source document for events where God would interfere. I may be focused on the characters there almost exclusively, but otherwise, I have no means to judge if there would be any difference, do I? In short, the Bible has been shown to be accurate time and time again, and is reliable. I do not see how accepting its history skews the effectiveness of an alternate history (featured or not).

• • I did not want to be presumptuous in supporting my own work. I had wanted community involvement, and got the input of an early renaissance from one editor. For the most part, though, it is just one of several projects I work on. To be featured it would need a lot more work.SouthWriter 17:53, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

• • Ben, I left the time line open to input and am only "overly influenced" by the history of Israel because it is the only nation that has a record that I can access that records interaction with God. All other nations, who followed after myths and such, could continue as they did except where evidence of supernatural intervention plays a role (Babylon and Assyria, for example). Anyone is welcome to present an article about the rise and fall of the ancient and modern empires based on the secular premise. Anything that happens in the secular world that by its nature disregards God anyway would not be affected too much by the stated "point of divergence." The article on the Renaissance (not written by me) does a good job of showing advance based on 'free-thinking' progressives. If you can help me remove subjective reporting of events only recorded in the Bible, I welcome the advice - or even articles for inclusion (after due process).SouthWriter 17:53, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

• • Short of rewriting the whole time line to disallow the flood (in our time line an act of God), I don't see how this can reflect what I think things would be without divine intervention. I could disregard Biblical History altogether, but that is largely done by secular historians anyway. Without the flood, the world would have been at war, bringing near anihilation, by the time Noah and sons began a new world in OTL. That is a scenario I considered, but I wanted to work with material I have at hand that includes numerous other interventions by God. I take these recorded events, and take God out. From there, I try to imagine what it would have been like. Again, I want advice on how to do this better. It doesn't matter to me whether it is "featured" or not. It was an idea I felt could - and should - be explored, that's all. SouthWriter 17:53, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

• • • But South, you have to admit that the entire thing does indeed rest on certain faith assumptions, in particular the Young Earth perspective. There's nothing wrong with that, but those assumptions are there. Now one could argue that every timeline does this - that is, we all have to pick and choose which interpretations of history we regard as "facts" to be altered. For my Viking timeline, for example, I had to decide that this or that chieftain was in fact the son of this or that other chieftain, when actually there's disagreement among historians. "NSI" does this too on a much larger scale, taking the Young Earth take on things and changing things from there. I guess the decision would be whether to consider this use of a non-mainstream (even among Christians) historical schema inappropriately "biased". As I said, I'm neutral. ... Although, the NSI timeline doesn't seem to be fully fleshed out yet, at any rate. Benkarnell 18:09, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
    • Even so, there is no rule that says that just because an article is too "religionized" it cannot be featured. PitaKang 22:51, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
      • Ben, it is admittedly from a "young earth" perspective, but as you say, perspectives on the record are not disallowed in alternate history. I was taken to task challenging an aborted time line (Just a title and a theme sentence) that set out the proposal that "what if the earth really was flat, and in the middle of the universe, and only 6,000 years old" because I thought it was a parody on the Biblical record. I was told that it shouldn't matter if I disagreed with the writer on the reliablity of the record (the writer also stated that the world was stunted technologically). And so, I let it go. Alas, the Bible IS reliable, and CAN be defended. But that is not the point of the time line. I started at the beginning because to start anywhere else would be a denial of the record. Another writer has written a short article I commented on based on "No Abraham" - a scenario that would produce much of the same world as I present here. I made suggestions where he had made incosistent claims (Jesus as an ordinary boy, when he would not exist without Abraham). I totally disagree that taking the Bible seriously as history is "non-mainstream" when it comes to "historical schema." It is not myth and legend, and nowhere reads like it. If I can get some help, or at least some support, I may flesh this thing out a little. Otherwise, I will let it go and go to my even more ambitious, but just as possible, "Sideways Earth." :-) SouthWriter 06:10, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
        • Just a quick note, risking an NCNC violation: it's entirely possible to take the Bible "seriously" without literally accepting its chronology. The Roman Catholic Church and most of what would be considered "mainline" Protestant churches do exactly this; so do I. But also, I dispute the idea that the bias inherent in a young earth PoV is equivalent to the bias of not-having a young earth PoV. I would imagine that among professional historians, you could easily find many Christians, but not many young-earth creationists at all.
        • That's more-or-less irrelevant, though. I think that NSI has real potential to grow. If it does get rejected as a feature now it should not be only for its point of view. And it should not be barred from feature status later once it's expanded more. Benkarnell 04:37, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

• • Pita and South: I'm sorry, I meant "Christian". I only think that a religious timeline shouldn't be featured. If you're a non-Christian or, a non-religious, this timeline is just fiction, not alternate history. In my opinion, most of the Bible is just metaphorical and a tale, and not literal true. Also, timelines can violate the NCNC law, as it doesn't apply to them, and it was not my objection, Pita. And South, I'm not biased against Christains. However, I think that the wiki should be a more non-religious organization, not biased by the Christian majority that conforms most of the Internet's "population". --Fedelede 23:24, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
    • Your opinion on the Bible is as biased as my attempt to present Biblical history as a framework for an alternate history. And your objection, as short and "sweet" as it was, did approach NCNC. Your remark, "got me started" as you objected to "Christianization" for a time line that specifically sets out NO organized religion due to an invisible God. You further insinuate what you admit here, that the Bible cannot be trusted as history. You can't just accept the possibility that God did act in history even if the time line takes an agnostic look at the world. This is not wikipedia, where we need to strive for "fair and balanced," -- AND offer other "expert's" views rather than our own. This is a wiki for creative writing. Please don't resist the opportunity to expand your horizons. SouthWriter 06:10, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Though this is none of my business, it should be noted that the treatment of the Bible here should be comparable to the treatment of, for instance, Livy's ab urbe condita. Many parts of the latter are considered mythological by some historians and factual by others, as there are enough historians that the number of opinions are nearly endless. Likewise, there are many historians who dismiss the Bible as a philosophical/theological text rather than a source of history while there are many others who regard it, to varying degrees, as historically accurate. Given that Livy's works are accepted here as a base for an alternate history I see no reason why the Bible cannot be as well.
    
    A timeline only breaks from a neutral stance if it attempts to propagate any religious, political, etc views. I've seen quite a few timelines that break neutrality (usually politically and usually against a current regime), and NSI is at nowhere near the degree of bias of such works.
    
    Fed, I think you'll find there's no internet majority and if anything the irreligious are the most outspoken of any religious denomination online.
    
    In any case, NSI ought to be given a fair chance like other timelines to achieve a featured status and its success should only be determined by the prevailing opinion of the community, as this democratic system should be working. Red VS Blue 03:13, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Red. I needed that. encouragment. I find it totally absurd that holding the Bible's history as even an outline can be taken as making a religious statement. I laid that down on the introduction page. I knew many people would insist on that the modern traditional historical philosophy of prehistory was "gospel truth," but everyone but you so far have castigated my "Young Earth" presupposition. I truly don't see how it makes so much of a difference in following a concept of recorded history (Abraham on, for instance). Sure, I assume the Bible is true, and that men lived much longer before the flood. And that man created perfect would advance a lot quicker than those later. But that is not the same thing as direct intervention as Bofriu insists over and over above. I am going to answer his points, but I am going to have to calmly go through HIS bias in objecting to the plausibility of the Biblical worldview. Meanwhile, please place your name in the "supporters" section above to give me a little balance here. :-) (I am resisting the self-serving move of "supporting" my own creation. I didn't suggest this 'honor' and I will not push it beyond the two-week time limit. SouthWriter 04:18, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
• To new editor Boifriu, I have provided a point by point answer to your extremely biased objection above. I broke it down into six arguments and put it on my blog concerning this time line. To save space, I ask you and the others to go there. Basically, I demonstrate there as I have here that to accept a record (the Bible) as reliable is not being overly biased. Furthermore, I answer his objections to "plausiblity" which are standard agnostic (or even atheistic) humanism against the Bible's record. His bias reeks heavy as mine is just a simple faith in the record set before me. Thirdly he objects to the organization of the article, which admittedly needs work. His objection, though, does not take into account the links on the article's "main page" which at least have begun to link to most of the other pages. The "three stikes" are more like one foul ball and two bad pitches. SouthWriter 06:10, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I want to again thank PitaKang for his generous nomination. After careful consideration, though, I have decided to withdraw the time line from nomination. The discussion here has been instructive, and I am convinced that I have not been overly influenced by my Christian world view (Young Earth Creationism) just because I chose to follow my well-founded belief that the Bible is true.

I have not made religion dominate where it would not have, but have done the opposite. I chose to include "pre-history" events (Biblical record before Abraham) in order to be true to the record. God moved greatly in that period, according to the Bible, and I wanted to explore what would happen if he had not done so. I stuck to the narrative in front of me because that is what I am familiar with. I left it open for others to insert the rise and fall of empires but only one person chose to respond before this discussion began.

However, the time line has a long way to go before being featured. It is short, has poor structure, and lacks external sources and many supplements. There is very little interest in collaborative effort in producing articles for it, and its potential is limited to basically the retelling of the Biblical record due to lack of resources as to "Divine Intervention" outside of that record. Thanks again for the support and the criticism, for by that I may be able to improve the project as time permits. SouthWriter 20:48, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

French Trafalgar, British Waterloo

A Napoleonic timeline by Tbguy1992. Much like King's Napoleonic timeline, this one is very large and growing almost daily in size. It covers much of the world at present, and Tb is currently expanding, with help from a few others, where it does not cover that well at present. It is well-written, and I was honestly surprised to find that it was not alreadly in the "featured" category. Lordganon 09:30, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • This is a fine example of a timeline. Well-written, logically thought-out and filled with more than enough content to form a coherent image of its reality. FTBW should most definitely join the ranks of the featured timelines. Red VS Blue 14:21, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • Mitro 18:23, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • Fedelede 02:10, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • Since Tbguy1992 and I share an interest in Napoleon's victory, this has always been one of my favorite TLs to follow. I think it is likely more plausible than my own and more focused on "hard" history, if that is the right term to use, since I often distract myself when I wander off on tangents about college football or Batman. I'm just as surprised as Lordganon that it hasn't been already been approved for featured status. KingSweden 20:04, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh my god... this thing is Fantastic. I want to write something like this one day. Michael Douglas 17:40, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely one of the best timelines on this website. Ownerzmcown 03:59, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Collie Kaltenbrunner 08:08, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • XterrorX 05:45, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Awesome TL. One of the best ones on Althistory. PitaKang 20:50, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

• Objectors

• Discussion
  • @Michael Douglas: You Should! =]
  • not half shabby, it almost is better then mine Bobalugee1940 04:44, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, wow... I really should be paying more attention to this... This is a pleasant surprise, I will say, and its great that you guy's think that this is worthy of being a featured timeline, even though it is still far from finished. Thank you. Tbguy1992 14:14, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • @Bobalugee: What do you mean it's almost better than yours? Cotton Party is poorly written, unorganized, and frankly, not deserving to be compared to this. PitaKang 20:50, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
    • Pita, Rogue, show some civility will you. This spot is for discussing FTBW and whether it should be featured, not jumping down another editor's throat for a comment he made. There is nothing wrong with Bob having pride with his TL. Mitro 21:17, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Kind of got out of control. Anyways, I think we should have a rule that people cannot nominate their own TL. PitaKang 21:18, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
      • Bring up that proposal on the talk page, you are getting off-topic...again. Mitro 22:56, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Bob. I deleted my post. Wasn't my place to do that. Won't happen again Roguejedi 21:21, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
    • Its OK not like I'm going to sit down and cry or something, but anyway it is a very nice article. my only question is how long did it take you to make this? Bobalugee1940 12:26, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
      • I had started working on FTBW for over two years ago, and have been working on it in my spare time. Tbguy1992 01:15, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

