Talk:List of California wildfires

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Uncontroversial move carried out by User:Redbeanpaste at 07:24, 9 February 2011.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

---

List of California Wildfires → List of California wildfires — According to WP:CAPS, "wildfires" has no reason to be capitalized. 155.33.172.164 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the move, California wildfires would only be capitalized if the page was about a certain wildfire, not a list of them. Redbeanpaste (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Which fires should we list?

I think we should develop some guidelines about which wildfires we list on this page. There are hundreds of wildfires in California every year, a significant number of which go into extended attack. Listing every single extended attack fire would quickly drive this list beyond any manageable size. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There are different ways to create criteria for this list. The common selection criteria include listing only those fires that are (or can potentially be) Wikipedia articles. We would then use the general notability guidelines, such as appearing in multiple secondary sources.

Or, we can set up our own criteria. This is a little tricky, because there are multiple reasons why a fire should be on the list. It could be size (Rim Fire), structures destroyed (1923 Berkeley Fire), or firefighter fatalities (Rattlesnake Fire). We could establish thresholds for each of these (20000 acres? 100 structures? 5 fatalities?). I don't know if we can come up with satisfactory criteria. —hike395 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have an issue with all the fires of this October being lumped together as one fire. If we do this, then all the fires of the lightning sieges of 1977 and 2008 should be combined also. Most of the fires this October were separate fires only connected by region, the winds (to a point) and possibly the cause. Thoughts? BigWhiteFireDog (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The list of notable fires is missing the second largest fire recorded in California, which is the Cedar Fire of 2003. Also, I agree with the the previous comment that if fires are lumped together then the Old/Grand Prix fore of 203 would rank much higher. It depends on the definition of a fire, it is a land mass affected by fire or a named fire, even if it merges with other fires into a complex. It depends whether the purpose is to focus on impacts or ignition source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.14.201 (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

redoing article

I am looking at redoing this page to be better formatted. Some of the additions I am considering are:

• Formatting fires into a table.
• Table would contain things like County, Fire Name, Start date, Acreage, etc.
• Making sure that ALL entries have at least 1 citation.
• Have a column for fires that are Active vs Contained
• For active fires, acreage should have an {{As of}} date.

Is anyone interested in weighing in on this? Any thoughts? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent plan: tables make better list articles than simple unadorned lists. Even requiring one citation wouldn't necessarily ensure notability --- I'm sure you can find a citation on any of these fires on inciweb or in news archives (fires tend to be very newsworthy). —hike395 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hike395: on the notability front, I was thinking of limiting it to fires over X number of acres. Say 100? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: See above. Sadly, 100 acres is a common size for a fire, and it's not clear that such fires could stand by themselves as Wikipedia articles (see WP:CSC). My criteria, above, may have been too stringent. How about 10,000 acres; 50 structures; or 5 fatalities? That seems to roughly match the threshold for WP inclusion. —hike395 (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hike395: I like that but I would amend it that ANY fatality on a fire would render that fire notable. Also, I think 10,000 is too high personally, but it is a start. The specific number can be debated more later. I also think it has to be somewhat of a case by case basis. Put another way... Any fire over 10,000 acres, over 50 structures and/or 5 fatalities is automatically eligible. BUT, the reverse is not automatic. So a fire that doesn't match any of those 3 criteria is not automatically ineligible. For example, the fire that recently shutdown the I-15 (See: Dozens of cars set ablaze as wildfire jumps California freeway). I would say that even if it was only a 500 acre fire, it was a major story. Tons of cars burned and really sparked the debate about drones over fires. So this IMHO should be included. Just an example... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hike395: Just a follow up, for what it is worth, CAL FIRE considers anything over 300 acres to be a "large fire". Since they are somewhat of the "authoritative" agency when it comes to this stuff, might be good to go with their definition. (See Large Fires 2014). Thoughts? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: 25 fires /year * 100 years of fire history = a really unmanageable table. Even one decade would would be a big table. 10,000 acres would yield 3 fires for 2014, so 50 years of history would be ok (150 lines) —hike395 (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hike395: ah yes, I forgot to mention the best part of my master plan (MUAHAHAHAHA). My thinking was to break this up and create pages for each year. I got some of the idea from 2015 in home video. On the top right there is a template that automatically links to the previous 3 years, and the next 3 years. The page would have a table listing the fires from that year (including Acreage totals, and other applicable totals). The 'infobox/navbox' on the top right would link to previous & next 3 years but would also give stats on # of fires that year, total fatalities, total acreage, etc. I am in the process of doing this for 2014 California wildfires. Give me a couple of days to do this (in my userspace) as a proof of concept? I ABSOLUTELY want feedback comments, criticisms, etc. But let me really flush out my thoughts and show you what I am thinking? Keep the feedback coming! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I think if we follow summary style, then we shouldn't break up this article. Instead, the most significant fires (perhaps 10,000+ acres) should stay here in a table, and you can then make a series of articles like 20XX California wildfires with more details. That way, users can either get a general overview, or dive into specifics, or both. —hike395 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hike395: so in other words, lets do both! On this page, lets do the table and have any fire with its own article (these are going to be the notable ones already!). then I'll work on the 20XX California wildfires pages that will have more detailed information for each year. Sound bueno? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yearly Totals

What do people think about having a section with a table that shows totals for each year? I for one would be very interested to see the year to year stats...

