The Future of UL137
A lot of countries had integrated UL137 (formerly Mazan) into their histories. Most (but not all) of admin team agree that we need to "keep UL137 arabic." Therefore to give some visibility to discussion about the future of UL137, I have decided to post some of admin conversation about the territory.--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2016 (CEST)
Map changes brainstorming
So far, admin team have been trading some sketch maps which would create a new "arabic" homeland in the south and some new, smallish free territories in the north, along with an endorheic sea along their border. Most recent draft is:
- I like this idea, just please do not break the continuity of the Barsas River with a lake. I worked with Wal to correct and make the river flow more naturally through the original country of Mazan. If you could move the lake to a different location, farther east (or west), that would be wonderful. Thank you. Bhj867 (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2016 (CEST)
- I'd like to have this disucssion, but I'd like also to know if it is collaborative, as I think if it isn't it should be up to the country's owner to decide what happens. The whole of xMazan should now be cleaned, so that xriver no longer exists in the territory? @Bhj867 I don't know which lake you mean - while preserving the integrity of the Barzas in Pretany (& Sathria) the river could now have an entirely different source & course? And of course it would be great to have some endorheic basins as in the real world.
- I like the ideas that you have proposed to create a collaborative status and distribution of landforms, especially to create an inland sea and desert regions. I agree with @Bhj867 to respect some rivers, lakes and mountain ranges that neighboring users have made, in my case, the Egyt Mountains in the west (in the border line with Pretany, Sathria and Castellán) and Caolia river in the south.--Kalh79 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2016 (CEST)
Name changes brainstorming
Luciano made some suggestions for a new name (I think objects in the territory require new names in order to respect the intellectual property of the previous owner).
- 1) Ardallah (ard-alllah from أرض الله) "Land of God"- the etymology transparent
- 2) Mamlakat al-Janub (maybe Aljanuba(s) or Januba(s) in a more westernized form) (from مملكة الجنوب) "Southern Kingdom" - this parallels Morocco's Arabic name Mamlakat al-Maghrib, which simply means "Western Kingdom"
- 3) al-Bandalus (Bandalusia) "Land of Vandals" - the same etymology as al-Andalus (modern Andalusia, Spain) but taking a different derivation route
- 4) al-Muwaḥḥidun (Muawahidun) (from الموحدون) - named following the same etymologyical route as the Almohad Caliphate - muwahhidun was a 12th c. religious movement that emphasized moderate temporal rule, and was behind the amazing multicultural flourishing in Arabized Spain in the middle ages
In fact, all of these names could be used - one for the country and the others for provinces.
Proposed ownership status
User Kalh79 suggested taking on ownership of the territory. My own suggestion would be to make a collaborative "arabic homeland" (a purple country), which would be basically free-to-edit but with the covenant that it be arabic in character.
I'd second the idea of some more self-governing states in the north, to create a cultural bridge to the more "European" Pretany. Have there been any thoughts yet on the relationship this "arabic" world had with the north during medieval times? In the real world the Arabic world preserved much of the ancient Greek's knowledge for example over the dark age in Europe, so during the renaissance that knowledge was readily available to Europeans again. I'm not proposing to copying that relationship for OGF, but there are probably heaps of interesting cultural influences one could come up with.
Another question I always find important with new territories is, what order of magnitude should the population be? Mazan seemed quite densely populated considering it is a desert territory, with many very large metropolis. Any thoughts on that yet? (And on another note; is it ok to ask for the reason the territory changed ownership?)Leowezy (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2016 (CEST)
- I agree. We need some more Greek or maybe Turkey like states to the north for the cultural bridge. With the Romantian influences in Pretany (Classical Latin) I think this is completely feasible. but the problem will be getting new users to agree to these terms. Bhj867 (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2016 (CEST)
- Agreed. We should probably keep the entire territory blue and then develop it the way we want then? Break it into sections and start the construction of a realistic cultural bridge, king of like Gobras City on a large scale. My main point is UL137 is in a strategic spot bridge cultures. How we do that (or not do that) is a matter of technicality. Bhj867 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2016 (CEST)
- The question is if they are blue territories, we risk that new users edit without following the guidelines established for UL 137. The same would happen with the northern states, they should be states such as Turkey and the Balkan states. My proposal is the same as Luciano, UL 137 a purple country and the northern states a green states but as Konsiat, for advanced users only. The admin team must inform advanced users who choose these states, on the requirements of free countries. What do you think??--Kalh79 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2016 (CEST)
Thanks for posting this Luciano.
I'd be 100% behind making UL137 collaborative, and being Arabic (speaking). Consideration of the country's religion would be very important.
I can see pros and cons of separating off the territories north of the purple area, perhaps the biggest con being that these territories 'going their own way' could very much complicate the narrative of relationships between the area and Pretany, Castallan, and Sathria. Would these be better as small collaborative territories?
As with e.g. Gobrassanya, I'd expect that determination of the population numbers would follow the mapping, rather than being preset, but how this is decided would be for the mapper or collaborators on the country.
Names to be determined by collaborators/owner, rather than predetermined .
Complicated is not necessarily a bad thing, for Pretany at least. we still don't have a Christic or "Islamic" homeland yet and we do need that bridge of culture. I am interested to see how this plays out long term. Bhj867 (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2016 (CEST)
- @Bhj867 - you know I like complicated. But for you and for the other countries round about, it would be harder to develop these bridges if individually owned countries 1. become inactive or 2. don't want to be bridges. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2016 (CEST)
If it gets collaborative, an idea about UL137 could be to make it highway free or at least suburb highway-only area. I am tired of everything getting bombarded with highways, but first we should talk about the general topographical resources, UL137 could have. If the desert delivers oil, highways are common, so it is "walking on a knife's edge".
A Lake discussion Wal and I were having
We were having a discussion prior to this about placing a large inland sea in the west of his country in replacement of the Perm River (The river I was never really fond of, name or design). The discussion was being had on my talk page. The last thing I said to him was that I didn't know if it would be a good idea to place an inland sea that large, that close to the Egyt mountains and that we should get the opinion of the entire community first. I also would like to scale down those glaciers near the border with Sathria. They are too large. Here is a copy of that discussion a short exchange we had. Bhj867 (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2016 (CEST)
- == Inland sea ==
- oh hey! I would like for you to work out the geography of your country first. Elevation. An inland sea that close to the Egyt mountains may not be the best idea, but we can see how it may or may not play out. My topographical map is available on the pretany page if you need a reference. I would also like to get some feedback from other users on the aesthetics of an inland sea on the location of our shared border on Uletha itself. , but <------ This is definetely the area I had in mind. Roughly a sea in the area of the Perm River. I am not a fan of our river border in this area. It is not realistic to me to have a river with that many meanders in it for that long. A large inland sea there would be more ideal, but the elevation in that area is extremely high due to it's position near the Egyt Mountains. It would give us an opportunity to develop the towns in that area of both of our countries though. Not much has been done there on either side of our border. At the moment it is basically a 150 miles wide, by 300 mile long empty space. Bhj867 (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2016 (CEST)