The World Exhaled at Sarajevo

It looks like a very nice article with (somewhat) many articles and it is very interesting and worthy for a althistory nomination at the very least. Bobalugee1940 12:09, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters

• Objectors
  • While it may sound trivial, this timeline, while good, is just a main article, and a lot of wars and their alliances. There's no country articles at all. Just not complete enough. Lordganon 20:51, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. And also, it's not very organized enough. PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 21:31, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright just say the word and I'll take down the nomination I just wanted to see if it was good enough Bobalugee1940 01:54, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion
• You know maybe we should do a thing between all the former featured AltHistories and see with a popular vote to see wich one is the best and maybe like do this every 6 months or something. Maybe we should even like give the articles a special thing at the top of the TL (I forget the name of it) and have during the elections like little almost ad like things all o'er the site. I dunno only a thought Bobalugee1940 01:54, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

1879: Agreement

1879: Agreement, this TL does have more pages then my last one that I thought should be the Featured TL. Also it seems to have a pretty good idea maybe not unique but its still pretty good. I also nominated this because 17 days into this month no one besides me has suggested one so I thought I might as well. Bobalugee1940 11:18, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

• Support
• Opposition
  • That is no reason at all to nominate one. Most months we go without any being nominated. As for the timeline, it is nowhere near complete, almost entirely full of shell articles, and quite honestly only has eight listings on its timeline. Not anywhere near good enough to be featured. Lordganon 11:22, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion

A Different History

A Different History, made by PitaKang and many other users - in the early stages of construction but will be really expansive changing the world completely from OTL. Alexanders 15:36, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters

• Objectors
  • This timeline is mostly just shell articles. Besides that, there isn't even a timeline to it yet, really, past a couple of nation-specific things on their pages. It's nowhere near ready to be featured. Lordganon 21:53, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. While I am the creator of this TL, the timeline isn't past year 7, and there are only about 25 incomplete nation-profiles that make up the bulk of the TL. Maybe when the TL gets up to around 200-300 in the timeline, and 20 canonized nation articles. But until then, no. PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 22:08, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps next year, but this timeline has lots of potential, and could very well be the next 1983:Doomsday! Batmanary 02:03, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion

Canadian Independence

Canadian Independence is a TL written by CheesyCheese, and I think that it's good, long enough, and well organized, and deserving to be featured. PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 01:56, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • It's very well organized, and has great potential, not to mention that it actually has a base timeline that interconnects all the articles effectively. It also explores something new to the Wikia, and it truly deserves to be featured. Batmanary 02:02, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • To me, it's just not complete enough yet. It's a pretty good timeline, and a decent number of articles, but almost none of them are completed at all. There's not even ten nation articles yet. The history is pretty complete, going from the PoD to the 1880s. But while an excellent timeline, it's just not got enough in it yet. Shouldn't be too long, mind. Lordganon 02:13, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some confusion on the actual name of this TL. Some articles are titled Canadian Independence, while other are titled Canada World. Also every article uses the Canada World category despite the TL being called Canadian Independence. These technical/organizational issues need to be straightened out before we can consider this a featured TL. Mitro 21:19, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion

Twilight of a New Era (1914-1964)

This ATL is User:JorgeGG's baby, and is one of the best ones I have read on this wiki. While the idea itself is one that is used by many TLs, it goes into a butterfly effect in a unique and different way. It is organized, and deserves to be featured. Regards, PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs)

• Supporters
  • Now this one I can support. Lordganon 01:42, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Objectors
• Discussion

A Southron World

When I was sorting pictures earlier, I came across this timeline again, first time in a while. First thought when I look at the category was that it had a ton of detail to it, and that the timeline wasn't a featured one for some reason. Way I figure it, even though it may be a touch out there, it should be. Lordganon 12:46, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Definitely deserving to be featured. PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 21:12, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
• Objectors
• Discussion

Step in a Different Direction

This timeline has one of the more recent Points of Departure on the wiki at this time. It's well-written, and Realismadder tries hard to keep it updated. I feel that it is well-thought out, and very deserving of being nominated. Lordganon 10:10, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • This is very good. It has some of the most detailed timelines in the wiki. CheesyCheese 14:46, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • Very well written and as stated before a very detailed timeline. I would try to make my timelines as detailed as yours but every time I try I get one rolling I lose interest in that subject and change to a different subject. Bobalugee1940 20:24, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • OMG! I was just finishing reading this TL, and was just about to nominate it when I saw that it already was! This is truly a detailed, well-thought out TL. PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 20:34, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

• Objectors

• Discussion

Venusian Haven

This Timeline is very interesting revolving a around a terraformed world, and explores what may have occurred if Venus had been inhabitable by humans. Best part is that more parts are being added and quality is improving daily. Has more content and quality than February's Legacy in my opinion.

Yours truly in Alternate History

LxCaucassus

• Supporters
  • This TL is amazing and although it has a few holes needing to be filled, it is still pretty good. its just such an interesting TL you know. :D Imperium Guy 22:09, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • I really enjoy this alternate history and think it deserves its title, despite being ASB. It is cleverly designed, well written, and is very enjoyable to read. I give my full support! Roguejedi 02:32, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Very nice like how its built and formated. Very neat. Bobalugee1940 02:48, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • There's just so much about this timeline that is not done, or even started. Adding to that, it is ASB. Lordganon 23:06, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. ChrisL123 02:45, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • I go with ASB and something about making fantastical space colonies doesn't sound like althistory to me. --XterrorX 03:19, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a great idea and really interesting, but its needs to be expanded a little more. CheesyCheese 16:06, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • This timeline is no where near ready to be a featured timeline. All of the recently added works are not even canon yet. As the creator, I would wish not to be thinking of this right now. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:31, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • Is there a rule against a featured article being ASB? If so then this totally 100% disqualifies it. Bobalugee1940 02:48, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Not specifically. But that fact alone means it fails to meet the criteria given at the top of the page that we are supposed to judge by, and is why several timelines that were nominated in the past failed to pass. Correctly, may I add. Lordganon 03:36, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • This TL is very detailed and the fact that the timeline is ASB does not mean it can't technically make sense or be logical. Having a living breathing Venus is a big thing and famous scientists like Galileo who observed most of the night sky to his ability wouldn't have ignored it. It is one thing for it to have water but another thing for it to have vegetation. The only reason that America did not go to mars (amongst other things) is because the Americans dumped the moon for the shuttle because it was too expensive (hypocritical as the shuttle cost more than the Saturn V rocket per blast). With a living Venus it may have had more initiative to travel to other planets than in OTL because things like this don't go unnoticed(not to mention Venus is INHABITABLE (instead of a wasteland that melted all probes that entered its atmosphere of doom) and closer than Mars(therefore less time to travel therefore less expensive). I want it to be a featured althist.LxCaucassus 01:22, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • There's two problems with the timeline, though. One is the science of it. There are some cases where the science of it is questionable. But if you want to put that aside, the biggest problem is the quantity. Much of the timeline consists of proposals, the colonies on Venus don't seem to be completed, the timeline isn't up to date, and there isn't a lot of information. A featured timeline needs to have had fleshed out information. While it may be thought provoking and interesting, it just isn't ready to be nominated. Sure, it will be in a few months when all the nations are made and given details, it should be fine. ChrisL123 01:50, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • The 'science' of the alternate universe would probably need to move the planet a little further out in order to put the planet in a better place for it to thrive. This might be as 'simple' as having it in a balanced orbit with the earth. It's moon could actually be "Mercury" captured sometime in its history (as is one of the theories for earth's Luna. With this sister planet on the 'far side of the sun,' it may not be discovered until probes are sent into orbit around the sun. This would, of course, change the ALT as it now appears (not to mention ancient Greek and Roman mythology!) but it would present a viable planet the right distance from the sun. SouthWriter 02:40, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
    • I think most of us have disregard the fact that Venus, being 43 156 123 km closer to the sun than Earth, would mean temperatures would be so hot it'd be catastrophic to human life. If it was moved even farther it would be much worse. --ChrisL123 02:59, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
    • Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature on earth would be around -20 degrees centigrade. if the right atmosphere is there, it could sustain life and humans.
    • Yes, but with the amount of volcanoes on Venus, greenhouse gasses would amount to around the same. Even if you ignore the greenhouse gasses, the planet is just too close to the sun to avoid a surface that hot (I don't know the exact amount so I can't say, and that's another science problem about this TL; we don't know.) ChrisL123 16:02, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
      • I am not sure if you read me right, Chris. I would move Venus farther out, into the comfort zone, not farther away from the earth and toward the sun. Notice I spoke of a 'balanced orbit and a planet not discovered until modern times.
      • Anon, did you mean to say that without the greenhouse effect on Venus, the temparture would be at -20 centigrade? Then all there would have to be is an adjusting of the greenhouse efffect in a livable atmosphere. Chris, my point remains, if Venus was removed to closer to 1 AU, especially to a mirror orbit with earth, the problem of distance would be removed. The volcanoes are a problem in OTL, and might not be in TTL. SouthWriter 17:42, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I thought you meant closer to the Sun so then Mercury would be one of its moons. But anyway, having Venus closer to 1 AU would mean a hostile environment on Earth, with tides making it harder to survive. Volcanoes are and always would always be a problem, and I'm afraid it's just not plausible to say "volcanism isn't a problem here," it's just a little to convenient and not plausible enough. ChrisL123 18:29, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
      • What im saying is that without greenhouse effect no planet in the universe could be inhabitable(venus in OTL is hotter than Mercury because of it) all im trying to say is that a different greenhouse system due to faster rotation and a moon could be favorable to life and with trees there wsould be less CO2.LxCaucassus 20:08, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • This TL is very detailed and the fact that the timeline is ASB does not mean it can't technically make sense or be logical. Having a living breathing Venus is a big thing and famous scientists like Galileo who observed most of the night sky to his ability wouldn't have ignored it. It is one thing for it to have water but another thing for it to have vegetation. The only reason that America did not go to mars (amongst other things) is because the Americans dumped the moon for the shuttle because it was too expensive (hypocritical as the shuttle cost more than the Saturn V rocket per blast). With a living Venus it may have had more initiative to travel to other planets than in OTL because things like this don't go unnoticed(not to mention Venus is INHABITABLE (instead of a wasteland that melted all probes that entered its atmosphere of doom) and closer than Mars(therefore less time to travel therefore less expensive). I want it to be a featured althist (more detailed explanation) and hopefully i explained how this is logical and somewhat plausible despite ASB.LxCaucassus 01:22, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatl's World

There are several problems I see with this timeline being featured. While it is a good concept, there are only 12 pages of information, the timeline isn't up to date (in detail, it only goes up to 1510, but there is information up to 1750s), only three nations have articles, all of which are shell articles, and, in my opinion, it is rather messy. I doubt it can be considered a featured timeline. ChrisL123 00:41, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Agreed. Quite honestly, if I'd been choosing purposely instead of at random, it wouldn't have been featured this month for just that reason. Lordganon 15:37, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, it (time-line) fairly not enough information and is still looks very unfinished. Also for the 2000 CE map, I can't tell which country is which (Although I can take a guess that the yellow is Japan?) In fact, all maps doesn't say what country they are.. 9 もりや すわこ 16:02, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Too small and its very implausble for aztecs to discover guns as black powder is only naturaly found in china and only europeans saw martial use-the chinese only used it for fireworksLxCaucassus 01:27, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It is incomplete. It focuses only on historical events in Mesoamerica in medieval times. The 2000 AD map is out of context and there is no accompanying information. I could see it being reworked into an excellent timeline, but it is nowhere near being ready. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:02, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
• Objectors
• Discussion

Atlantic Iron Curtain

Nicely written and with plenty of depth. Could do with some more fleshing out, but being a featured althist might encourage more people to contribute.

Emperorjames

• Supporters
• Objectors
  • It is neither nicely written nor does it have plenty of depth. Only polished althists that have a great deal of content deserve even to be nominated, and this isn't either of those things. And, that's ignoring that you seem to have adopted the thing in some way, which means you shouldn't have nominated it at all. But, since it says "creator" - oversight on my part, I admit - I wont remove it. Something to fix very shortly. Lordganon 08:13, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Lots of parts not finished or dont even exist, not very clean.LxCaucassus 19:23, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 23:15, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Eh... it's a good storyline, but very undetailed and some years are blank. If it had more bulk and detail, I would love to support it. CrimsonAssassin
• Discussion
  • The idea of featured althist is to show off the capabilities of the wiki, and to encourage people to further contribute to it. Continually featuring the same athists achieves neither of these goals, it certainly doesn't show what can be done. There is a lot of depth in this althist (certainly more than this month's featured article, which I would say has been featured for the reasons I state below). And as for my "adopting it" as you put it Lordganon, I wouldn't say that I had. All I have done is made some contributions; such as ammending spelling mistakes, deepening the timeline, updating maps and creating shells for related pages. There is nothing in the guidelines against this. My ammendments are designed to encourage other people to contribute to the althist. There are many other althists which I believe are being unjustly ignored for featured althist. A wide variety of althists to be featured encourages people to edit and update them, and can provide inspiration for their own ideas. This builds up a variety of articles in the wiki. Continually featuring 1983, Vege World and Fall Grün is unhealthy for the variety of the wiki. Although each of them is brilliant, they alone do not show the variety and potential of this wiki. Emperorjames 23:52, August 17, 2011 (GMT/UTC)
  • I'm sorry, Emperorjames, but Atlantic Iron Curtain simply isn't good enough. It's not clean, it's all over the place, it's not organized, and it only goes up to about the mid 1940s. It just isn't good enough. [EDIT] Never mind about it going up to the 40s, but it just isn't detailed enough. PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 23:15, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • As of yet, I do not see any better nominee. Can you suggest how it might be improved, or help by contributing in order to improve it? Saying "it's simply not good enough" doesn't help. I agree that it isn't detailed enough, but there have been far less detailed and plausible timelines to have been featured. I chose to nominate it because this would encourage people to contribute to it, and would help improve the wiki's variety. Emperorjames 00:37, August 18, 2011 (GMT/UTC)
  • Actually, it changes each and every month, and we've several that passed nomination still waiting to be featured. The timelines you quote haven't been done at all in more than a year, minimum. Things have changed around here, largely due to the work of Mitro, and nominations here are not for the next month, but for the waiting list. Lordganon 00:38, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

President McCain

If the creator of SIADD was good to make this article featured, then he deserves the President McCain article to be featured as well. The content is just plentiful, especially at the Timeline and the page about President McCain. You have got to check this article out and vote for it: RandomWriterGuy 23:08, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters

It is a very detailed Timeline, I vote for it. LurkerLordB 02:40, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Bobalugee1940 22:15, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

• Objectors

Its alreay been a featured timeline, find a new one. Bobalugee1940 22:14, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry thinking of SIADD.

• Discussion
  • RWG, I changed the heading for you. The format calls for "Heading 3" and you had it as "Normal" SouthWriter 23:29, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
  • Recently I heard that Realismadder, the creator of this timeline, had recently abandoned it since he was busy with other stuff. If you want to adopt it, go tell him, and any changes made will be reported to him. I strongly recommanded people who know the US and current world history adopt this. RandomWriterGuy 05:49, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Roma Delenda Est

One of the longer-running timelines on the wiki, and as with Southron World, one that I'm surprised isn't featured already. It's got a history, maps, flags, wars, nations... everything it needs to be considered. Lordganon 09:07, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • -Kogasa 16:43, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • The whole idea of a resurrected Roman Republic later in the timeline seems a little absurd to say the least, as is the collapse of Ptolomaic Egypt. Having said that, it does have a lot of depth, something most other concepts on this wiki lack. Emperorjames 15:55, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
  • A lot of stub articles that really just explain the flags of the various nations. History is ok, but more would be nice. Mitro 16:51, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion

L'Uniona Homanus

It is being nominated for one of the best timelines on this wiki. If it wins its title in the 2012 Stirling Awards, then it deserves to be featured. RandomWriterGuy 14:47, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • LurkerLordB 15:19, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • RandomWriterGuy 04:29, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • As I've told Hid before, this is just not complete enough yet to be considered for this. There is no overall timeline yet, no history that is not hundreds of years old, and no overall maps or even articles beyond his timeline pieces and a few nation articles. Lordganon 17:51, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with LG; while it might be extremely detailed, the timeline only goes up to the 1300s (or 400s, I'm not sure which one is OTL dates). Few more months though and it should be fine. ChrisL123 22:04, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • I agree with LG and will use this opportunity to get Dai-tō-a removed from the featured timelines "circulation" as well. No disrespect towards the author (a fellow countryman of mine), but that project is just a load of stub articles and conceptual ideas. Come to think of it, there are probably more WIPs on the List. --XterrorX 19:15, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • Then I suggest that you actually look at the rules, X. Lordganon 07:25, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear Realisation

This is a neat time-line, its filled with info and lots of detail. -Kogasa 10:54, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters

• Objectors
  • Honestly, it's not very complete. What information there is in it is very localized, by and large, too. It's also a little silly, truth be told. Lordganon 14:28, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems sort of strange in some parts, also reads a bit like some sort of Japan fantasy (they somehow become occupied but they don't have to do what the occupyers say)LurkerLordB (Talk) 14:39, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • The timeline seems unrealistic, the pages as very undeveloped, and it overall seems like it needs to be worked on. It has great potential, but for the time being, I just feel I have to object to it being a featured Alternate History. Ownerzmcown 13:09, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

• Discussion

Pax Columbia

I like the Pax Columbian TL as it is very well fleshed out and continues to grow at a good rate. The TL also uses pictures to increase the ergonomic potential of the articles and are nice to look at. The author has also tried to balance out good effects post-PoD and bad effects and I personally think he has done a good job. Imperium Guy 22:36, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Emperorjames 01:27, April 11, 2012 (GMT)
  • Monster Pumpkin 00:31, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • I really have to object to this one. This timeline just takes far, far, too many liberties with history staying the same, even after more than a century passes past the PoD. Lordganon 23:03, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • I just don't think it's ready yet. ChrisL123 20:59, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion

Age of Kings

Age of Kings has long been a personal favorite of mine ever since I stumbled upon it in February. (Not too long after I joined.) Although I think objections will be raised, I here nominate the Age of Kings by Monster Pumpkin for featured. I believe that he has written it very well, and he has nice maps for most nations and one for the world. He meshes OTL with his alternate hsitory very well, giving OTL People very unexpected positions. His advancements in technology are impressive, yet they still manage to stay within the realm of reality. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 04:06, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters
• Objectors
  • Very few articles, and lacks a timeline of any kind in it. Lordganon 05:56, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • Scrawland, while I appreciate the nomination, I feel that my timeline doesn't have enough articles to be a nominated timeline. I think Pax Columbia has more than mine does, even though I started mine first, lol. Also, half of the technology that I have stated is in the timeline has to be changed, as I made it too unrealistic and I never fixed it. Monster Pumpkin 05:11, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Texas Survives!

It has become a very detailed and progressed timeline with penty of supporting articles and is also one fo the first timelines to truly explore the idea of and independant Texas. DeanSims 18:05, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • ​It might not be exactly complete, but it sure looks good and it seems to have covered most aspects. Imperium Guy 19:03, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • None of that is true, Dean. At this time, this is a small timeline with a bunch of small articles, and absolutely no scope outside of parts of North America. Lordganon 18:58, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
  • It's no where near featured timeline requirements, IMO anyway, but just keep going with it, and hopefully it can become an featured timeline in the future. I'd suggest try to move from North America, and explore the affects on Europe, Asia, and Africa. Enclavehunter 19:06, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, not enough articles and detail IMO. Just give it some time. Also, I thought users that created the timeline weren't allowed to nominate it...? ChrisL123 19:12, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • For the record, Dean may have created the original article, and maybe a couple more, but really, this is Taco's work. Lordganon 19:28, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Puget Sound-1

Not too sure about the name, but beginning with the election of Benedict Arnold as the First President, the lives of practically every human on the face of this Earth are changed. Every page has a simple paragraph or two describing whatever the article is talking about. The timeline itself has more than a hundred pages if I am not mistaken and I am very surprised to find that it was not featured already. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 18:54, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters
• Objectors
  • This was on the list once. It was then removed, by a vote, because it lacks content, story, and information. Not one thing has changed or added since then. Lordganon 18:43, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • So I'm guessing that translates to "this doesn't really work for featured?" Recently I noticed that we have little to no timelines that are turning out as a yes for "featured." For example, AEtas ab Brian is a wank and it hit featured. Maybe we ought to turn to some less great timelines for features or just establish a cycle of featured timelines. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 18:54, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • If it passes, it could become something on the list again. Featured timelines are chosen entirely at random. Lordganon 19:23, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • And, it happens. Most timelines made of late either aren't ready, or are abandoned fairly rapidly. The number will pick up, I'm sure. Lordganon 19:25, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Fatherlands

I personally like how much effort was given to this timeline. ~Doc

• Supporters

• Objectors
  • The events in this timeline can be called random, at best. Really wouldn't call it "neutral," either. Most articles are only shells, and there's really no history at all. Lordganon 19:45, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • Not that plausible, neither. 'China and Britain join the Axis'.... Guns (talk) 15:05, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • ​Well, I just wanted to revive this voting section and hoping that more people would begin to post their nominations and show interest. So, I just picked a random timeline, read it a bit, and put it into Featured nomination section. I'm just hoping that more people would give some examples :P Doctor261 ^{(Talk to me!)} 05:03, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

The Kalmar Union

I think it's a wonderfully fleshed out timeline, with a timeline that goes from the 11th Century to the 20th. I know that it is still work in progress, but as we have not had any new featured for a while (to my knowledge), and that this ATL is very large and has many pages of content, I would like to nominate it for featured! PitaKang- (But here's my number|So call me maybe) 17:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • The Royal Guns (talk) 08:56, August 7, 2012 (UTC) Bit redlinked, still, but I agree, very well fleshed out.
  • -Kogasa 08:58, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
  • LurkerLordB (Talk) 23:25, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • Does not meet the logical requirement in many ways. Lordganon (talk) 23:23, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna object to my own timeline being featured. Its just not ready. Lots of things wrong with it (lack of a complete timeline is the big one). Give it a few months and maybe... but not right now thanks. Yan Hoek (talk) 12:58, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
  • In respect of the author's own reluctance to have the timeline featured, I object to it being featured on the grounds that he or she doesn't think it's ready. Red VS Blue (talk) 16:43, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Red, even though I do think it is a good timeline. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 01:56, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • All right then- I suppose I should remove the nomination? PitaKang- (But here's my number|So call me maybe) 19:30, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Dai-tō-a

This timeline was nominated on August 5th, 2010 and featured two days later. Despite having been worked on since 2008, the timeline consists of a mere nine events and a summary in the author's sandbox. The bulk of articles related to this timeline are nation stubs only containing infoboxes and it is my opinion that, until this project is further elaborated upon, it isn't ready to be featured yet. Note: this timeline has a German counterpart, which contains roughly the same content. --XterrorX (talk) 00:10, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Having viewed it, I agree.. The Royal Guns (talk) 00:12, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • It does need work... though its still pretty high quality, just not enough to be considered a Featured AH Lieut. Tbguy1992: Profile; Talk 00:41, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur with the above; it simply is not fleshed out enough to be featured. Jazon Naparleon (talk) 01:58, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with you; good TL, but need more work for be featured. Regards Katholico (talk) 02:41, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to agree- good PoD, but not good content. PitaKang- (But here's my number|So call me maybe) 19:50, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

• Objectors

• Discussion

Oldenburg Sweden

This timeline is an amazingly large and detailed timeline. The sheer amount of quality and detail put into each of the page is also of excellent quality. The premise is also very interesting and everything else proceeds plausibly from thereon. I nominate Oldenburg Sweden for featured timeline. Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! 22:12, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • -Kogasa 2012年12月03日 07:16:30 (JST)
• Objectors
  • Mostly just shell articles, and there is no history. No timeline article, no history articles, nothing. Most of what is here is shell articles on monarchs. Not detailed or large, whatsoever. Lordganon (talk) 07:16, December 4, 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion

Ohga Shrugs

A vivid technological alternative history where the PlayStation brand is never created. Few have attempted a purely technological alternative history, and Salnax manages to pull this off quite splendidly. Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 16:35, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Kogasa 2013年4月05日 01:38:52 (JST)
  • Would like to see more info about the rest of the world, but I suppose for this one that doesn't matter very much. Lordganon (talk) 10:28, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • FirstStooge (talk) 04:21, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • ​Very interesting timeline, but I would definitely like to see more. Some the pages are also quite short.                 SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR   02:27, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • ​I'm not exactly going to object to my timeline being nominated, but think that it could benefit from some more development. PC gaming is barely touched upon, mobile gaming is merely confirmed to exist, a lot of companies and people haven't been accounted for yet, etc. Personally, I think Ohga Shrugs is only about 30% "done," not counting for further development done in real time as 2013 rolls on. I'd rather we delay this vote to, say, sometime during the summer, so we can add another dozen or so articles, flesh out some existing ones, and go into the PC and Mobile markets in general.--Salnax (talk) 23:30, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • Or this could become featured, see more interest and you get those pages ready. I still like it, very detailed and interesting so far. Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 23:33, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • You have a point. And thank you for your kind words. I'm just worried that Ohga Shrugs just isn't in the same league as the timelines that are already featured. Napoleon's World has over 1,000 pages, and 100 pages seems to be the standard. Ohga Shrugs has 45. Not a bad start, but definately not in the same league as some others.--Salnax (talk) 2:13, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • There's actually a few featured ones with less articles than you have, and those with far less detail. Don't compare to NW, either - bad for your morale, and mildly insane, lol, given King's efforts. Biggest timeline on the wiki for a reason :p If it helps, it would be featured in May, unless you want it delayed (which I'd oblige), giving you time to add more. And, too, if you don't want it featured yet, just say so and it will be removed from here. If the author does not want their timeline featured, we do not make it be such. That being said, your timeline is very good - and given what it's goal is, it makes perfect sense that it would be smaller. It's not like your changes would have enormous consequences, after all - a small comparison page would be more than enough to touch upon anything your articles do not. Lordganon (talk) 09:55, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Exactly! Take pride in your work mate, its very good.  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 11:32, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright. If you guys feel Ohga Shrugs deserves a spot in the limelight, who am I to object?^--Salnax (talk) 13:24, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Yay!  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 13:24, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • So, not to be rude, but does Ohga Shrugs get on the featured list now?--Salnax (talk) 23:28, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  • I should assume so. Congratulations! :D                 SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR   23:30, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you! As the voice of the dissent, any suggestions going forward? The more I work on this, the more I find there needs to be done. And some of the pages are still rather short, I know. But any tips you'd like to share?--Salnax (talk) 23:33, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Papatlaca

Papatlaca, to me, seems like a timeline with potential, but lacking in-depth analysis and detail.

                SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR   20:57, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Yeah, there's almost no content here. Lordganon (talk) 04:46, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Aye, per above. --NFSreloaded (talk) 10:28, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. Needs some more content. Mscoree (talk) 23:38, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely looks like an interesting timeline and would love to explore more of the contemporary aspects from it. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:46, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

• Objectors

• Discussion

Night of the Living Alternate History

I want this article to be featured for 4 reasons.

1. Well written.
2. First map game.
3. FUN.
4. Cool articles in the Universe.

Octivian Marius (talk) 00:50, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Mscoree (talk) 00:56, July 12, 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if map games are allowed to be featured, but if so I support this.
  • There is a first time for everything, so as there is a time the new thing wins, this is now Yay an Edit conflict (talk) 11:03, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
  • Great game  OreoToast555(Talk) 21:14, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
  • Amazing Game - Edboy452 (talk) 23:18, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • I mean, it may be a really fun game, but it is a game...            Flectere si nequeos superos- Acheronta Movebo! 
  • Does not meet the requirements to be featured. Nor is it well-written or logical. Lordganon (talk) 09:36, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm with GG and LG on this one. Even if NotLAH met the standards, a map game about a zombie apocalypse just doesn't strike me as featured AH material.--NFSreloaded (talk) 11:19, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
  • While I think map games are fine to be featured (but due to the varying writers skill probably impossible), one word kind of defeats it's chances: Zombies. Not plausible. KunarianTALK 11:30, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry guys, just doesn't make sense.  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 12:02, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
  •                 SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR   21:15, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
  • One day perhaps, but that day is not today. Monster Pumpkin (talk) 23:34, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
  • NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:53, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't a featured timeline material. It can be quite implausible at times, myself included. Doctor Evulz (talk) 22:55, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
  • The reasons that given are not fulfilling the following criteria. FirstStooge (talk) 03:58, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • PitaKang- My Life for Aiur! En Taro Tassadar 14:47, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • Besides the zombie infection itself, everything is presented in a logical, plausible manner. The zombies are just one piece of the puzzle, in a time filled with many more pressing issues. Mscoree (talk) 14:51, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
  • ... Mscoree... look at the reasons given for it being a featured TL. Fun, cool, 'first map game' (not true, BTW, there are loads of map games), great game... now look at the requirements. Apart from well wirrten, none of those are reasons to be a featured TL, and frankly speaking, looking at the game itself, it isn't that well written.            Flectere si nequeos superos- Acheronta Movebo! 
  • Sorry Ms, but that simply isn't true. Your game jumped the proverbial shark on logical and plausible after the PoD very early on. Also, I have removed OM's signature from the support list - as with the user rights page, you cannot both nominate and support a nomination - as well as Ms's comment that he inserted in the middle of the objector list for some reason, and he more or less repeated later in the proper place. Lordganon (talk) 08:29, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
  • Also the current WWIII pushes it past the ASB-plausible border clear into ASBland.                 SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR   01:52, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • ...this isn't the first map game... not even close lol. Try February 2010. PitaKang- My Life for Aiur! En Taro Tassadar 14:47, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

The Kalmar Union

I have been waiting a while before nominating one. The Kalmar Union is a very good and detailed timeline, with countless pages and a large amount of detail. It is one of the less focused areas of alternate history and Yan has done a really good job on this timeline. Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 14:37, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • I can't believe this already isn't, lol. The one and only Guns, who is too lazy to go to source mod and type out his real sig. (talk) 14:40, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
  • -Kogasa 2013 September 22, 18:24 (CET)
  • Finally get to support this one. Just hope Yan doesn't object this time. :P  ~ Scraw 16:26, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
  • NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:53, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
  • Monster Pumpkin (talk) 17:16, September 22, 2013 (UTC)
  • FirstStooge (talk) 20:42, September 23, 2013 (UTC)
  • Mscoree (talk) 18:49, September 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Reximus Maximus  21:01, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • Timeline still more or less non-existent. Lordganon (talk) 01:57, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Its good, but its not Carling Sameva555 (talk) 18:37, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • Imp, next time ask the author before you nominate something like this. Rude, at best, not to. Lordganon (talk) 01:57, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry LG. I'll keep that in mind the next time.  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 17:52, September 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes the timeline needs some more work, but this is a very detailed alternate history with dozens of good pages. Definitely not non-existent. Mscoree (talk) 18:52, September 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. Ideas such as keeping the world behind in technology by a century compared to OTL makes it pretty special.  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 19:08, September 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Should I get round to rounding this off? :L  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 23:26, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
  • So, aah, Grad? Been more than 2 weeks, and clearly we have 2/3 of the voters. ~Guns

Yellowstone: 1936

I was honestly surprised when I saw that this hadn't been featured yet (didn't look it was nominated either - if it has been, please disregard me). Big community timelines that bring together tons of writers should always be celebrated on this wiki, I think, and there has been a TON of work done on this bad boy. Kudos and props to the contributors working on it.

KingSweden (talk) 02:41, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

• Supporters
• Objectors
  •                 SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR   15:20, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • The timeline is well-written, sure, but it is not plausible, comprehensive or neutral. Also, I think there is a lot of other timelines to nominate that are better developed than YS36. Fed (talk) 15:40, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • CrimsonAssassinI have special eyes 17:14, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • This timeline is still a WIP IMO. It should be given more time to develop before it's should become a featured timeline. I also do agree that there are other timelines which have more potential to become featured over this one at the time (how long has it been since the last timeline has become featured?).  NuclearVacuum 20:05, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • It appears that most of the articles in the timeline are still proposals. Too early for nomination, but does have potential. ChrisL123 (talk)
  • I'm sorry, as a former contributor, I must step in here. It's extremely ASB, it's not comprehensive at all, and I have to say, I doubt it ever will.            Flectere si nequeos superos- Acheronta Movebo!  22:21, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • No way. Horrifically ASB, and the whole thing is contradictory. Lordganon (talk) 15:54, January 29, 2014 (UTC)
  • FirstStooge (talk) 16:07, January 29, 2014 (UTC)
  • NFSreloaded (talk) 22:24, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • It's a very new timeline, and things are still being figured out, but I applaud the great collaborative effort that is this project, and hope it continues to be improved. Tr0llis (talk) 15:19, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • Fed has expressed pretty much everything I sought to say. ~ Scraw 15:42, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • Well one of its biggest contributors is banned currently, and most of the stuff is still under construction, so it's not completely figured out yet. In some places you have to excuse the under construction or proposals in terms of plausibility, comprehensiveness, and neutrality. Tr0llis (talk) 16:01, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • I share Fed's reasoning. While I am proud of the timeline and the progress that has been made on it, I do not feel that it is adequately plausible to be considered for a featured alternative history. However, with a bit of work and constructive criticism, perhaps it will one day reach the stage where I'd feel comfortable voting for it. CrimsonAssassin- I have special eyes
  • Pretty much being the guy who brought back the timeline from the dead, I want to let it grow for a while yet. We still have major elements like the Pacific War to work out as well as other nations and their place in the world.  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 19:57, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • The last admitted TL was Kalmar, in November or December. Scraw 20:42, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • Extremely ASB, very, very divided, and quite biased- and given that it has almost no canon articles...            Flectere si nequeos superos- Acheronta Movebo!  22:21, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record, I don't believe ASB articles are barred from becoming featured (just look at Great White South). The timeline should be looked at as a whole and not its plausibility (and this timeline still being a WIP is just enough for rejection). -- NuclearVacuum 22:56, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • Ahh, but TLs like GWS and SV, while ASB, are also plausible, as in; if those conditions were changed, then this would logically happen, and that is NOT there in YS. Also, as I said, it's caused massive arguments. Of it's original bunch, most of us have left because of them. Local, Scraw, me, I think Feud also said that he was done arguing and was out...            Flectere si nequeos superos- Acheronta Movebo!  23:33, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • Yikes what have I started... :P It seems like the overriding consensus (so far) is that YS is a one day maybe, not yet kind of deal, so if it's all the same to everyone, I'm more than happy to withdraw my nomination. KingSweden (talk) 02:08, January 29, 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry KS, but I think that may be the wisest thing to do. And people still do not understand the fact I am still in the timeline and completely willing to listen to their ideas for the timeline. It is one reason why the Holy Russian Empire is still around.  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 12:49, January 29, 2014 (UTC)
  • Please, define around. Not at all what I wrote initially... *sob* I never get to make a Holy Russian- wait, is there room in DD?            Flectere si nequeos superos- Acheronta Movebo!  22:13, January 29, 2014 (UTC)
  • Ahem Maybe...  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 22:18, January 29, 2014 (UTC)
  • Ooh. Hang a second.            Flectere si nequeos superos- Acheronta Movebo!  22:23, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

Cherry, Plum, and Chrysanthemum

This timeline is one of the ones WIP timelines I've ever read. The nation pages are well written, especially this one. I think FirstStooge deserves some credit, and should be rewarded. I am Kronos, King of the Titians 11:29, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • I am Kronos, King of the Titians 11:30, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • Not at all plausible. Quite frankly, given the disturbing number of PoD's, should have a "tag" added to it. Lordganon (talk) 14:05, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel like it needs a little bit more work. Mscoree (talk) 17:51, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • I tried to read the timeline and I'm not really sure what's going on. I think the timeline needs to be streamlined a lot more and maybe developed/explained chronologically. Nation pages are good but there's very little content on the timeline page itself. Tr0llis (talk) 16:01, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
  •                 SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR   00:51, June 6, 2014 (UTC) I feel like the timeline needs to be expanded a bit.

