Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes VI (Do Not Post Current Politics or Political Figures Here)

WI: William McKinley survived in 1901? (He later goes on to pass away in 1917.)

View attachment 686695
(This is my first time doing a Wikipedia edit thing yay!)
Part 3
ATL Presidents Part 3.png
Maybe I exaggerated with the "you'll have to give me time"... Well, I didn't say how much, I guess. Here's the infobox and bio of Emperor and Autocrat Alexios V. I'll have the map done later - I'm kinda busy with school rn.

Alexios V (Greek: Αλέξιος Κωνσταντῖνος Κάρολος Στέφανος Ιωάννης Δημητήρος Ἀβρᾱᾱ́μ Μιχαήλ Παλαιολόγος-Δανία; romanized: Aléxios Kōnstantînos Károlos Stéphanos Iōánnēs Dēmḗtrios Abrāā́m Mikhaḗl Palaiológos-Danía; born 10 July 1965) is the current Emperor and Autocrat of the Hellenes.

Alexios was born in the Porphyry Room of the Great Palace of Constantinople, as the first child of the Prince and Princess of Hellas (later Theodore IV and Anna-Maria of Byzantium and Denmark). His father ascended the throne after the death of his uncle Michael XI in 1977, making 12-year-old Alexius the heir apparent. He received his primary, secondary and tertiary education in Constantinople and obtained a degree and masters in economics at the Aristotelian University of Thessalonica. In 1991, he married Duchess Catherine Mavrocordata, with whom he has five children: Princess Maria Irene (born 1992), Constantine Alexander, Prince of Hellas (born 1994), Prince George Pamphilus (born 1996), Prince Philip Simon (born 2000) and Prince Basil Nicholas (born 2003).

When his father died in 2006, after 29 years of reign, Alexios became the Emperor and Autocrat of the Hellenes and reigned over Greece, Anatolia, Cyrenaica, Azania, Erythræa, Antipodæa, and multiple other Indian, Chinese and Indonesian coastal enclaves. Since then, Alexios has reigned as a constitutional monarch, retaining significant powers. Currently, one of the main concerns of Alexios is the rising tensions in the Empire's Azanian provinces, with an ethnic and religious conflict between the Greek ắpoikoi and the native Azanians that has been slowly escalating since 1999.

View attachment 686570

The man in the pic is the actual Crown Prince of Greece, Pavlos of Glücksburg.

After an extensive 1 minute read of the Wikipedia article for "Born in the purple", I realized that it's a title reserved for the children born to a reigning Emperor and that they were born in an entirely lined-with-porphyry room in the Great Palace of Constantinople... I can't be bothered to change the entire lore again, so let's just assume that it changed with the centuries and now it's a title reserved for the children born of the main family line, and in that same room in the Great Palace. By the time Alexios was born, his father Theodore had just become the heir apparent of the Byzantine empire, and him and his wife, who had also just gotten married, moved to the Great Palace.

Family relations: Alexios V is the brother-in-law of the sister of the Emperor of Mexico, Agustín VI, first cousin of the King of All Spain, Felipe VI, and of the King of Denmark, Frederik X, thus being the nephew of the Queen Mother of Denmark, Margrethe II, and is also the nephew of the King of Nubia, Senouthios III, as well as a second cousin of Constantin III of Wallachia-Moldavia, of Peter IV of Croatia and Uros IX of Serbia.

As you can guess, apoikoi means colonist, coming from ἀπο- and οἶκος, meaning "away from home".

Easter egg: an Archimesazon shares his name with a certain bloatmaxxing legend in the bodybuilding sphere.
That's awesome man, makes my heart swell to imagine a world still with a Rome. Really cool wikibox, keep up the great work bro.

2000 to 2002: Midterms and more

In 2000, the Democrats won a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for the first time since 1976, in addition to winning the Presidency and holding the House with just slight losses. This, despite fears of voter fatigue after 8 years of a democratic president and 4 years of a democratic congress and fears of backlash over Clinton's second-term expansion of healthcare to children via reconciliation with strong partisan opposition, left the party feeling reasonably comfortable with moving in a more liberal direction (albeit cautiously, having to work with the still significant blue dog faction)