• Total acres/km² burned
• Total fires
• Total structures destroyed
• Injuries
• Fatalities
• etc

My only real concern is adding yet ANOTHER table to this page. Perhaps this should be its only page? Something like List of California Fire Seasons? Would love to hear people's thoughts. @Hike395: be sure to chime in! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Should currently burning fires be included in the Notable Fires table?

I question the value of including currently burning fires in the Notable Fires category. Statistics for the Thomas fire are being updated on a twice-daily basis. I do not think, however, that this category is being updated as often as the table for Largest Fires, rendering the statistics on the Notable Fires table outdated and erroneous. I have added a Note at the top of the Notable Fires table but I think currently burning fires should be excluded from the Notable Fires table, until CalFire has issued a final report on the fire.

Although I am new to editing, I am a long-time financial contributor to Wikipedia and look to Wiki for accurate information in my own research. I don't even know where to look to find all the Wiki places that would need frequent updating as pertains to this particular fire, which is burning 15 miles away from me.

MarthaGee (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)MarthaGee

On a related note, do you know what the source is that gives 271,920 as the size of the Thomas fire? I don't see that number in the main article on the subject, or on the cal fire webpage. (MarthaGee, stay safe!) Should that change by the IP address 47.138.223.195 be reverted? Fanyavizuri (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea where that figure came from. It has since been updated to reflect what was reported at tonight's 6 pm live update.

I am becoming increasingly frustrated by the inclusion of data with NO citations. The last edit to the Largest Fires table includes information which is at odds with the published information available from CalFire as to size of the Cedar fire, and fatalities and property destruction in the Thomas fire. Since CalFire is the governing authority in the case of California wildfires, it seems the height of hubris to arbitrary decide to use information from other sources which conflicts with the official record.MarthaGee (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your sourcing your edits in the comments. Fanyavizuri (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Improve images to better represent scale of wildfires

Main Photo

I suggest replacing the main image since I don't feel it adequately represents the scale of the wildfires as it is an up-close image of trees burning. There are numerous photos and video out there that show entire hillsides and mountain ranges engulfed in flames. There are also skyline photos that show massive swaths of sky blanketed by smoke, the sun being obscured, casting an orange glow across the sky, etc. I think these types of photos better relate the experience of being in an area affected by wildfires.

Largest Fires Section

There are some good photos of the Thomas fire taken from the ISS captured by a NASA astronaut. I suggest adding one of those to this section since the other space photos in the article so far are top-down satellite images. A photo of the Thomas fire would be good for this section since is currently projected to overtake the Cedar fire for the top spot on the list, and there aren't any other Thomas fire photos on the page.

Megastopheles (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added the ISS image Megastopheles (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of California wildfires. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160928014118/http://www.fire.ca.gov/current_incidents/incidentdetails/Index/1457 to http://www.fire.ca.gov/current_incidents/incidentdetails/Index/1457

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Bloat/rename proposal

As a "list" article, beyond the largest, deadliest (incomplete table), and most destructive tables, a lot of the information is redundant or doesn't belong here. I think there should be a statement in the intro of the article mentioning that reliable records began in 1932, and perhaps a section for notable fires prior to 1932, but we don't need the "pre-2000" section, the "notable fires" section (these would either fall into one of the aforementioned categories or else not be overly notable). The "largest California wildfires" template doesn't really add value, and the California Wildfires template is simply a rehash of randomly-chosen fires.

Perhaps this article should be named "Wildfires in California" after removing the redundant/arbitrary sections (but keeping the yearly statistics section). The California wildfires template might be better served with a Seasons row, an Agencies row, etc.

Thoughts? ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Measuring Destruction?

I'm not sure acres burned is a good measure of destruction, since in brush it might be zero (or beneficial) (short term, or long term?) while old growth contains super high stumpage value as well as measurable USFS values such as visual resources. "Acres burned," seems almost meaningless here. Nowhere do I see a measurement of the value of the destroyed timber. Shouldn't that value be listed, even if it's listed as "unknown?" The government agencies focusing almost exclusively on lives and structures and acres seems oversimplified to the point of ignoring reality, or even untruth. Must we contribute to that? Related fun: https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rp283.pdf Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford