We've Moved! Just as Gamepedia has joined forces with Fandom, this wiki had joined forces with our Fandom equivalent. The wiki has been archived and we ask that readers and editors move to the now combined wiki on Fandom. Click to go to the new wiki.

Hi Gamepedia users and contributors! Please complete this survey to help us learn how to better meet your needs in the future. We have one for editors and readers. This should only take about 7 minutes!

Talk:Fallout timeline

From The Vault - Fallout Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Talkpage.png
This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "Fallout timeline".
It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article. Please use the forums for these purposes.

I've added all events that happen a fixed number of days after the beginning of the game to the timeline. Ausir 12:29, 28 May 2005 (CEST)

New Plague outbreak problem - no date for this event at Denver design document.
  • At the Quest section (page 65) - Recover Plague outbreak is journal entry: I found some evidence of a plague outbreak in Denver shortly before the War.
  • War was beginned in 2066 (China invaded Alaska).
(more details: Sawyer (when interviewed by you) connected Denver outbreak with Black Ghosts, similar incursion was described at Hoover Dam design document).
I suggest to change a date for plague outbreak in Denver (2066 recommended, see: China) --dotz 14:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I remember a while ago there being certain other 'footnote' historical references (such as PotUS telling everyone to get fluffed about the Oil reserves, and a couple days later getting pwned by congress when he was impeached for jaywalking. Was there a de-flavouring of the page or a lack of credability for the refrences? --Frostedfire 02:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The jaywalking part is still there: Fallout timeline#2075. However, this is all from the Sierra Depot GNN transcript holodisk, which was declared as non-canon by Chris Avellone, as it contradicted the official timeline (the person who wrote it for FO2 didn't bother checking it against the timeline from FO1 design documents), so the official word is that it was modified by bored SAD soldiers. Ausir 02:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Date of Enclave's discovery of Mariposa

In Fallout 2 President Richardson says the Enclave found Mariposa "about 70 years ago", which places its discovery in around 2172. 89.110.20.58 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil Rights

If I am correct, the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. This means, that, in the Fallout time line, African Americans never received equal rights to whites. Is this addressed anywhere in any game? 69.235.46.104 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not addressed in any game, but it certainly is possible (or maybe they did, but much later). Ausir 01:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be an area of question, but I don't think it would matter anymore though. Anyone else have an interpenetration on this little conundrum? 69.235.46.104 06:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I always imagined that Civil Rights passed easily, maybe even probably before 1964. It would be a way to reasonably keep the 1950s society going, if African Americans have no reason to organize and protest, no reason to militarize to get rights, ect. then one part of the 1960s cultural revolution would have not have happened. 98.235.86.209 02:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to the facts that racial segregation is neither mentioned nor shown in the fallout universe, (Including few or no racist characters, no seperate bathrooms/drinking fountains/etc. for whites/blacks, no documentation of any civil rights movements, etc.) I believe that some time after Lincoln freed the slaves, blacks gained equal rights without the need for a seperate movement. JAG90 22:53, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

The timeline diverged after WW2, not in Lincoln's times. Ausir(talk) 23:03, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

MacCready becoming mayor of Little Lamplight

Seems we have a bit of contradicting info here.

The official guide states: "He has served as the mayor of Little Lamplight for two years (since he was 10)" and as Fallout 3 starts in 2277 this would mean he became mayor in 2275. However, the timeline states he became mayor in 2274, citing his dialogue in the game. Can somebody verfiy the latter? // Porter21 U | T 21:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Looked it up, he indeed states he has been mayor for three years at the time of FO3 so I guess that's what canonical. // Porter21 U | T 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I generally consider the guide canon only when it doesn't contradict the game itself (since, while co-written by the devs, it's based on an early build of the game, and has some other mistakes here and there). Of course, it could also mean that McCready can't count properly. :) Ausir 21:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty plausible Ausir. Seeing as how the only knowledge they have is from what they scavenge from outside, the old books, and what ever is passed down.--JimmyBassatti 21:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Game icons

Please don't add the game icons to the timeline. I was the one who started adding them a long time ago, but now I feel that they're cluttering the page too much and they're unnecessary - the references are enough. Also, why did you add {{Sources}} to the top of the article? Which facts do you think need verification? Adding it to the top of the timeline is not helpful, if you think some facts are wrong, just mention it on the talk page. Ausir 19:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As it stands the Timeline is unclear. The canonicity of certain details are questionable or simply missing. Every single piece of information should be able to be referenced to a specific game or document; the {{Sources}} is the most applicable code I could find. Ugly references included in-timeline should be cleaned up with <ref></ref> codes. The mini icons are a convenient way to identify quickly which game or document each specific point derives from. This is helpful for those who are building mods or using it at as a reference and wish to discount Fallout Bible or Van Buren timeline references. ABCoLD 19:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While there are elements of the Fallout Bible which are not considered canon (or at least not entirely), particularly Chris Avellone's Q&A sessions, the Fallout Bible timeline is based on Fallout 1 and 2 design documents, particularly on Scott Campbell and Brian Freyermuth's FO1 timeline and is definitely canon, referenced numerous times by Bethesda as well (and from what I gather from my discussions with the developers, they do consider it canon). There is no reason to discount it, since without it, there wouldn't even be a timeline page.
I guess we could add the icons for Van Buren and Fallout Tactics in order to indicate their non-canon or semi-canon status, but I'd leave the canon sources (including the FOB timeline) without any - only for sources for which we have canonicity warnings in other articles.
Any information that is not referenced is most likely from the Fallout Bible timeline. Ausir 19:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I would like to leave the {{Sources}} in place though until each entry in the timeline has an appropriate <ref></ref> code. Otherwise it's difficult for new people, or those not fully versed in every facet of Fallout, to be confused as to the source of various claims or statements. ABCoLD 19:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the {{Cleanup}} tag I added is more appropriate. Ausir 19:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


Thirteen commonwealths

The thing about the division of the country into thirteen commonwealths is something that Leon Boyarsky came up during the development of FO1 and what was behind the idea of the original picture with the flag, so I restored it and changed the ref accordingly. I kept your change of 14 stars to 13 stars, since, while based on a mistake that Chris Avellone made by JE Sawyer and Tramell Isaac later corrected, I guess it is the only version of the flag seen fully in a game, so it's canon now. Still consistent with 13 commonwealths, though, as the middle flag might stand for the Columbia commonwealth that includes the nation's capital. Ausir 23:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that 13 commonwealths existed, or anything of that sort. I was simply pointing out that the fact that 13 stars are on the flag doesn't mean that there are 13 superstates. It's like stating that because we have three types of Whopper Hamburgers that there are X number of cows. I'd prefer it if the confusion about superstates be kept on the United States page. As it is the timeline seems to mistakenly suggest that the existence of the 13 superstates was definitively proven in the exhibit. (As it stands Bethesda could simply decide that the nation liked the Cowpens flag enough to continue to use it. This seems to be the case, but again is a matter of discussion for the United States page. :) ABCoLD 23:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The timeline diverged some time after WW2, so they couldn't have "continued to use" the Cowpens flag. And Leon Boyarsky did say that the flag was changed because of the reorganization of the country into 13 superstates. I don't see why the flag would be changed first and country reorganized to match it second.
This is not canon, of course, but I tend to think that Richard Nixon won the 1960 election in the Fallout universe and was the one to reorganize the country. Would have been pretty funny to see a big Nixon Memorial in Washington, DC in FO3. :) Ausir 23:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ausir is right. The Thirteen Commonwealths approach has been STATED by a FALLOUT DEVELOPER to be the one they used when creating the USA in the Fallout world. Your doubts are irrelevant - the devs have spoken, and this is the way it is. Shaur M. S. Grizlin 23:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly, the 13-star flag being used in the Museum of Technology could have simply been a mistake by the designers, who intended to have the commonwealths and new flag introduced later but forgot to make the Virgo II flag a 50-star one, and just used the only US flag texture they had. I'd assume that it's not a mistake for now, but I'll check with the devs to be sure. Ausir 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

References and notes

R & N section is messed up...--Cc123 05:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)



2272: Three Dog starts GNR. Is there any concrete evidence to this? All he says is that "even if you disregarded everything I said in the past five years" and that could mean anything; since he's talking about the Enclave, it could mark that he started preaching anti-Eden propaganda in that year.--Amitakartok 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Outcasts

uhm, something random here i've seen that after talking to some of the people from the citadel in fallout 3 (namely scribe bowditch) that the outcasts left the capital wasteland brotherhood of steel at 2276 so maybe someone can like put it in the timeline if they want 67.122.137.53 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)--67.122.137.53 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

thats the 17th century...

seriously someone needs to change that. 1697 is not the 15th century, its the 17th. i tried editing it but the page is locked -Snufleufugus

Thanks

Amata

I do not think Amata was born in the same year like the player char. On his 10th birthday she still was 9 or younger because she did not wear a pip boy.

On the other hand, isn't it mentioned that they've been friends since they were born? And do I remember completely wrong when I say that some of the others at Vault Dweller's age doesn't have a Pip-Boy either? -=KAG=-The VaultNO 01:21, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
Just because she was younger than the LW doesn't mean she wasn't born in the same year. She could simply be a few months younger. Ausir(talk) 01:28, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
Ausir is right! the timeline says that amata was born in the same year as the lone wanderer, however the order puts amata's birth after the lone wanderer's. therefore, amata would be 9 on the lone wanderer's 10th birthday. Wrpen-99 13:29, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Birthdates

What do you guys think about removing birthdates of minor characters, and leaving only the most important ones? They just clutter the page. Ausir(talk) 01:26, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Make a separate page linked to from the bottom: Birthdates. Wouldn't hurt. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/4/4a/Naglowaa_se.gif/11px-Naglowaa_se.gif Tagaziel (call!) 08:01, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Point of Divergence

Waaaaaait wait wait wait. Mothership Zeta added a new thing into the Fallout universe that was BEFORE the divergence yet didn't happen in OUR world. Andrew Endicott should exist in our world too, and he should at least supposedly be abducted, or otherwise "disappear". This kind of screws up the whole Divergence thing... But I like the divergence! It adds a new dimension to Fallout... Domn-117 18:17, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch to think that every missing person from the 17th century would be known today. Deadlykris 02:50, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

"End" of Fallout 3/Broken Steel

Where do we set the mark when Fallout 3 and/or Broken Steel end? I know it's open-ended and may take any amount of time, but as far as I know it's the same for FO2. How was that end point determined? -- Porter21 (talk) 11:56, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

The end point for Fallout 2 was given by Chris Avellone in the Fallout Bible. So we won't have a similar date for Fallout 3 unless Bethesda gives us one. Ausir(talk) 14:33, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess we could still give an estimated end (like the one for FOT). It just looks weird having the start in the timeline but no end; maybe that's just me though ;) Maybe we could hold a poll in the next Weekly Digest on which ingame date people finished all add-ons and the main quest? Not sure about including Point Lookout though, it heavily distorts the end time because a single journey to Point Lookout (or from Point Lookout to the Capital Wasteland) takes a whole month of ingame time. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:13, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
We do have an entry for the end of FO3 under 2277. I suppose it would be better to move it to 2278 and add a note that it's an estimated date. Ausir(talk) 17:35, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I missed it because it wasn't bold like the other game start/end dates. 2278 seems more likely to me; none of my games ended in 2277. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:43, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
actually, there is no way of knowing when the game ends take place. fallout 3's end could take place as far as (and farther than) 2080, if the player waits long enough. broken steel could likewise end in the same year! this all depends on how long the player waits. Wrpen-99 13:33, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Great War

I've realized that the clocks in FO3 may all have the same time set on them, and if they do, I think that it may be safe to say that the world was nuked at approx. that time. If not, then simply forget it.--Master of cheeZ 21:26, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Harold and Oasis

I was reading through and came across a problem and I'm not sure if I'm reading it wrong or if it's wrong.