• Discussion

Fidem Pacis

This althist is hyper massive and has almost no red links. It it detailed, extremely well-written, and, although slightly ASB, is a piece of good literature. It seems to be underrepresented in the wiki and deserves some credit. Great Lord of Nothing (talk) 13:49, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • ​           Tonight the foxes will hunt the hounds!  16:31, August 12, 2014 (UTC)
  • Toby2: THEY CALL ME Mr. Awesome!!!

• Objectors
  • Tr0llis (talk) 16:51, August 12, 2014 (UTC) I like this timeline a lot but I feel like it needs some work, especially the timeline. It has a lot of pages but not a very well developed or finished timeline.
  • Too many shell articles - no real history. Lordganon (talk) 11:38, August 13, 2014 (UTC)
• Discussion

A World of Difference

I like A World of Difference a lot, due to it's extremely fleshed out pages and topics. It goes into major detail about most minuscule topics, yet still manages to be enticing to read. It has well over 200 pages at the moment, which is much more than many other featured TL's here. I think that we need a new featured TL to help represent the wiki, and A World of Difference is one of the best options for one. Scraw did give me permission for this in chat.  Upvoteanthology (Talk | Sandbox), 05:56, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • ..... Because I'm Just... Too... SSSWWWEEEEEETTT!!!
  • I agree, Up. This is probably one of the best choices for featured alternate history that hasn't been chosen yet. Saturn120 ^(Talk/Blog) 11:44, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • —Bfoxius (talk)
  • Toby2: THEY CALL ME Mr. Awesome!!!
  • This is Edge, He is a cool guy when he isn't too lazy to sign his real sig. Hit him up. 22:05, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • "This is not your grave but you are welcome in it." 22:21, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • Eric von Schweetz ^{T C IM]}

• Objectors
  • Sorry to be the party pooper but... it's mostly stubs isn't it? Yan Hoek (talk) 22:52, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • Not even a timeline article, and Yan is right about the stubs. Lordganon (talk) 10:06, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you've done a lot of great work so far, but I think it definitely needs more work. Tr0llis (talk) 11:41, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • For me the lack of timeline overall, which lead to a bunch of mostly unexplained stubs (some of them very good mind you), leads me to vote no. Fritzmet (talk) 13:06, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
  • As above, could do with some more meat on its bones. --NFSreloaded (talk) 17:00, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

• Discussion

Vikings in the New World

Vikings in the New World is a thorough, well-written, and somewhat original timeline on this wiki. It has had lots of effort put into it and is very astonishing by it's depth and detail. The author has clearly put her time into this project as it contains dozens upon dozens of articles pertaining to the topic. To go into further detail about the contents of the timeline, it has a fairly believable point-of-divergence and strays away from abstract or implausible events. The maps provide a very clear representation of what the world looks like in modern day and the timeline article is written quite impressively as the timeline is quite young compared to others.

I'd certainly enjoy to see this timeline become featured as it is very detailed, thorough, and original. It certainly deserves the title of a featured alternate history. ( United Republic  00:27, July 24, 2015 (UTC))

• Supporters
  • ..... Because I'm Just... Too... SSSWWWEEEEEETTT!!!
  • Great TL, definitely deserves featured award. Awesome history 28 (talk) 08:42, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • No offense but VINW isn't as you described. It isn't that original, in fact it's based on an althistory trope, up there with a CSA victory and Rome surviving to the modern age. There is no depth or detail, nor is it thorough. The only thing going for it is hundreds of articles, most of which generic stubs. There pretty much is no POD, or at least not a very well developed one, and pretty much no timeline. Are we reading the same thing, because it looks like the timeline isn't well written at all. So in conclusion, I'm sorry Upvote, but I have to vote no on this one. At least for now. Give it some work and I'll be happy to change my mind one day. Harvenard2 (talk) 00:49, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like a good timeline, but I think it needs work. Ratcolor (talk) 03:06, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow. Me and Harv Agreeing on something seems, odd. But he is right. this timeline is the exact oppisite of Thorough. The Abridiged timeline has a gap from 1200-1400. There are even more gaps in the normal timeline. To go further, the main page states that the timeline is being redone, and that we should disregard everything in it. When compared to the detalied writing of Superpowers (Regardless of Plausablity, Both before and after the Retconing), this Timeline falls flat. #PraiseRoosevelt. 03:37, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • The points above sum it up nicely. Sorry Upvote, but the timeline ain't ready. Fritzmet (talk) 03:47, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Truly the rarest of days. Scraw 04:27, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Not enough content - lots of shell articles. Lordganon (talk) 06:57, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • The timeline itself barely has any content.  Consul Ioshua (Talk) 
    14:52, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Discussion

King of America

King of America is a great TL. Objectively, it has all the elements from TLs that we love. It's got a King, and it has a giant US. What more is there to ask for? But for real, it's very unique, and extremely well written. It has so many articles, and all of them are mostly fleshed out. The US in this TL is one alien from ours, yet still quite similar. It acts as both a TL and a "where did we go wrong?". Seriously, it's very high quality and at least deserves a nomination.  Upvoteanthology (Talk | Sandbox)

• Supporters
  • --Sithlent (talk) 00:39, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • ..... Because I'm Just... Too... SSSWWWEEEEEETTT!!!
• Objectors
  • This timeline has like thirty pages, come on. That's hardly "so many articles", and most are stubs. I really like this timeline, its premise, its writting, etc, it's just anywhere near ready for featured. Harvenard2 (talk) 00:49, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Interesting concept and very nice timeline. A bit early for featured though. Ratcolor (talk) 03:06, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Good timeline, about two years before its time. Fritzmet (talk) 03:51, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • I like this one but it needs more work. Has potential. Scraw 04:27, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Off to a good start, but not enough articles. Lordganon (talk) 06:57, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • 20 or 30 more complete, solid, articles, and KoA has my vote.  Consul Ioshua (Talk) 
    14:54, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Defiantly got potential but it's only got 25 articles. Maybe featured in 4/5 months time with some solid work on it. Its got the potential.Awesome history 28 (talk) 08:42, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Discussion

The Once and Never Kings

The Once and Never Kings. It's as long as King of America, pretty well written and popular, and in its short amount of time has shown great promise. Fritzmet (talk) 01:01, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

• Supporters
• Objectors
  • Featured timelines don't need to show great promise; they need to already be great (or as close as it can be) before it becomes featured. Whilst I enjoy 'The Once and Never Kings', I feel that it's lacking the vital content (further information about the alternate world, its people, or even a general timeline). Most of the pages are stubs and need expanding. In short; it's just not ready to become featured.  RichMill | Talk 01:11, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • This one doesn't even have a timeline. Also what Rich said. Harvenard2 (talk) 01:15, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Ratcolor (talk) 03:06, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • This one also has potential and needs more stuff. Scraw 04:27, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • No real timeline, and needs more articles. Lordganon (talk) 07:00, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Awesome history 28 (talk) 08:42, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Discussion

While I'm flattered that someone would nominate a TL of mine to be featured, as said TLs creator I don't believe it to be ready. Yes, I haven't gotten around to making the actual timeline portions, but now that I'm back from summer camp I'll now have time to work on them and other expansions.

Also, people actually read my TL? That's good to hear, and if anyone has any input let me know, thanks. I am that guy (talk) 00:56, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

The Old Boar Suffered

The Old Boar Suffered is an extraordinary piece of work. It is extremely in depth and has plenty of articles pertaining to the topic. This deserves a nomination at the very least ( United Republic  01:10, July 24, 2015 (UTC))

• Supporters
  • The only nominated here that's actually developed like a featured timeline. Harvenard2 (talk) 01:29, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Very interesting and well written timeline. Ratcolor (talk) 03:06, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • —Bfoxius (talk)
  • Deserves it most out of all of these. Plus is a very well developed and well written timeline. Fritzmet (talk) 03:53, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • FirstStooge (talk) 04:13, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Although extensive, I do agree with LG that this timeline could be expanded on. I'll vote yes.  Consul Ioshua (Talk) 
    14:56, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • This TL deserves it more than any other. Immense detail. If New Union has got the featured then this one definitely has to. Awesome history 28 (talk) 08:42, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • Upvoteanthology (Talk | Sandbox) - People will probably get mad at me for not voting for it, but it only has a hundred years of a TL.
  • This one also has potential and has the right amount of stuff, but is not an intriguing or interesting read. Has potential though that is not being realized. Scraw 04:27, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • Just saying Up, the timeline is like five centuries long, not one. Fritzmet (talk) 04:19, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • It's well-written, but... the scope of the articles is my issue, here. There is enough of them, and not shell articles, but... there are areas lacking. This basically just deals with parts of Europe, in a lot of ways. Should be expanded more, I think. Not making a decision on this one at this time, mind. Lordganon (talk) 07:03, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, looks like this has passed. To be honest I never pictured this going through, I still have a lot of work ahead of me. But thank you for all the support, and I hope to continue to improve the timeline. Tr0llis (talk) 03:02, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Quebec Independence

A great TL and is the best TL which hasn't been featured yet. It reaches to the modern day and has lots of detail on it. It does need some work on it but it deserves to be featured. Awesome history 28

Supporters Objectors

• Well, it seems to be getting there, but there some problems exist. 1. Prose:Lots of sentences on the Portal Page contain 'would,' and numerous grammar errors (too many to be typos) exist in the TL pages. 2. Realism. a)The War of 1808: I don't see, considering the state of the US army at the time, how ALL of Britain's provinces could fall. Though the Napoleonic Wars were being waged, the British involvement in the Peninsula just began, so they certainly could at least keep Nova Scotia from falling. b)The Confederacy:The state governors detested central government authority, and they had a large-scale insurrection in the Appalachians to deal with. Even with British support, it's a stretch. c)Mexico: In OTL, Maximillian got zero support from the peasants. Where did the peasant's support in the TL come from? d)Butterflies prevent Teddy Roosevelt's role in the TL. e)McKinley protecting factory workers? In OTL, Rockefeller basically bought McKinley's victory over Bryan, never mind Butterflies. Furthermore, Czolgosz became an anarchist while living with his father, since Czolgosz fell ill. Almost certainly that, or his family's immigration, or his birth, will fall pray to Butterflies. f) Butterflies prevent the mutations which led to the Spanish Flu g)Militaristic Germany starting the UN? That's more like the UK. h)Petain wasn't Butterflied? Also, DeGaulle's story carries way to much Hitler parallelism. i)Besides lack of Butterflies: The Anarchists were the Black Army. The Greens were peasant revolters. j)Way too much parallelism/lack of butterflies in 20's-30's. Also, Musso didn't cause any economic miracles here. I only skimmed to 1939, but some serious problems exist, unfortunately. The Guardian of Forever