Also of some note, Charlotte Pritt won re-election for West Virginia governor in 2000. Having gotten the nomination for governor in a hotly contested primary in 1996 and then being swept to victory in the 1996 Democratic wave election, Pritt was nonetheless rather more liberal than the average West Virginia Democrat, and was seen as rather vulnerable going into the 2000 elections. Despite Republican campaigning leading to the GOP gaining ground in the state in the governor's and presidential races, Pritt was narrowly able to win a second term

wv gov 2000 ib.png

Once in office, Gore made climate legislation a priority in his negotiations with Congress

dingell-stark ib.png

The GREENS Act was the result of those negotiations, and is widely seen as a key part of Gore's legacy. Negotiations for the bill were fraught and full of conflict, with a number of conservative democrats uneager about or opposed to various proposed policies and afraid of butting heads with the fossil fuel industries. But Gore was able to apply enough pressure to get a bill passed that took various actions to shift the economy in a greener direction. The bill included carbon pricing (with revenue split three ways between a dividend, funding green initiatives, and deficit reduction), green infrastructure and research spending, nuclear plant construction, as well as other regulations and actions. Liberals took some issue with the subsidization of "clean coal" as well as the relatively low carbon fees, but the coal programs and reductions in carbon pricing (compared to earlier proposals) helped win over some key moderate Democrats (or at least convince some to merely vote against the bill while still voting for cloture, preventing a filibuster of the final bill). Some moderate/liberal Republicans such as Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee, and Arlen Specter were also able to be won over to support the bill

The GREENS Act had very mixed reception even before all the congressional wrangling and sausage-making involved in its crafting. Conservatives hit the bill and the democrats hard, campaigning particularly in coal country. These attacks were counteracted to some extent by programs aimed especially at coal country and other areas reliant on fossil fuels, with some funding for nuclear plants, infrastructure, and research reserved for coal reliant areas like West Virginia. Furthermore, the governor of West Virginia, in what perhaps shouldn't have been surprising given her liberalism but nonetheless surprised many pundits given her state's coal industry, came out strongly in favor of the bill, and presenting a shift to a green economy as a potential boon for the (oft struggling) working class of various coal-reliant areas if done right

Still, at first it appeared as if the GREENS Act could have a significant negative impact on the Democrats going into the midterms, just as the first Clinton healthcare reform proposal did for the 1994 midterm elections. But some things happened to divert attention away from the matter. First, while the climate bill negotiations were ongoing, Democrats passed additional legislation. The child healthcare expansion passed in Clinton's second term as a temporary (by the nature of the reconciliation process) reconciliation bill was spun into a regular legislative action and made permanent, and the healthcare bill also included a federal expansion of medicaid to cover the unemployed and low-income workers (prior to these reforms, some states, having more latitude to set their own standards for medicaid, simply covered the disabled, elderly, parents, and the pregnant). This was (despite conservative grumbling) rather less controversial than the climate bill, and was seen as a positive in the court of public opinion for Gore and his party. Second, the US had entered a slight economic downturn, with unemployment rising somewhat, but Gore and Congress were quick to pass and sign stimulus legislation, and were widely seen as competently handling the situation. And third, 9/11 happened, and shot Gore's approval from middling levels to the high 70s (peaking at 80%)

After the attack, Gore demanded that the Taliban government of Afghanistan hand over Osama Bin Laden - this demand was rejected by the Taliban, which claimed an obligation to give refuge to Bin Laden. The Gore administration then began to prepare for war, and within a month, US military forces had entered Afghanistan. In the chaos of the aftermath of 9/11, pundits didn't exactly know what to expect, but were somewhat surprised by Gore's level-headed response: a strong denunciation of Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban that harbored them, and support for extensive military action against them, but also noting the necessity of investing in building economy and institutions in Afghanistan once the Taliban were overthrown in order to "win the peace" and prevent the country from once again being a harbor for extremism and terrorism in the future (as well as noting that this would be a substantial undertaking and that it would be an effort America would have to play a large roll in bankrolling). This was seen as an attempt to clarify the goal in the intervention and avoid issues seen in the past with Vietnam, but on the other hand was not universally popular, with large swathes of the public in a state of bloodlust and being more in the mood for a simple rhetoric of payback than for the more complicated message of responsibility. Nonetheless, despite conservative attacks on Gore for "not going far enough" in his rhetoric, as well as for his passing of legislation expanding and increasing domestic security and counterterrorist measures that many conservatives urged didn't do nearly enough, Gore and the democrats retained pretty solid approval going into the midterms (though by then it had fallen from the highs of 80%), with 9/11 resetting the board somewhat and giving the democrats a good chance at avoiding the usual midterm setbacks via the "rally around the flag effect"

2002 congress ib.jpg
2002 gubernatorial ib.png

Due to democratic base satisfaction with Gore's accomplishments, as well as Gore's approval after 9/11 and general satisfaction with the course of the war in Afghanistan assisting the democrats with swing voters, the democrats had a second strong midterm showing in a row. As in the 1998 midterms, they lost a handful of seats but retained a decent majority in the house, and in the senate, despite predictions of at least some losses due to various democratic incumbents holding seats in pretty red states, the democrats were able to hold every seat they had won in 1996 (the last time this set of senate seats was up for election, given the staggered nature of the US senate), leading to the first time no party had a net gain in seats since 1982 and the first time no seats changed hands since the ratification of the 17th amendment for direct election of US senators. Having retained control of the house and kept the filibuster-proof majority in the senate despite getting bolder in legislative action, democrats entered 2003 with high hopes of carrying out more of Gore's domestic agenda

Really? The Senate stays exactly the same, not even "no net gain" either way, zero seats changing parties at all?

Yeah. So, when I do these sorts of scenarios, I'll generally decide on some base swing vs OTL results, and then also apply an additional swing to take into account "incumbent advantage" to politicians who won in the previous election who didn't in OTL (and then do some spreadsheet drudgery magic to figure out the new national swing and vote with that taken into account). It was a bit awkward for this since the source I've been using for incumbency advantage for some reason seems to have left out the 2002 senate rate (while having all else between 1952 and 2016), but going with the incumbency advantages for every other senate election between 1982 and 2008, even the lowest would result in the Dems holding every seat they won in this scenario's 1996, and the "base swing" I applied was not enough to flip any more states (Tennessee was kinda close tho). Also note that incumbency advantage isn't an exact science, and I may not even be applying it correctly, but its a pseudo-formulaic thing I do anyway, and just happened to result like this in this case
Last edited:
The Ascension of the Daoguang Emperor in 1811 proved to be the turning point of Qing China, as the country reformed itself and became developed, industrialized and more educated. The 1849 Constitutional Act after 38 long years of reform saw Qing China turn into a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy.

List of Chinese Grand Councilors in the 19th Century


Note: Youlan Ya is otl James Angell, he immigrates as a child to China with his family for more monetary wealth. The name is a rough chinese transliteration
Hmm, interesting. Is this some sort of white supremacist version of ISIS? Taking over and establishing a protostate in Scandinavia?
That's exactly what it is. Though even within the white supremacist community they are controversial for their rejection of Christianity/push for a theocracy based on the Old Norse Religion.


After the 2002 midterm victories, with the filibuster-proof majority in the senate retained, Gore and the Democrats moved to enact further policy action. The 108th Congress would subsequently take action on various issues, including expanding medicare to add a benefit to pay for prescription drugs (with a moderate proposal to deny medicare the ability to negotiate for prescription drugs, as medicare and other agencies can do for other programs, narrowly being defeated, to liberals' pleasure), increases in funds for k-12 education as well as Pell Grants, an increase in the minimum wage, and an expansion of the EITC. The Gore administration also carried out some tax increases, such as raising the cap on the taxable maximum in order to increase Social Security solvency, and other tax increases with the goal of helping pay for the war and rebuilding in Afghanistan to avoid the war from having an undue negative impact on the Clinton/Gore efforts to reduce the national debt (with the outbreak of the war in Afghanistan, efforts to continue the budget surplus seen in Clinton's last years were abandoned, but the Gore administration and Congress were able to keep the debt-to-GDP ratio on the decline that had started under the Clinton administration in the 1990s)

As the 2004 election approached, it began to look like it would be a close thing. On one hand, Gore's reforms and policies had decent approval (the predicted backlash to the carbon pricing and other climate policies of the GREENS Act never really precipitated at the national level, though it was seen in coal country and rural areas), as did the conduct of the war in Afghanistan (despite some grumblings about Bin Laden still not having been found). On the other hand, voters were increasingly feeling some Democrat-fatigue after 12 years of democrats in power, and the Gore tax increases weren't all that popular. Furthermore, the GOP nominated John McCain, who was seen on one hand as a fairly mainstream and acceptable conservative on domestic policy, and who on the other hand took a hawkish stance on foreign policy that many voters found appealing. The Gore administration had taken a cautious, diplomatic approach to conflicts with Iraq over suggestions that they had a WMD program as well as Iraqi refusal to allow international inspectors into the country, also taking a similar cautious approach with Iran - the administration wanted to avoid "biting off more than it could chew". McCain, on the other hand, advocated for a tougher stance against both countries, openly leaving direct military action and regime change on the table, which was fairly popular with the public at the time. Republicans also hit Gore over matters of Afghan rebuilding - claiming the administration was overspending American tax dollars and that the new Afghan transitional government, now freed of the Taliban, should be left with more responsibility to take care of itself without assistance, another idea that had some sway with swing voters