According to the timeline Harold did not appear in the Capitol Wastes until 2277, dispite saying he's been stuck in the ground for decades and Three Dog saying he saw the Oasis years ago.

Also according to the timeline Bloomseer Poplar arrived in the Oasis in 2252, 25 years before Harold arrived there.

Point of Divergence Theory

Much of what I've read about the Fallout series timeline states that the point of divergence is sometime after World War II. The first thing that comes to my mind when pondering the topic is the actual historical occurrence of the atom bombs dropped on Japan at WWII's climax. It got me thinking. I have not read or seen where the Fallout series mentions those bombs being dropped specifically. I have concluded and believe that the exact moment of divergence is the dropping of the "little boy" atomic bomb on Hiroshima. According to the Fallout mythos and more specifically the Children of Atom doctrine, when an atom bomb is detonated it creates an entirely new universe full of life. If this were the case, then when "little boy" was detonated it could've split the timeline into the two diverging ones, our own and the fallout timeline, where "fat man" was never dropped on Nagasaki but instead developed into a personal nuclear weapon. Continuing with this logic, would mean that every nuclear bomb dropped during the "Great War" would also create divergent timelines, this could account for the minor differences made by the player within each Fallout game. --Truesdmj 17:21, June 4, 2010 (UTC)


As with any thoery, it's mostly just your own personal speculations. The theory must be supported by game evidence to be accepted. The fact that the atomic bomb drops on Japan in WWII were never mentioned in any Fallout doesn't mean that they didn't occur. It might have just never came up by any character to mention that. Or, since the game takes place so many years post-Great War, new generations of people were born and live in desolete wastelands; they simply might not have read any history books at all, i.e. are not educated about this historical event, plus all they care nowadays is avoiding the next raider attack. ;) Plus, the Children of the Atom are just some dulusional religious crazies, you can't take any of their theories for granted. We don't really know if there was no "Fat Man" nuclear bomb. Maybe the mini-nuke launcher was named in honor of it? Aren't you talking LOST here with all its "drop a nuke, create an alternate timeline" stuff? ;) --TheBearPaw 23:39, June 4, 2010 (UTC)


Hiroshima bomb is mentioned in Fallout 3. " I am fully confident that the presence of Liberty Prime at the Anchorage Front line will be to the Chinese what the Hiroshima bomb was to the Japanese in 1945. " Ausir(talk) 00:58, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


Heh... I actually wasn't thinking about "Lost" when I came up with this theory. But as I stated it's just a theory that makes sense to me, I wasn't trying to make anyone accept it. Now if the Nagasaki bombing will be mentioned in any future games then my theory is debunked, but until then I like the idea of it.Truesdmj 20:18, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Canonicity

I noticed some additions to the timeline based on non-released content, for example Fallout: Resource Wars - like this. I believe this "Timeline" article should list only the canonic events, right? All the scrapped or unfulfilled ideas are pretty much meaninglesss and threaten the integrity of the article. What d'ya say? --TheBearPaw 10:37, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, unlike Van Buren, F:RW was never more than a hypothetical project, so it shouldn't be there. Ausir(talk) 09:21, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Revisions and Corrections

Why is this page protected form all editing? It needs some serious grammar checking, general improvement of the writing, and removal of redundancies and irrelevant information. DrMorbius 01:44, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Van Buren?

Why is there so much Van Buren info on the page? Isn't it all non-canon, and contradicted by Fallout 3 and New Vegas? Revolverman 06:32, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

It's not considered fully canon, but it has been referenced in both Fallout 3 and New Vegas and so far it hasn't been contradicted in any way. Ausir(talk) 09:21, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions

  • There are two instances of there being a last manned mission to the moon, one in 2020 and another in 2052. Which is correct?
  • The 1945 discription states that the Fallout timeline diverges at this point. It may have been correct considering the time the Fallout bible was written at, but the later Fallout games changed this. Maybe state that there timeline began to diverge in ernest rather than stating that this is point where it began to diverge as this is plainly untrue.

2228

"The ghouls of Capital Wasteland are driven underground by hostile mutants and humans, forming the Underworld in the Museum of History" I thought a group of ghouls took refuge there and started the ghoulification process and then it just became a home to ghouls. 86.12.86.254 15:42, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ghouls being Ghoulified? De Accipitre Deserta 21:30, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

2277

It says that this is when the Vault Dweller was sent out, except that happened way before fallout 3 started. Am I just overlooking something here or what?

2277 is when Vault 13 was originally scheduled to open in the Vault Experiment. Ausir(talk) 21:19, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Closing of US borders

According to the GURPS timeline, the US closed its borders in 2052 for unspecified reasons, but then FO1 and the Fallout Bible contradict that by stating that the borders are closed again in 2053 to quarantine the New Plague. Should the 2052 entry be removed? Nitty Tok. 01:01, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Eh, forget all you guys. I've removed the GURPS date in favour of the F1 and Bible date. Nitty Tok. 03:41, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

9:49:10 PDT

This is the time all clocks in Capital Wasteland are locked at, if you look closely on some of the clocks that appears in the buildings.

I guess this is the time the bombs struck DC area, 2 minutes after the first bomb (in east coast 10:47 PDT+1)

Some clocks ingame marks 2 or 3 seconds after.

As we know, one side effect of a nuclear blast is stopping all clocks at the time, just like it happened in Hiroshima, so this should be noted, by putting a note First Bomb: 10:47 PDT+1 at the 2077 section.Wertoret 15:04, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Why would the Capital Wasteland's clocks be set to Pacific Daylight Time? They'd be set to Eastern Standard Time at that time of the year; the change that expanded DST in our universe isn't known to have happened in the Fallout universe. --Kris User Hola.jpg 15:30, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

2208

it's a cycle of "mourning", not of morning.

Not sure why you thought it was easier to comment on it here rather than fix it. At any rate I took care of it. --Kris User Hola.jpg 15:11, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ian and Dogmeat die during the course of Fallout 1?

Er, the time table says that Ian and Dogmeat died during the course of Fallout 1, but aren't they still alive in Fallout 2?

Ian was planned to appear in FO2, but was eventually cut from the final version. And Dogmeat's appearance in the special encounter in FO2 is an easter egg, not a canon appearance. Ausir(talk) 12:23, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Which Commentarii?

  • Begin history nerd speech here* Julius Caesar wrote two books named 'Commentarii', one was about the Gallic wars and the other was about the Roman Civil War. /endnerdspeech. Does the source (I assume the guidebook), say which one. Or do I know more about history than Prima does :) FinalWish 19:06, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Garbage

This article is complete garbage, shouldn't there be some mention of some sort of apocalyptic event in the 60's? You know the event that stopped culture from progressing and therefore left the fallout world permanently in the 1960's? i.e still listening to Frank Sinatra ect....?!!?!

I'd always assumed it probably started with the U.S. either winning the Vietnam War, or brutally crushing the counterculture movement on the homefront. --GaussRifle 19:33, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Berlin wall

In are universe it came down in 1989 but what about the Fallout universe --Owen1983 19:25, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

It might not have even been built. Evidence suggests that the U.S. and Soviet Union had a decent relationship after the war, and the universe had already significantly diverged by 1961 (When the wall went up). --GaussRifle 19:35, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout New Vegas Companions births

We should include the birth of the companions of Fallout New Vegas in the timeline.

Ausir's revert

I don't know if you've looked at the diff, but the changes to the article are possibly more substantial than you realised, and despite any perceived flaws, produce a net improvement. Additionally, while it is simple to add the removed paragraph from the top and cite things like information that was previously uncited and remove information that contradicts canon, it requires far more work to make the changes again minus said information, as it took at least a couple of hours before. The perceived problems could have been rectified without a destructive revert. The main changes were as follows:

  • Greatly shortened the opening section, because as I explained on Gothemasticator's talk page, there is a lengthy references section, and the listed sources no longer adequately describe where the bulk of the article's information came from. To list all of the sources would obviously be impractical, that's why the references section exists.
  • Made the formatting of all the dates uniform. This include making known dates bold, and moving undated events to the top of their year's section above the dated events (with a few exceptions, such as undated events which were known to take place sometime after dated events).
  • Spaced each entry evenly, making not much difference to the end user but making the article a lot easier to follow for editors.
  • Removed some entries which were endings of FO1 and FO2 that had not been confirmed by later canon sources (or even contradicted).
  • Added a lot of wikilinks to articles that were unlinked, and removed overlinking.
  • Added dates from the Jericho, Burham Springs, B.O.M.B.-001 and New Canaan documents, as well as misc. other dates from other design documents which for whatever reason were not cited.
  • Added FO1 and FO2 endings that had been confirmed by canon sources (as noted in the games' ending articles).

And about the Jericho dates, I thought the whole point of the Van Buren icon was to denote that the information is from VB and therefore not necessarily canon. As long as that is noted, what is the problem with including the event? You could even put a note on the Jericho citation saying how it contradicts canon, which IMO would be better than removing it outright. I would be happy to address any concerns with the article, but I firmly believe that the changes were overall positive. The article as it currently stands has far more issues, imo, than my revision - I wouldn't have made the edits in the first place had I not thought that. --Flower of Pock-Lips 17:54, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Dates from Van Buren and other non-canon sources are to be included in the timeline only if they do not contradict canon sources (otherwise we'd also have two dates for things like the founding of Caesar's Legion etc.). The New Canaan and Jericho design documents are entirely contradictory to each other, as New Canaan was merged into Jericho during late development stages because of time constraints. Including information from both of them on the same timeline would be utterly confusing to the readers, especially given that you did not even include references for the Jericho additions. Since we know that New Canaan still exists by 2281 from New Vegas, we can entirely discard the Jericho document as contradictory to canon. J.E. Sawyer obviously considers his own pre-merge New Canaan document to be the canon history of that town.
Furthermore, I decided to exclude some of the Van Buren events (such as quite a few of the Burham Springs ones) from this timeline altogether because they were not relevant enough to anything other than their own locations in a canceled game. This timeline is already rather lengthy and I think such trimming was necessary (just like the removal of most of the birthdates from the main timeline). Perhaps it would be a good idea to create a separate Van Buren timeline page, which would include even events contradicted or changed in New Vegas (although even then I'd exclude Jericho design document and include the New Canaan one).
The opening section is there for a reason. There is a difference between indicating references and indicating origin. This timeline is originally based on Chris Avellone's timeline, which was the first attempt to create a coherent timeline of events in the Fallout universe since early stages of development of the first game, and it's in turn based on the Campbell/Freyermuth original timeline. This is independent from references for individual events - it is meant to describe the behind the scenes history of the compilation of this timeline. Even for timeline entries copied directly from the Fallout Bible, we often don't cite it as such, as citations to in-game mentions are preferred. In normal articles, such information would be placed in a "Behind the scenes" section below the main content, but in this case I think it should stay at the top. But it definitely should not be removed.
As I said before, before such major rewrites or important articles like this one or the one at Harold, you should have discussed it on the talk page or forum first. This is a wiki, but some changes have big enough impact to be discussed first before you actually undertake them. Ausir(talk) 18:12, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, I really really hate the bolding of content text, even for know dates. I also hate long intros just as much, they should be short sweet and to the point on the subject and nothing more. What one person might find of interest, another may not and the intro will most likely always be read by the viewer as they are perceived as being vital information, but more often is the case that it isnt. I would suggest the shorten intro followed by a origins section appropriately title, that way the reader will know what the information is about and can make the choice to read it. On a side note I have replaced all the VB icon with the proper {{icon}} template. ☣Avatar☣ 05:42, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
I don't have much of a preference for or against bolding of dates. As for the intro, I don't mind it being moved to a separate section, I only object to it being removed altogether. As for {{icon}}, perhaps also add a tooltip indicating the uncertain canon status? Ausir(talk) 16:23, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
I've created a draft page at User:Flower of Pock-Lips/Timeline. Let me know what you think of it. --Flower of Pock-Lips 16:25, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
Ausir, thats why I replaced all the icons that where using [[File:xxx.xxx]] with {{icon}}, as that has tool tips that says what VB icon is (a lot of readers don't know). As for canonicity, that really needs to be done with {{VB}} and kinda negates the use of the icons. The only thing I can think of, is if Porter wants to put and switch in {{VB}} that allows only the icon showing with the text being moved to a tool tip. Flowers, do we really need images on a timeline. The timeline should really be providing a very brief description of the event and a link to the page. User:AvatarUser talk:Avatar 21:53, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent about the images. I just thought they would be nice to illustrate the more major events. It's the other changes that I'm more concerned about keeping everyone happy with, I don't want to step on any toes. --Flower of Pock-Lips 13:08, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Problem with images is that once you start to add them, then everyone does. Considering the amount of information contained in this page, the page is going to get cluttered pretty quick and actually detract from the information within. The other concern is formatting for both skins as well as in general, images will push the next one down and no longer be connected to what they represent. Other than that, looks pretty good although I would personally cut down some of the information. Some of it is far to descriptive of the event, at the end of the day this really should be viewed as a index of events and provide the basic information and links to more detailed information. User:AvatarUser talk:Avatar 03:17, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I also think it's best not to include images in the timeline. As for icon tooltip, I was thinking of something like this: Van Buren (not confirmed as canon)Gametitle-VB.png Ausir(talk) 03:25, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
Ohhhhhhhh K, so when did someone sneak in the link feature *stares at Porter*. Yeah that works fine for me, I have added it in. User:AvatarUser talk:Avatar 04:08, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

time line correction

its safe to assume for fallout 3 the 5 dlcs take place in order of release therefore pl and mz both take place after broken steel

Timeline muckup

Sorry but there no way all the DLC are before 82. it takes 15 days just to get to zion then antoher 15 days to get back.

creation of abominations

now borous was not very exact but i remember him saying that in 2003 or sometime around 2003 he said that he created cazadors and nightstalkers now should this be added to the timeline because we have the creation of nuka cola and sunset sarsparilla on there the creation of abominaitions should be on the list to dont you think.--Corporal grif 03:47, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

It was already placed there and then removed. The reason being is that Mobius fiddled around with the other think tanks chronometers, affecting their sense of time, so we can't be so sure if the information given by Borous is accurate or not. --Kastera (talk) 06:02, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Despite what was said above, I believe we really need to discuss whether to keep the Battle of Hoover Dam as happening in 2282, or if we should revert it to 2281.

Fallout 3 ending?

Can we stop saying that Mothership Zeta (add-on) is the ending of Fallout 3 as it is just a piece of downloadable content.

-on the official website for fallout it says that mothership zeta is the lone wanderers last adventure in terms of playable content-

Date the Courier was shot

Where does it say that the Courier was shot by Benny on October 11, 2281? -Mark 66.65.254.129 02:39, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Sierra Madre guard suisides

"It is visually conveyed. In at least two different locations you find skeletons of guards with their guns near their hands and a blood splatter hear their heads." Can you please specifly where please? Not that I don't believe you.... Spacificaly about them being guards.--Ant2242 22:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I might have remembered wrong about the second instance, but I am pretty sure there a skeleton in the hotel area who is hunched against a blood splattered wall with a gun in his hand, and guard helmet lying nearby.

There are also many skeletons throught the Villa with weapons, but there isn't any reference to who they are or how they got there. They could be any thing form Survivors of the Gala Event massacre to post-war prospectors.--Ant2242 23:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolving the timeline clusterfuck

Mojave campaign. I adjusted the dates from the FNVGuide to make it a little more sensible. Twenty years in the Mojave and they didn't notice Hoover Dam? Army regulars before Rangers, which contradicts what is stated in game? It's still problematic and makes less sense than I would like for it to do. Plz help. Tagaziel 19:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The most problematic is fact, they discovered Hoover after Fallout 2... Hoover Dam is a much closer than Vault City or Dayglow, but hey, who cares? I'm wonder why Obsidian allowed for such absurd. --Languorous_Maiar 14:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also separated by he Death Valley and natural terrain. It's not as problematic as you make it out to be. Tagaziel 14:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Erm, they had simple conection via Long 15, ignoring Big Empty and other stuff like Divide. --Languorous_Maiar 15:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Which is a pretty long road, cutting through the middle of the desert with no sources of water. Tagaziel 15:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, its called Death Valley for a reason. Cheak my page for my observation about this.
Eerm, after great war almost all America is "desert with no sources of water." That's why in Fallout 1 there is only few cities, all of them need water from Hub." --Languorous_Maiar 17:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
No, a desert with mostley irradiated water. Also the Rads has and will continue to decreace over time.--Ant2242 20:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
What is actually argument for stupidy in non-discovering Hoover dam around times of Fallout 2.  : ) --Languorous_Maiar 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

In Fallout 2 the Republic was still taking its proverbial baby steps. They weren't looking for this structure; they were looking for the other towns in the Core Region to join it. (Ex. The Hub, Vault City, Junktown, the Boneyard)--Ant2242 00:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What about random people? Some merchants? Travelers? They should discover Hoover, say about this in NCR and everything will be ok in F:NV because now it seems that anyone discovered it before NCR.... even Harold traveled from his Vault to Hub, which is more deadly than just going from Shady to Hoover. And in Fallout 2 all cities from Fo1 are part of NCR. --Languorous_Maiar 06:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone did and didn't know what it was. Time is the best memory alterer, the grand children of the survivors might not have been told about it (not currently relevant compared to survival). And somehow Shady Sands when they used the GECK didn't use the "entire library of congress" to find out what’s in the area. Don't ask me why. Maybe they didn't know it did that. Their Vault after all didn't leave on the best of terms.--Ant2242 10:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We've let this stay for a full year

It's about time we fixed the timeline graph or the timeline box to were the actually match up with each other. Shadowrunner(stuff) 04:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I can go though later today and note all of the dates listed on the page and then add them into the timeline box if they're not already there. Likewise, I'll remove any link that leads to a year that isn't listed. --Kastera (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
That's good, I can help do that, but I'm talking about how the line graph to the side and box aren't the same height and don't really match up any more. It's just something that's been bothering my OCD since I noticed it. Shadowrunner(stuff) 19:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering, what practical purpose does a vertical graph serve? Wouldn't a horizontal one be more useful? Tagaziel 20:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the vertical graph works fine. It gets the point across and doesn't take much room where it is. I think that we should work on the page being accurately referenced.--Ant2242 20:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think GhostAvatar(?) made it that way so the date box and timeline graphic were of the same length. It would look kinda clunky if there was a large box and a long row sitting next to it (or above/below one it). --Kastera (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I've tried fiddling with the timeline template before, but when I could never get it in the right size, but I think the real problem is with the content box since it got squashed for some reason when we moved. Shadowrunner(stuff) 22:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think these need to be here

The year the windshield wiper was invented, the cash register was invented, parking meter, adhesive tape? Ok, these don't need to be here, who ever added these is going over board with dates. Shadowrunner(stuff) 00:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I added them because they are referenced in the Museum of History.--Ant2242 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Eh, kinda not important. I'm sure we don't need to state these. Shadowrunner(stuff) 04:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I figured that since it's referenced Fallout lore, it should be there.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
But the stuff about inventions doesn't contribute much to the Fallout timeline. While it did happen, we have to question its significance. I figure that the timeline should only involve events that 1) indisputably deal with Fallout chronology, 2) alter established real word history because of divergence or 3) are important and crucial events that happened before divergence (e.g. WWII, the founding of the United States, etc.). That's just how I'm looking at it. --Kastera (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought that no matter how insignificant they may seem, they ARE referenced material of lore.--Ant2242 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The invention of the parking meter, tape or whatever aren't different then the original dates that happened so it's not lore or divergence. It's just history, which everyone can use wikipedia for. They don't need to be here at all. Shadowrunner(stuff) 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It is lore since Bethesda put it into that placard.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No, not really. It has no effect on anything, it's not a some important, historical event that, like the beginning of WW2 or the invention of the nuclear bomb, it's not some crucial reference point in the timeline. They're just some mundane thing was invented. They're not needed, even if they are mentioned on plaques mentioned. Same goes for the year Bleak House was published. Shadowrunner(stuff) 22:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It IS lore now that Bethesda Added it to the game.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Random history isn't lore. It's irrelevant flavor text they added on a plaque. Not lore. Unless these dates are different from the real world dates, it doesn't need to be here. Shadowrunner(stuff) 05:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It needs to be here because it is lore, regardless of its randomness. This isn't the Divergence page.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
You keep going in circles, y'know. You keep saying history fun facts Beth got from the internet is lore. It's not lore, it's history. It's history that doesn't deal with Fallout in anyway, doesn't diverge from real world events and isn't important in anyway. It doesn't need to be here. Shadowrunner(stuff) 07:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
But what if its referenced history? Is that not canon?--Ant2242 (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
But it's not important. This isn't the B-29 crashing into lake Mead, it's just the year these dudes invented some mundane things. Not extraordinary and not worth a mention. Shadowrunner(stuff) 03:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
There is something to be said about how mundane some entries are. I think unless an event from the real world has an alternate date in the Fallout universe, or a real world event had a significant impact on the Fallout universe, it should be noted. I, too, don't see the importance of the windshield wiper or adhesive tape in the Fallout universe. --Kastera (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If I may, I think there's no harm in including these random bits of information, as long as they are kept to a minimum (i.e. 1892: Xavier Yeoman invents Zanopod, instead of 1892: Welsh inventor Xavier Yeoman invents Zanopod, a machine that makes zany people ever more zany). Tagaziel (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see how they improve the timeline, right now, they're only causing some bloat in the timeline content section. Shadowrunner(stuff) 21:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Start point Fallout 4

Tim Howard said the new PC emerges 200 years after the bombs fall, putting the game start date in or after 2277. Should the timeline be edited to reflect this yet? The14th (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

But do we know right now if that's the exact number of years or just a ballpark figure that was easier to say and remember during the presentation? Commdor (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

John Sullivan Confirms Mexican American War

A phrase (Erin go Bragh) John Sullivan uses confirms the Mexican American War and the Los San Patricios, Saint Patrick's Battalion.SaorailTrodaire (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really, it just means Ireland Forever and is used to show allegiance to Ireland – nothing to point to the Mexican-American War in particular. Besides, the war was before the point of timeline divergence, so it doesn't need to be confirmed: it happened by default. Also, are you sure it was Patrick who says Erin go Bragh? I checked his dialogue and it wasn't there; however, it was in John Sullivan's dialogue. --Kastera (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It is John. But the phrase became widely used after the Mexican American war because of the Los San Patricios, Saint Patrick's Battalion. If we don't need to include it why do we include WW1, Declaration of Independence, Battle of Fort Sumter and etc.? Also technically divergence started in the 1600s when Toshiro Kago is abducted by mothership Zeta. SaorailTrodaire (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
That's interesting. Can you provide a link so that we can read about it as well?
The Divergence started in the 1950s. It's a fact confirmed time and again by the developers of the original Fallouts and any additional fiction added before that point doesn't change that point, because the timeline did not diverge as a result. Tagaziel (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is one source but it does not talk about the conflicting accounts of the design of the flag. SaorailTrodaire (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FEV Flooding and error 413

I'm been trying to remove the mention of FEV Flooding the wasteland, as airborne FEV is non-canon, and dismissed within the last installment of the Fallout bible I keep getting error 413 trying to edit this however. Ideally it should just say "radiation flooding" rather than "radiation and FEV flooding" Runninfar (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, got it fixed Runninfar (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Tour guide's mention of 2052

So, I have a question regarding the Tour Guide's dialogue in REPCONN. It mentions that there was an energy crisis in 2052, but the only mention on the timeline regarding the American energy crisis is just the Fallout Bible's mention of the Texan oil field husk documentary, citing "the energy crisis" with no prior mention before until China's energy crisis in 2066, 14 years after the American one. My actual question is if it would be alright for me to add a short note of something along the lines of "America begins suffering from an energy crisis, prompting companies like REPCONN Aerospace to begin development of new fuel sources." Would that be alright, or should it be substituted for something else? Ss2077 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. No need to ask in the future, you've made a ton of good contributions. :) Tagaziel (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Timeline too BIG

I don't know how everyone else feels about this, but editing this feels terrible and it just seems too unwieldy. I've been adding some dates and fixed the old table of contents that makes things a bit more organized, but I think it might be time to separate years into decades or something similar to Memory Bank Alpha, or just like how Wikipedia handles its year and decade pages. Devsatatin' Dave(ZIP ZAP RAP) 23:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should try to break it up by Biggest Years? Do you think it should in a manner similar to my homepage links to my workbench page?--Ant2242 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
On a separate topic are we crazy about the 4 columns in the RTB template? The Template itself can scroll. Doesn't that negate the need for the columns?--Ant2242 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not against the big years getting pages of their own, but I think we need to combine information of years into decades. And in those decades we go through the major points of a year and then the finer details can be given in the year like your workbench. Devsatatin' Dave(ZIP ZAP RAP) 00:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I personally think that the current, or I guess now old, method of organization was fine for what it was, since Fallout usually relies on hard dates and specific points when it doesn't provide a section of time like, say, the Fallout Bible or dialogue. My biggest problem with the 2077 edit and further edits if done similar to it, would make it much more confusing to not only the casual user, but to any member or patrolman. As for MBA or Wikipedia, while I'm unaware of how they handle it, I'd rather not waste time creating... 50 individual categories, 500 lines of text, and so on just to word what could be put as:

2077

  • 1: Big thing
  • 2: Medium thing
  • 3: Small thing
Into:

2070's: 207X: Medium thing

  • 1: Small thing

2: 2077 (See [ [ 2077] ] for all small things that happened this year)

  • 1A: Big thing

______ Regarding combining decades and leaving the smaller details to individual years, it would be more of a waste if anything, since Nukapedia has kept the same system as Gamepedia for as long as I can remember, and, due to being the self-proclaimed factual wiki, Gamepedia should hold itself to a stance in which it can source itself and provide information in an informative manner, yet not requiring the average user to waste 10 minutes clicking to see the price of gas in 2077 shown in Tactics or when Edward Sallow became Caesar. My main point being that it would need much more conception, fine tuning, approval from other moderators, and so on than it would really gain in the final product. In short, a waste of time for us that makes the experience less pleasing to the average user. Though I would also take it up with Tagaziel or someone first, just to see what they think of it, since they're creating their own little workbench timeline of Fallout 76 events, and probably don't want to come back to find the timeline changed dramatically and the talk page having become a fighting grounds. But again, that's just me. Ss2077User talk 01:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Going over the page, I don't think that by Decades would really work as the bulk of the timeline page is the year of the specific games. ie 2077 2161 2277 2281. As for this "fighting grounds" thing the general rule of the page is that if we get definitive dates or "Summer 2091", definitively, we add it to the page with References as per policy. My only real beef is that we might eventually break the RTB template due to just the sheer number of references.--Ant2242 (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't expect anything to be done with this overnight. It'll take a while to actually get something I think everyone can agree on. I think separating everything into decades might be best for organization and readability. Just right now, I think the Fallout Timeline as a page is getting bloated. Thought I do think Ant's edit to the 2077 section is a step in the right direction. Also, Ant brings up a good point of the poor RTB box that has to keep track of 600+ references. The RTB does break eventually, like with Glossary of common wasteland terms which has 200+ refs but breaks at only the eleventh ref. So avoiding that would probably be best. Devsatatin' Dave(ZIP ZAP RAP) 02:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Should I move "ser:Ant2242/Fallout timeline 2077" to "Fallout timeline 2077"? Whatever Errors that May Have been in the template(s) and the size of the timeline page itself seems to have been solved since the sub page creation.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd just call the pages by the year alone, but keep it in your workbench for now until we figure something out that we can all agree on. Devsatatin' Dave(ZIP ZAP RAP) 16:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

First, thanks for bringing this issue up, I've been editing the timeline to add the Appalachian dates and the sheer size of this monster of an article has been breaking the visual editor, making it impossible to submit edits (just to be clear, my own little workbench was basically a notepad to gather all the known dates in one place for future reference). I think it's high time for a reorganization to make it saner and more manageable. Given the sprawling nature of the game and the story, I've taken a look at a few other sites and how they do things.