Discussion

Fidem Pacis

Fidem Pacis is a great timeline with lots of interesting articles and content. It's got over 200 articles and has been working on for the last 5 years (since 2011). It deserves to be recognised. Awesome history 28 (talk) 14:22, January 23, 2016 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Awesome history 28 (talk) 14:22, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • "This is not your grave but you are welcome in it." 19:26, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • Sat ^{(Talk to me!)} 19:41, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a god... And his name is FIRES
  • Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 20:21, February 10, 2016 (UTC)
• Objectors

• Discussion

Cabotia and Brasil

Redlinks and stubs. Nothing of note. Better things have gone completely unnoticed but somehow this is a featured timeline.                 SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR   18:57, January 23, 2016 (UTC)

• Supporters
  •  "This is not your grave but you are welcome in it." 19:27, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • Sat ^{(Talk to me!)} 19:50, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • Matt121 ??? Matt125 (Talk) 20:06, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 22:22, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm an a**hole, So what did you expect?
  • Tbguy1992; Talk; Blog 01:41, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
  • Awesome history 28 (talk) 16:55, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • I personally find it rather insulting to downgrade a timeline after years of being featured. Perhaps the true solution to be to encourage its expansion and completion. -- NuclearVacuum 04:04, January 24, 2016 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • Good luck finding the creator and encouraging them to come back and work on it. I'm not even sure why such small TLs were featured back in the day. With so many other excellent and expansive TLs in the featured category, ones like this don't deserve to be with them. Scraw 21:12, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

Russian America

Well thought out plausible TL by Nuke. Has many pages, defiantly enough to become featured. Is not overly biased.  OCT MARIUS, Hail Marius 

• Supporters
  • Best Regards,  Yankee97
  •  HawkAussie (Talk)  20:52, March 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • Reximus | Talk to Me!<font color=red">Talk to Me!​ 20:53, March 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • Long Live the King!
  • Count me in! :) | --Orangebird "SPACESHIP!" --Benny in the Lego Movie (→My wall!←) 03:27, March 20, 2016 (UTC)
  • Awesome history 28
• Objectors

• Discussion
  • Once again, I am honored to have this timeline brought up for potential featured status. I do hope you guys favor this as well. -- NuclearVacuum  17:44, March 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • I could not agree more that Russian America deserves to be a feature timeline. NuclearVacuum has spent an enormous amount of time working on it as well as refining it in the last few months and has done a tremendous job. Best Regards,  Yankee97  17:53, March 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • I support this one hundred percent as this is one of the best timelines that hasn't been featured.  HawkAussie (Talk)  20:52, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

The Old Boar Suffered

As the user who nominated this timeline to be featured, it is with great dismay that I am now reversing my course of action. After thoroughly looking through the timeline, I found that it was mostly rewritten Wikipedia articles and does not go beyond the 14th century. The timeline is also very dry and dull to read due to its lack of external links within articles and lack of media. While it is plentiful in detail, it does not meet qualities that should be held to articles that deserve to hold "featured" status.
United Republic #FeelTheUR 20:16, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • File:SPQR Emblem Transparent.pngConsul Ioshua #Beware! 20:19, July 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Oliver Crimwell - Lord Protector of the Wiki 03:19, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • When Tr0llis realized that it had been accepted as Featured, he said, "I still have a lot of work ahead of me." He did little to nothing to continue developing the TL, and is now banned and cannot continue the TL. It deserves to be brought down. Reximus | Talk to Me! 20:35, July 17, 2016 (UTC)
  • Lieutenant113

• Objectors
  • ​UR is just doing this beacuse of his bias against the Cronies. Prince Octavian , of Jerusalem, Sicily, and Swabia, and Duke of Amalfi.

• Discussion

British Louisiana

Athough the timeline does have a good deal of detail early on, personally I feel the timeline lacks the depth it needs to be a featured alternate history. The timeline is littered with stubs and the history barely goes into the start of the 1800s. Thus, I personally do feel we need to rethink this one. Have a look and see what you think. Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 02:36, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • ​ You needed worthy opponents
  • ​It's a wannabe novel, not a timeline Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 23:06, April 17, 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Nathan here. Not so much a timeline but an odd mishmash of incoherent pages (many of which are blank or unfinished blueprints). -- NuclearVacuum 01:53, April 18, 2017 (UTC)
    • Support this timeline being reviewed. -- NuclearVacuum 01:58, April 18, 2017 (UTC)
  • Scraw 02:04, April 18, 2017 (UTC)
  • "This is not your grave but you are welcome in it." 04:55, May 12, 2017 (UTC)
• Objectors
• Discussion
  • ​Just making sure, but you object to it remaining a featured TL or you object to it being up for review?  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 01:56, April 18, 2017 (UTC)
  • a collaborative effort to expand the timeline and update the timeline formatting wise would be a good solution. -Stepintime
  • After the success of this, British Louisiana has been stripped off the title of a featured TL.  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 16:24, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

Cromwell the Great

Adopted and developed by Jorge GG, Cromwell the Great deserves featured status for the following reasons

1. Well Organized- Whole series has a filled out template which makes navigation to all subjects on the timeline easy and enjoyable
2. Immersion- The visuals of the articles, writing style and era relevant quotations bring the reader to feel the content. To experience the reading rather than just viewing the words. I believe Cromwell's model is unique to this timeline and above average
3. Content- No other Featured Timeline covers the subject of a alternate 17th century England concerning the subjects of the civil War and/or Cromwell.
4. Perspective- Cromwell's perspective (from 1700) and the writing style from the year's point of view contributes to the immersion listed above. The choice to stay specifically on 17th century England then spread out to the world has served the timeline well thus far.

Regardless of the results of this nomination do congratulate Lord GG for a job well done.

Thank you for your time and consideration of the timeline. Sincerely,

Stepintime

• Supporters
  • Josh
  • Quality over quantity. SkyGreen24
  •              Deadly State of Mind Leader of the Knights of Scraw.  17:07, June 5, 2017 (UTC)
  • The Wings of Freedom #FP (Talk to Me)
  • User:Person67
  • An RNGed vote counts as a vote. Told you guys forcing people to vote was dumb. ~Fires
• Objectors
  • ​I just feel it needs more history til the present day.  Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 23:00, April 17, 2017 (UTC)
  • This has potential but needs a little more work. Scraw 21:30, June 4, 2017 (UTC)
  • As above. FP^{Now 10% edgier!!!} 18:16, June 8, 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with the others. The topic seems a little light on the history side. Has room to grow. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:28, June 8, 2017 (UTC)
  • -- NuclearVacuum 05:44, June 9, 2017 (UTC)
  • If it continues to grow, I think this will be a clear candidate. I think that it fails to meet the "Comprehensive" criteria for a Featured TL, but that can be overcome with a few months of additional focused work on the TL. Reximus | Talk to Me! 03:12, June 10, 2017 (UTC)
  • Curmudgeonly yours - Crim
• Discussion
  • It certainly is a good timeline. My issue is if it is large enough. It doesn't quite get that far into modern history in my opinion. Imp ^{(Say Hi?!)} 13:01, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
  • I see quality over quantity here. Its true this timeline stays within its era, and restricts the timescope, but this model allows the timeline to delve deep into the subject and create an atmosphere of actually being there. Like I said, actually looking inside this fictional world, than just reading it.- Stepintime
  • The nominator does not place a vote in the voting section. Scraw 02:04, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Cromwell the Great

In my belief, the CtG timeline is one of the most-well written and structured timelines on this wiki.

The pages are professional, packed with information, with quotes and portraits.

The historic setting sets it apart from other timelines, and is one of the reasons I enjoy the timeline.

To my knowledge, there are 127 pages in the timeline (including preposals and obsolete pages). Even though there are not as many pages as others, the quality of its pages sets it apart from others. AlthistWriter (talk) 19:22, July 30, 2018 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Well deserved to be a featured history. -- NuclearVacuum 21:00, July 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • ^ what he said. -- SXLΔCΞ | talk to me if needed
  • From what I've seen, an excellent timeline, a rarer premise, and a great amount of depth. "This is not your grave but you are welcome in it." 02:10, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
  •              Deadly State of Mind Leader of the Knights of Scraw.  11:29, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
  • SupremeSensualSamrāṭSky 11:48, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
  • Stepintime
  • Brilliant timeline, the best non-featured TL out there - FP 10:31, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
  • Really well done Yan Hoek (talk) 12:51, August 8, 2018 (UTC)
  • A level of dedication to be admired. Baron Joshua

• Objectors

• Discussion

The Maxorata Empire

I believe this alternate timeline is, despite needing updating on certain present-day points, worthy of the nomination for the month's Featured Althist, due to the fascinating image it presents us of a largely unknown part of History for most Europeans and Americans: the aboriginal inhabitants of the Canary Islands, specifically Fuerteventura. The island, prior to its conquest by Castile, had its own monarchy headed by an ambitious king who dreamt of territorial expansion, although his imperialist vision never came to fruition in our timeline. But... what if it did? This timeline, in my opinion and hopefully in the opinion of others, presents this possibility very well. It is true that the point of divergence needs more depth as it is written far too simply, but I think this could be rectified. What do you think?

FiteOwl (talk) 22:25, April 25, 2020 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • This needs a lot of work. A lot. However, it is a highly interesting timeline of the likes never really seen before on this wiki. It's a breath of fresh air from America and Europe, so I think it deserves to be looked at. -- Hong Xiuquan 9:01, April 10, 2020 (UTC)
  • A very interesting idea, plausible and very cool as well. Let's introduce the wiki to the guanches. MrWoodward (talk) 18:50, April 15, 2020 (UTC)
  • A fantastic alternate timeline indeed! I agree it definitely deserves to be featured. ElegantLife (talk) 10:59, April 21, 2020 (UTC)
  • This article is still in its naked, infantile form. However, it is a highly intriguing timeline with great potential. As Hing Xiuquan said, it's a nice break from America and Europe and it deserves some recognition on this site. I believe it should be elevated to the honorable featured status. -- Kaiser1918oftheGloriousGermanReich (talk) 23:12, April 27, 2020 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • This timeline still looks to be in the early stages of development. I don't think it's ready to become a featured timeline at this time. -- NuclearVacuum 20:07, April 9, 2020 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • I agree with NuclearVacuum with the fact that this timeline needs a lot of touching up. Especially in the part which tells us about the Maxorata Empire's early years. The 1700s and beyond I think are excellently well done and are very detailed paragraphs. The division between North and South Mauritania due to the presence of both the Guanches and the Maghreb Arabs I find curious. Also, like a few alternate timelines on this wiki, its live and ongoing, its present day section being updated every now and then, which I think is also good. Fuerteventura is a tiny island, yet it's full of history unknown to most, and this alternate timeline which the island stars in holds potential. So in summary I think the Alternate History Wiki is almost ready to meet the story this island has to tell, just that the pages need to be greatly fixed. -- BroccotropolisGov 9:14, April 10, 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think someone can nominate a candidate when they have less than 100 edits (the OP has 25 edits)
  • I do have 100 edits now. Therefore, if all are in favour, let's make it the next monthly featured althist! FiteOwl (talk) 22:43, May 9, 2020 (UTC)
  • Nomination overturned because nominator did not meet requirements at time of nomination. Can e renominated now in a new vote. - Scrawland Scribblescratch 19:51, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