The 2004 election campaign saw the polls far narrower than they'd been in the past three presidential elections, with incumbent and challenger frequently trading the lead. And in the end, the election was the closest since 1976

2004 presidential ib.png

Gore did manage to pull out a win, making history as the first democrat to win a victory that ensured 4 consecutive presidential wins for the same party since Roosevelt's 1944 win. The results, however, saw the democrats essentially losing the entire south (including Gore's own home state), except for a (very narrow) win in Florida, and this was also the first time a democrat managed to win without winning the state of West Virginia since Wilson's 1916 win, as well as the first time that an incumbent won re-election with a smaller win than the first time around since Roosevelt's 1940 win

2004 senate ib.png

The republicans got their first senate cycle of net gains since the 1994 elections, though their gains were quite small, a net gain of just one seat, and the democrats were able to maintain a supermajority, with their losses in the south being partially covered by gains in Alaska and Colorado. This would enable the democrats to replace a supreme court justice with a liberal if an opening were to emerge. It also would have enabled the passage of more liberal-leaning legislation - if it weren't for what went down in the house...

2004 house ib.png

The house saw the democrats winning the popular vote by 2.6% and nearly three million votes. Despite that (and in part due to a controversial mid-decade redistricting operation in Texas that saw the republicans gaining 7 seats in that state alone), the results were extremely narrow, with democrats just winning a technical majority of almost the narrowest amount possible (218, though the independent who was also elected caucused with the democrats). A couple conflicts emerged.

The 107th and 108th congresses had allowed for some somewhat liberal-leaning policy to be passed, but a minority of congressional democrats were rather upset at the abandoning of the more conservative blue dog orientation that had emerged after the 1994 midterms. Speaker Dick Gephardt had managed to narrowly usher legislation through the house despite upset from that faction, but after the 2004 election, the elected democratic majority was so narrow that it simply wouldn't exist without some of the more hardcore blue dog holdouts, which essentially doomed Gephardt's chances at continuing the speakership. Immediately after the election, negotiations among the democratic caucus began, to figure out who would succeed Gephardt

But another development occurred. The matter of gerrymandering hit the news in a big way, with the Texas redistricting in particular (in addition to some other states and their own maps) getting a lot of liberal blame and media attention, for potentially being responsible for denying the democrats enough seats to elect a non-blue dog speaker of the house, and more generally cutting democratic numbers down. A group of liberal congresspeople made a proposal to remove the power of congressional redistricting from the state legislatures, and place redistricting instead under the control of nonpartisan redistricting commissions, to prevent districts from being drawn in a way to benefit one party unfairly in future elections. This proposal gained support among mainstream democrats, and the leadership even considered attempting to pass such a law in the lame-duck period after the 2004 election before the next congress was sworn in, taking advantage of the larger democratic majorities in the lame duck congress. But this generated sizable backlash, with many calling it a blatant act of sore losers attempting to ease their ability to take back control, and with some southern blue dogs in particular also considering it an unacceptable assault of the federal government against the right of states to control their redistricting (despite the constitution clearly stating that the federal government can regulate the redistricting process). The republican party saw an opening, and after some negotiations, a handful of blue dogs simply left their party, changing their affiliation to "independent", and when the next congress was sworn in, democrat-turned-independent Gene Taylor (one of those bolting blue dogs) managed to be narrowly elected speaker, with a majority attained via the republican caucus plus his own vote and the vote of the couple other blue dogs who bolted from the democrats with him

As such, Gore was left with a divided congress, allowing him to likely keep his existing reforms in place but also making any substantial second term liberal-leaning reforms rather unlikely (with both democratic and republican strategists agreeing that even if a 6-year itch didn't emerge to doom the democrats in 1998, and a "10-year itch" didn't do it in 2002, it was rather unlikely that a "14-year itch" wouldn't emerge in 2006 to save the democrats). Gore looked forward to a stormy relationship with congress, with the potential for some bipartisan governance but also the potential for substantial gridlock


(And this will likely be the end of this scenario, because frankly I'm just getting kinda bored of it)
Last edited:
Hello, everybody! I've been a lurker of this thread for some time now, and I wanted to make an infobox of my own!


It's a pretty basic one; the fictional character shown is the Heavy Weapons Guy, from team-based multiplayer hat-simulating first-person shooter Team Fortress 2. Made without the use of any external website, only using Paint.NET, and with no template. I do apologize of it is not up to the standards of this thread.