I'm very fond of what UESP has done, dividing the timeline first by era, then with two separate articles for all events and only the major ones. Of course, the Fallout series don't have eras, but we could divide it into pre-War and wasteland sections, further subdivided into Major events and all events. For clarity, given the number of actors, I also thought about adding images/small descriptions to denote whether something takes place in Appalachia, New California, the Mojave, or elsewhere, since we often have events happening close by, except on opposite sides of the continent. Thoughts? Tagaziel (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm down for the division into Pre/Post-War events, but further subdivision still seems kind of unnecessary in the long run, for some of the reasons I gave in my previous post, especially since we and potentially other users would have to nitpick and explore every little bit of lore and what not and determine what's important and not. For example, the Great War is a major event without question, but would something like the Quincy Massacre or Arthur Maxson's reuniting of the Outcasts be considered the same? That's just a problem I'd see raised as time goes on and potential missing blanks are filled in, like Van Buren information, possible missing or misinterpreted information, or further Fallout 76 DLC comes out, along with Nukapedia's potential response, but that's just me. As for clarity by the use of images... considering that the Fallout World page and core regions compared to the other ones still haven't been updated in years now (Regarding the Fallout World from California map), we would first need to find some sort of landmark or distinct image or silhouette to mark them. My current take on it would be something like: Appalachia: West Virginia|California: NCR Flag/Californian state|D.C.: Columbia Commonwealth/Washington Memorial?|Commonwealth: Boston silhouette. Otherwise we just keep them listed for the same year, since small descriptions would just add further reading that the timeline would already present or could be inferred by the contents rather than blatantly spelling it out. Ss2077 (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of the eras a lot. We can even do decades like the UESP does with centuries. Also to expand it a bit, we can have "eras" by just explaining the big major event of a certain timeframe, like the events leading up before and to the end of Fallout 1 can be "New California: The Rise of the Master and the Unity" and "Appalachia: The Scorched Plague". It doesn't exactly have to be like that, but I think it's a nice and concise way of conveying what the information in the "era" article would be primarily about and end with. Devsatatin' Dave(ZIP ZAP RAP) 04:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The Problem with Eras is that there are no true Eras in Fallout, ie Meji Restoration, Victorian Era, et cetera. The problem lies in that this list is a compilation of all referenced events. More specifically we've done our jobs so well that the page is getting large. However it is only a few years that are anything more that a few lines of text. Most notably 2077.
I think that we need to separate the page when it becomes a problem. Such as how separating 2077 has alleviated this - now - main page bloat and it had the affect of helping the RTB template. What I think we should do is separate the page like it is now, with only the largest years becoming their own page and us continuing to link to the main timeline page section.--Ant2242 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I've fiddled with it around a bit, to see if I can come up with something. I think the biggest problem right now is that the table is messy due to jumping all over the place. Even simply dividing them according to where they happen using simple headings would greatly help with readability. Tagaziel (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It definitely looks like a good start and I do agree with you about region separation. Jumping from California to West Virginia and back is jarring and I can only imagine the confusion someone completely new to the timeline might be feeling trying to read it. I feel the related column could be cut from the table as I think links in the text offer what's related to the event just fine (I don't feel too strongly about this), but the timeline column is an excellent idea for sorting. Devsatatin' Dave(ZIP ZAP RAP) 21:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
If you're still figuring out the timeline, I've been considering the timeline and the kind of events we generally have. Perhaps we can separate events by the type of event they are? Such as political events, deaths, conflicts/battles/wars, faction events, environmental events, technology/discovery events, personal events, and miscellaneous for anything that wouldn't fit? It might make things a little easier to understand and possibly communicate how important/unimportant that event might be in the grand scheme of things? Devsatatin' Dave(ZIP ZAP RAP) 06:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'm kind of stumped by the size of the thing and I'm considering whether to just make an example of each and go along with it. It's a daunting task, so... Think you can make an example? Tagaziel (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Big Bend Tunnel

It seems more likely that the fall of the big bend tunnel was in the spring of 96 and 97 is simply a typo. For three reasons:

  • The Fire-breather operation to destroy the tunnel is never mentioned in any of Carol's journal entries.
  • The Fire-breather operation is phrased as fighting back into scorched occupied territory and seems to have failed due to scorched.
  • The Morgantown Responders map appears to show a large group of scorched heading up from the tunnel marked by an large bold arrow, this would not make sense if the tunnel's west end was still safe.

Runninfarr (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense, and there have been typos with some of the years already. Is this map in the morgantown airport? I haven't been able to find it. Devsatatin' Dave(ZIP ZAP RAP) 19:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I have a screenshot saved of it I can upload, It's right by Maria Chavez's corpse. Gives a details breakdown of the Responder's idea of the situation just before they lost the airport. Runninfarr (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
At any rate, I think we can prioritize the AVR entries over the journals - didn't the author of the journal break their watch? Tagaziel (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)