The Maxorata Empire

I believe this timeline is truly a breath of fresh air from most of the timelines on this wiki centred on the United States and on European countries like Britain and Germany. The history of the Guanches and of the divided kingdoms of Maxorata and Jandía is a part of history ignored by or unknown to most. The point of divergence it presents, the social consequences the creation of the state of Maxorata has, its relationship with European powers like the Kingdom of France and with Spain... these are all fascinating details. I say we give the Guanches a chance! FiteOwl (talk) 22:52, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • It's a fascinating timeline. Sure, it needs some expanding and more work, but it's worthy. As you said, there are already way too many timelines about the US or about European empires and even the Soviets. I vote in favour of this nomination. MrWoodward (Talk)
  • This timeline is excellently built, and with even more attention it can expand even further. The aboriginal people of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote, the so-called "majos", are a people that resisted against even the Romans when they conquered the isle of Lobos! That goes to show how powerful these people were and how, as in this alternate timeline, they could have definitely expanded their territory if it were ever decided by the king and the Tagoror. I agree with the objector Benkarnell on one point: that it would absolutely stand out! Hong Xiuquan (talk) 12:15, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
  • Absolutely yes. Maxorata in this timeline is a fascinating country with a well developed royal family which we can follow throughout history, a polytheistic religion (which is AWESOME!) and a curious language not many people know about. Also, its a live timeline, like 1983: Doomsday, so we can continue to contribute to the politics of it and introduce new influential characters! Let's have it featured. BroccotropolisGov (talk) 13:23, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • I like it a lot. Now right now almost all its history covers just one single country, Maxorata itself. Hardly anything on how the existence of the empire affects other events around the world, not even events that would be very directly affected like Atlantic trade. No general timeline either, so piecing together the chronology is difficult. Don't get me wrong - this is creative and well written and has quality visuals - all around, a great piece of geofiction. I just don't think its history is complete enough to be a featured althistory. Next to the rest of our list, it would stand out. Benkarnell (talk) 01:00, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
  • As stated before, I don't believe this timeline is complete enough to be getting a nomination. Do more work and come back in a few months. -- NuclearVacuum 17:40, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • To three of the above four supporters, you hit 100 edits after making a series of minor edits within a couple of days. That implies a bad-faith use of the voting rules. I'm aware of how that sounds coming from the only "object" vote so far, but I think others will back me up. Benkarnell (talk) 13:54, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

Principia Moderni III (Map Game)

I'm surprised this hasn't been nominated before. It's a monument to what the Map Games have become when they're at their best. It goes beyond its predecessor with features that make it accessible for non-players, namely the navigation template, the Overview Timeline, a huge assortment of country and cultural pages, and possibly the largest Polandball collection of any alternate timeline. Much more than a map game, it's really a collaborative ATL written using a gamified method. The one flaw is that the Overview Timeline was never completed, but I don't see that as disqualifying - many of our other featured TLs are incomplete. Benkarnell (talk) 01:11, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

• Supporters

• Objectors
  • Completed map games are often an impressive amount of work in terms of the sheer amount written, but when you get down to it, I don't think PM3 really fulfilled most of the requirements for a featured timeline, if any. I would not consider PM3 "map games at their best", in fact I think it is more infamous of what not to do by most of its players. Vandenhoek (talk) 03:44, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a map game, sure, but this makes it somewhat difficult to follow (at least from my perspective). It is a curious one, but I don't think a map game should be a featured TL. BroccotropolisGov (talk) 13:27, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think map games should be added as featured timelines. -- NuclearVacuum 17:41, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • @Vandenhoek - True, I didn't look under the hood at the gameplay, and I wasn't around at all to witness any of it. I've only looked at the content. But if the gameplay was that bad, I would agree with you that it shouldn't be featured. But that being said, the games have reached a level of quality and sophistication that I certainly never expected. An enormous amount of creative energy here goes into them, and they end up producing some truly interesting AH settings, which is what this community is all about. If PM3 is a bad one to feature, I do think some of them should get recognition. Maybe we don't yet have a completed game that's both high-quality and not plagued by infighting. If that's the case, then it maybe is premature to Feature one. Maybe the current game will be the first to achieve that. But I disagree that the games shouldn't be featured as a matter of course, because they have produced some quality content. Benkarnell (talk) 14:25, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

Terra Cognita

Seriously, do I need a reason for this? DosDragones is one of the best writers of the current generation of our community. DD's alternate history covers not only politics and society, but also language and religions, a rare timeline with such wide coverage. His/her winning at the recent Stirling Award showed the recognition to his/her writing abilities as well as community approvals to his/her timeline. I think it will helps a lot for the recent generation of community writers to be motivated and to follow a path of achievement if this timeline is featured. DD and younger writers deserve this recognition while we the older ones at some point will leave this community for them. --- FirstStooge (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • FirstStooge (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 06:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Vavent (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I beleive I nominated this timeline a few months ago. This is a timeline clearly worthy of being a featured article. Kaiser1918oftheGloriousGermanReich (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Jamesmcavoyfanclub (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of our best recent work for sure. Benkarnell (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Objectors

• Discussion
  • Before it's fully ready to Feature, I think that Template:TCOG would need to be updated so there aren't so many red links. For one thing, it implies that there's no pages on history or timelines, which is obviously false - so History of Romania (Terra Cognita) ought to be added to the template. And then some of the other redlinked articles should be commented out until they've been created. Benkarnell (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Differently

In recent year Differently has grown at great speed with writers and viewers alike coming to the discord server. Differently hosts a wide variety of fun pages written by some of the most capable writers on the forum. This even lead to Differently getting a Stirling award in 2021. The timeline has a page for every nation and most leaders as well as miscellaneous items which are never tiring to reread. icelandicwriter 17:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • FirstStooge (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • False Dmitri (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • CheesyDolphins (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Flabby Cheeks for Life (talk) 06:43, April 30 2021
  • Fredrick II, Holy Roman Emperor (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Kelothan (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Lnobse (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • VitLou
  • Nickthenick2
  • I think it's neat. Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 01:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Objectors
  • Although I appreciate the effort that has gone into the project, I would like to see a coherent timeline page and further break down of the world's overall history. At the moment this project is effectively more of a Conworld than an althistory timeline. Vandenhoek (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For the standards of featured timelines, it doesn't seem to follow its points of divergence as consistently as it could. For example, these PODs in the Roman Empire and rise of Islam would radically change the history of America's colonization and independence Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 00:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not believe it rises to the level of featured timeline for reasons already stated. Although there has been a lot of hard work put in to it, that alone does not make it featured worthy. Scrawland Scribblescratch 00:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Kuupik (talk) The lack of timeline in this potential featured timeline makes this not appropriately structured or comprehensive. There's too many PODs, which comes across as ASB and implausible when taken together. Has a lot of pages, but little to no high quality/lengthy pages. Just because it is very active (at the moment) doesn't mean it should be featured. Popular does not equal Featured Timeline-worthy.
  • I like the effort, and I don't think the lack of a "unified POD" is necessarily a problem, but I feel that the PODs should be delved into more. – † ⌒⌒⌒＼(;ᄋ;＼)三(ﾉ>ᄉ<)ﾉ ~ ("니가먼저키스해!")
  • I went from on the fence to heavily in the no category after taking a deeper look at the timeline. I don't think any of the PODs make sense or are without bias/ASB/implausibility, and almost all contradict each other. The timeline begins in 30 BC with Egypt not becoming part of the Roman Empire, but how? The Battle of Actium had already occurred at this point, it was more or less sealed that Egypt's independence was over. Ptolemy XV is also incorrectly called Caesarion I despite that being a nickname. It is never explained how the Rashidun Caliphate fails to conquer further in the Middle East, and also is Shia Islam and/or Ali erased from existence? The Rashidun page says Ali never became caliph without explanation, which implies that Shia Islam would not exist. How does Somalia become Alawite? Alawites wouldn't even exist in this timeline without the existence of Shia Islam, and with the birthplace of the Alawites not being Muslim in this timeline. Every POD I looked at has problems or questions like this, and the pages involved are all stubs with little explanation, for example the Egypt page glosses over the period in question and almost an entire millenium of history with just a paragraph or two, while the Rashidun Caliphate simply says the first three caliphs were elected and died, that unsuccessful invasions occurred, and then the caliphate dissolved and Arabia did nothing of note until around the 1900s. For these reasons and the others mentioned I think this timeline should not be featured. Having a large number of pages, being popular, or being neat do not outweigh the lack of comprehensive timeline.Renereve (talk)
  • Theres so many things I want to say about this timeline. It is biased in favor of nations with such a degree of ASB you'd think they were taken from a PM map game series offshoot, and it proposes some very cliche and abused-to-this-point concepts without adding anything relatively new or exciting. It seems almost like a mash-up of 100 different timelines into one, with each wanking religions (see Egyptian polytheism), empires (see the absolute cop-out taken with the rise of Islam and its inability to get out of the Middle East), and without seemingly stitching them together into a coherent structure (the timeline page itself), it doesn't seem to me to be the best option to be featured as it lacks overall consistency in the work produced. I'm not trying to be intentionally rude, but to me this doesn't seem like the best option. I will state that I do not like being this harsh on a group of users who puts this much work into their timeline, for one may argue they have been more active than I or anybody else, but I think they can do better, and I believe that this timeline may one day become featured... its just not today. SolaceEaSw (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • Stooge fixed it for you. You copied it fine, but forgot to remove the "nowiki" tags. As for the proposed addition... kind of torn. It's well done, true, but the number of "PoDs" is just staggering. Lordganon (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • At a certain point, I am agree with LG that the number of PODs in this timeline are too much, to the point they are negating each other in existence in theory, but still appearing one after another in it. However, if we rate this timeline not as a hard alternate history, but rather a soft one based on the sliding scale of plausibility, then we can ignore that technicality. As a hard althistory, Differently is implausible to the point of ridiculousness, but as a soft one, it is a good one due to the ability to combine several PODs into a large constructed universe through a sheer cooperation of many enthusiastic collaborators. I think it is another good example of collaborative timeline on this wiki to which we should look upon this merit instead. FirstStooge (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Which PODs conflict with each other? Consistency has been one of our golden rules from the beginning, but of course, this being a quite dynamic timeline with new PODs added periodically does not make this task easy. Sometimes we have to "mend" things to make a new POD fit, but everything needs to be well discussed before approval. - Lnobse (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Let discuss it on the timeline's talk page, but not here. We are here to discuss whether it fits to be nominated as a representative work of our wiki, to which I agree it is indeed representing our collaborative timelines, and not about technicality and theoretical plausibility. FirstStooge (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Alright then. Please fell free to comment on our talk pages. Any criticism is appreciated and important to us. - Lnobse (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. FirstStooge (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• The timeline isn't perfect, but then nothing ever is. It's a mosaic of different AH settings, all interacting, and some of the settings are of course better than others, depending on the writer and the amount of time put into it. On balance, I believe it's worth featuring - brilliant gems like List of Egyptian monarchs (Differently) and Johannia (Differently) and even a well-developed conlang outweigh some of the more clichéed elements. It could maybe do with some kind of ASB tag, since it's more of a project in AH-like worldbuilding than a true "what-if" alternate history. Maybe "ASB - Miscellaneous". False Dmitri (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Nathan's point is actually quite true, that one POD negates another (which also my point), but such technical matters can be worked on even after the timeline gains the featured status. Similar with Ben, I believe Differently's unique and detailed articles outweigh most of its implausible narrative which is fixable rather than already fixed as canonical. It will be an ongoing process which should not hampering the worthiness of this timeline as a representative of this community works. FirstStooge (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Among the Featured Timelines, the closest equivalent would be Vegetarian World, which is another worldbuilding project that uses the elements of Alternate History to craft a setting, rather than a chronicle of events from a Point of Divergence. My off-site project, the ASB, is a somewhat less ambitious example of the same sort of thing. False Dmitri (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• This timeline is one of the more worked on timeline's i've seen on the wiki. However, there are too much POD's that make the story a bit confusing for me. As well as some that contradict each other. But overall i would still classify it as worthy of being featured.

Fredrick II, Holy Roman Emperor (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

After two weeks, the vote is 10-7 not counting Atli (the nominator), 11-7 if you count him - either way, failing to meet the ⅔ threshold. I'm going to close the vote, and also add a note to the rules clarifying that the nomination counts as a vote in favor. False Dmitri (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Viva California

This timeline appears to be a very early featured timeline that was grandfathered in, and in my opinion it doesn't come close to the standard of other featured timelines that would come after it. There is very little content, maybe 10-20 pages, and very little content on them. Even the California page, the center of the timeline, is a stub, and the timeline page is also very narrow in scope and short. After numerous conversations on discord about there being several potentially undeserving featured timelines, I've decided to get the ball rolling by nominating one for review that I think everyone will agree on. Emaliay (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Emaliay (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Centrist16 | Talk | Wiki 20:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Scrawland Scribblescratch 04:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Vandenhoek (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Reesesistastylol2439 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • VC is not terrible by any means, but it's really underdeveloped and stands out as such among the others on the list. False Dmitri (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • T0oxi22 (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • HawkAussie (Talk) 09:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Solace II (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • PhysicalMediaHound (talk)I had to look up this timeline. I had no idea it existed. And yes,I agree,there is very little content to justfiy it's rank as a featured alternate history. The guy who created this timeline is inactive now,and there's very few new changes around. I'd say remove it as a featured alternate history. 15:37,January 9 2022 (UTC)
  • The Man from Gianyar • Say hello! 00:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • User:Yelper Kelper
  • Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 13:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • FP (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Qarlonc II (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Objectors

• Discussion

After two weeks the vote has passed to defeature Viva California. Vandenhoek (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

A Southron World

A pretty run-of-the-mill South Wank, with very little explanation of how the Confederate States won the civil war, or much exploration after. The project as a whole has very few pages and little content—even the CSA page is a stub. Of the pages that do exist, there are some comically implausible pages such as this which put the whole timeline into question. All around I don't think it's deserving of featured status.

Emaliay (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Emaliay (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • HawkAussie (Talk) 01:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Qarlonc II (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • T0oxi22 (talk)
  • This became a featured timeline a decade ago with one vote in favor, zero against. This is past due. False Dmitri (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Sure, let's remove this. Thewolvesden 17:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The Man from Gianyar • Say hello! 02:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yikes. Solace II (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Scrawland Scribblescratch 02:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Nathanadrian (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • PhysicalMediaHound (Talk) False Dmitri does make a good point. If one person voted and that was how it was featured,then there really is a problem. 12:44,January 28 2022 (UTC)
  • FirstStooge (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • FP (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Are there any others out there with barely past the threshold votes? Yan Hoek (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Vandenhoek (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • StopYourStupidActs (talk) 3:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 21:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Objectors

• Discussion

After two weeks the vote has passed to defeature A Southron World. Vandenhoek (talk)

Ætas ab Brian

Almost all of this timeline's content has been deleted, and in its current state there's only about two pages. This appears to be part of a rework, but the timeline has unfortunately been in this state for several years now (it looks like the timeline hasn't been added to since 2012). Regardless of what people may feel about the timeline in its prime, I think in its current state it's undeniably undeserving of featured status. Should the timeline return to its former glory it can be re-nominated, but in the meantime I think this needs to be removed. Emaliay (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Emaliay (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Centrist16 | Talk | Wiki 21:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Vandenhoek (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • In its current state I think it's indisputable. The author may have intentions of reworking it and is somewhat active, but at this point it's been 10 years with no update, addition, or announcement. In my opinion if you're the author of a featured timeline, the impetus is on you to announce what you're doing, ensure it is always in a presentable state, or if not, voluntarily withdraw the timeline from featured yourself. For me though that is moot, as having read as much as I could of the pre-deletion version, I don't find it very feature worthy. T0oxi22 (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The Cambridge Computer! (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Qarlonc II (talk) - A time traveler becomes a Roman general and adopts Jesus, naming him "Jeff Brian", raising Jesus to become governor of Egypt. Augustus names the time traveler the next emperor inexplicably, he becomes a Mary Sue. There's no consequences of this, and he has a perfect reign, as does his successor. By the early 2nd Century Rome has already conquered all of Germany and a bunch more. This is where the timeline cuts off, and so far it sounds extremely implausible.
  • ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Solace II (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the people disagreeing here either are remembering what the timeline used to be, or are voting no because it feels like a "dick move". However, as it stands what is there even to feature? The timeline was deleted off the wiki. Nate on discord said it best: the author already de facto defeatured the timeline themselves long ago. Renereve (talk)
  • Nathanadrian (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Surprised this didn't happen years ago. Kuupik (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yan Hoek (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Objectors
  • False Dmitri (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • FP (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Discussion

C II R is definitely still actively making edits and responding to messages. The thing to do would be to speak to him about his intentions regarding the timeline before doing this. False Dmitri (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You're right that as a courtesy he could have been asked first, but whatever intentions he may have, that doesn't change the current state that the timeline's in. Featured status isn't for what a timeline might be some day, it's for what it is currently. Emaliay (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, we know that C II R has edited the timeline and responded to messages since then, but what Emalia meant was that no new content has been added in ten years. In the intervening time, the major changes to the timeline has been removing content. Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 04:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

A bit torn on this one. The Man from Gianyar • Say hello! 08:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

After two weeks the vote has passed to defeature Ætas ab Brian. Vandenhoek (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

President McCain

This timeline met the bare minimum to become featured in 2011 with only 2 people voting. I don't think it's even the best McCain timeline or the longest (there's 2 featured McCain timelines oddly enough). It's very overoptimistic, maybe even "wankish" toward McCain, and I think many of its writings haven't aged well. It's a relatively short timeline (both in length of writing and length of time covered), and I think was abandoned soon after being featured. Qarlonc II (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Qarlonc II (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Solace II (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Renereve (talk)
  • Nathanadrian (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Emaliay (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree wholeheartedly on this one. Cheers – The Man from Gianyar • Say hello! 13:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Centrist16 | Talk | Wiki 18:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Kuupik (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yan Hoek (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Scrawland Scribblescratch 03:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Objectors

• Discussion

After two weeks, the vote to defeature President McCain has passed. Vandenhoek (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Merveilles des Morte

By far the most prominent massively collaborative timeline to appear recently. That level of engagement alone would make it a good candidate, but it also happens to have a huge amount of both writing and graphics of the highest quality. It would have been featured a while ago, but we're out of the habit of making nominations. False Dmitri (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • False Dmitri (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 01:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Renereve (talk)
  • Centrist16 | Talk | Wiki 01:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The Man from Gianyar • Say hello! 02:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Vandenhoek (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Former Cambridge Computer Owner (Talk) 04:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yan Hoek (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Qarlonc II (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Marrybore (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 03:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Objectors

• Discussion

After two weeks, the vote to feature Merveilles des Morte has passed. Vandenhoek (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The Maxorata Empire

I believe this timeline is truly a breath of fresh air from most of the timelines on this wiki which are usually centered on the United States and on European countries like Britain and Germany. The history of the Canary Islands' Guanches and of the divided kingdoms of Maxorata and Jandía is a part of history ignored by—or unknown to—most. The point of divergence it presents, the social consequences the creation of the state of Maxorata has, its relationship with European powers like the Kingdom of France and with Spain... these are all fascinating details. I say we give the Guanches a chance! Hong_Xiuquan (talk) 15:27, November 20, 2022 (UTC)

• Supporters

• Objectors
  • While it's always great to see TLs focusing on a different part of the world, I don't think this one meets the featured criteria - yet. It only has 18 pages, several of which are stubs. Yan Hoek (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • It has grown since the last self-nom, but it's still not at the same level of detail as the other featured timelines. False Dmitri (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Vandenhoek (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Per above. Doesn't cut it yet for featured status. Centrist16 | Talk | Wiki 19:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • T0oxi22 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 19:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Scrawland Scribblescratch 20:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Emaliay (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Marrybore (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC) I object
  • JorgeGG (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • Perhaps what "Maxorata" needs in order to properly deserve to be a featured TL is for more creators to help out with the timeline. It's a very interesting ATL with a lot of potential, but with hardly any attention or editors. Lots of people could add their touch, each one saying which parts could be more interesting or more creative, polishing it all and transforming stubs into proper well-written pages. MrWoodward (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • It is simply not at the level of quality that makes a timeline worthy of being featured. Being featured not only requires, in my view, a considerable quantity of content which is lacking here, but also well written and thought out material. This timeline is fun but I am not yet convinced of the central conceit, the small island nation of Maxorata becoming a great power overnight, conquering large swaths of territory, entering the world stage, and then the rest of history plays the same outside it, Francoist Spain, World War II, United Nations, etc. Scrawland Scribblescratch 20:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • After two weeks, the vote to feature Maxorata Empire has not passed. Vandenhoek (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Toyotomi Japan

This timeline is fairly bare and underdeveloped, with almost every page being a stub (even the Japan page itself). The history page is essentially blank and the timeline page is brief. The POD is not adequately explained (simply saying that Yi Sun-sin died therefore Japan conquers Korea), and would probably qualify as a Japan wank. The rest of the timeline doesn't improve much from there, having Japan quickly turn into a multi-continental, colonizing empire in the 1600s. Emaliay (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Supporters
  • Emaliay (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Centrist16 | Talk | Wiki 22:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Vandenhoek (talk)
  • ArchesAtSea90 (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • JorgeGG (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Respectfully I find the quality inadequate, independent of the length or level of detail; I don't find this timeline plausible or well developed T0oxi22 (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Renereve (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC) I believe this timeline displays a lot of ignorance of Asian history, so it's hardly good representation as the "Japan-centered featured TL". Additionally it's most definitely a wank (20 years after the POD and Japan is already colonizing America?)
  • Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 22:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • (ᵒᴥᵒ) Fizzyflapjack (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 
• Objectors
  • False Dmitri (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Solace II (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 06:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Discussion
  • I'm supporting this review, looking through the timeline some key ideas are underdeveloped or poorly explained (whilst, at other times, good research and writing capability is shown). For example, First Global War (Toyotomi), which is marked under the category of "World Wars" and stands out as a major event, is extremely short, despite the territorial changes (and, expectedly, political changes) that would come about as a result (and its successor, the Second Global War (Toyotomi), is extremely short and not expanded in proper detail). The timeline is clearly well thought-out in some areas, and I must compliment its well-considered conclusions and research in parts (I was impressed by the consideration of economic factors that lead to the French Revolution (Toyotomi), for example - which shows an understanding of how so much can contribute to regime change), but with little content and lacking many pages, or explanations at other parts, I can't support it staying featured, unless there is clear intent of a large-scale cleanup and expansion. ArchesAtSea90 (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Objections seem to be about the length and level of detail rather than the quality per se, and yeah it's shorter than TLs tend to be nowadays. This is one of the very oldest timelines in the wiki. I don't see it as inadequate, though. It presents and develops an AH scenario and creates a plausible alternate world. That's what they're supposed to do. That History page seems not to be meant as anything other than a set of links, and links are to well-developed narrative pages. It also stands out as a Japan-centered featured TL, something that's otherwise pretty lacking. We definitely need to add more variety to our featured list because these old ones stand out as being old - they have a Web 1.0 look and they've been on the Main Page dozens of times at this point. The answer to that is to add more. Keep the old ones in our featured library as part of the collective body of the wiki's work, while promoting newer, fresher material. I'm personally a bit frustrated to be the only user here to make any non-vanity nominations in the last three years. All this tearing down, I see nobody rushing to build up. False Dmitri (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Archiving vote after two weeks. Vandenhoek (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)