Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wildfire

Wildfire Project‑class

	WikiProject Wildfire is part of WikiProject Wildfire, which collaborates on wildfire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the page attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.WildfireWikipedia:WikiProject WildfireTemplate:WikiProject WildfireWildfire articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Bravo/Thank you

Bravo for creating this project, and thank you for inviting me to participate. Froid (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Froid: welcome aboard!!! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely help! :) Evancahill (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First article under the project (for me)!

This isn't my first wildfire article project, I've written/edited a few. But, thanks for inviting me to join and I just started a stub for the Cold Fire (wildfire). Hoping I can get over tomorrow to add a picture (I live about a 45 minute drive from there). Thanks for starting the project! Missvain (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Thanks again for creating Category:Wildfire articles needing images - posting it here for others. I've copied the the CAL FIRE logo to Commons from enwp, and starting to go through USFS and CAL FIRE photos. Some of what they tweet/post isn't their own work and thus isn't PD (often it's hard to tell!). - PKM (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PKM: Am I to understand that work published by CALFIRE IS public domain?!?!!? That would be AWESOME! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's by California government personnel in the course of their duties, it's public domain. CAL FIRE has a fabulous photo set on Flickr for the Ponderosa Fire, but those have a copyright on them - not sure if that's because they hired a photographer, or just aren't copyright experts. I think it's correct to assume that any photo on a CAL FIRE info site without a specific copyright is PD-CAGov. - PKM (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PKM: well that changes everything!!!! I knew that USFS stuff was PD because it was federal. For some reason I didn't realize it was true for local as well. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Barbara Wildfires

I am writing about all the Santa Barbara Wildfires in my sandbox. I am not done. Currently, I am working on the Romero fire. I am not done with any of the fires, just templates for the fires. Hope you like it! Rcd178 (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rcd178: awesome! I actually live in Santa Barbara so a big fan of that! One piece of advice though. I would edit those articles in place. Better than rewriting them and doing a copy-and-paste job. Make sense? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'll get it in my spare time! I won't have much time, because I'm going on a trip. Thank you! Rcd178 (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherpa Fire

Hello all! Sherpa Fire has been nominated as a good article. Midnightblueowl gave an awesome review. Would love any and all assistance improving the article. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox wildfire

@Froid, Rcd178, Evancahill, Missvain, Antandrus, Michaelh2001, and LightandDark2000: Hello all! So couple of notes about {{Infobox wildfire}}...

First, I have added a new category: Category:Wildfire articles needing coordinates. Basically if a page uses the template, does NOT have `is_season` set to true AND does not have coordinates, then it shall appear in the category.

Second, I am considering add infobox map to the wildfire infobox and wanted to get some feedback. For those who aren't familiar, this template basically makes use of the coordinates supplied to the infobox and overlays them on a map. You can also supply a custom icon to use on the map. For an example, look at Los Angeles International Airport. Now this one uses three separate maps... I wouldn't advocate that. But having it show where in a state, or country the fire is would be pretty cool. Then, instead of having the plane logo, we could put a little flame. File:CJC Flame.png For example. Any thoughts?? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a map to the Infobox. I was going ask if we could have that ... - PKM (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PKM: haha! Will do. I'll get on it tomorrow. Too tired for template work right now... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PKM: it is done! Still tweaking a few things but the base functionality is there. Let me know what you think! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Excellent! - PKM (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines

Perhaps it's pertinent to establish some notability guidelines for seasons and individual fires, in line with existing guidelines on events. Some articles run the risk of being PROD'd or AFD'd in the near future. Sounder Bruce 03:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: the first line of the Guidelines states By convention, only fires that exceed 1,000 acres (4.0 km2) are deemed notable enough for their own article, unless there is significant loss of life and/or property.. Do you think we need more than that? Perhaps we can just move that to its own section called "Notability guidelines"? Thoughts? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that there are fires of 1,000 acres or more that could (and probably should) be merged if they burn in remote areas. That is, do we need an article on a fire that does little more than burn a few thousand acres of wilderness, is mostly monitored rather than actively fought and peters out at the first winter's snowfall? I think there could be some more selectivity than "burns 1.5 square miles." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I won't dispute that. The 1,000 acre mark has been a rule of thumb for the last year or so. But doesn't need to be LAW. Absolutely open to discussion. :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that putting a hard limit based on acres burned might be a mistake. We should focus on significant media coverage (not locally, but regionally or nationally) to determine notability. Sounder Bruce 04:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof and SounderBruce: I put together a start: WP:WILDFIRE-NOTE. I think the important thing to note is that if a fire meets NONE of those criteria, I don't see anyway for it to be notable... I could see a scenario where a fire meets one or two and still is not notable... Thoughts? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bluecut Fire in the news

I have nominated Bluecut Fire to be features "In the news". If anyone wants to voice their opinion on whether or not you think it should be featured. You can do so here: In the news candidates. Thanks!! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New fire article

There is a new fire in SB County that just started.[1] I'm going to try to create an article about it when new info comes out. Evancahill (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Evancahill: funny story.... I was just at that fire!! That being said, we are still working on the notability guidelines for fires but this one doesn't really meet the notability standards yet. It is just a run of the mill fire. 600 or so acres. Some campgrounds evacuated as a precaution. No loss of life or structures damaged... Unless something changes it doesn't meet the criteria in my book. If you strongly disagree, please discuss here before creating the page? Thanks!!! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Evancahill (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Evancahill: good news!!! Rey Fire just broke 1,000!! I've created the article. Would love your assistance with it. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK! :) Evancahill (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'uncontrolled'?

Is uncontrolled really the defining characteristic of wildfire? Does a forest fire suddenly become NOT a wildfire once it is contained? Why should anthropocentric concept of control define this natural disturbance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekELee (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does "contained" mean "extinguished"?

On the talk page for Loma Fire, TJRC posted the following:

Calfire announced again today that the fire is 100% contained, and this time that's also been reported in multiple media sources (e.g., [2], [3], [4]). But my understanding is that containment is not mean the fire is extinguished; it's still burning, although contained in geography. Given that, I think it's premature to use past tense "was a fire"; it still is a fire; and no end-date should yet be on the infobox. In contrast, the {{Current wildfire}} template should be removed, given that that infobox declares not only that "this wildfire is still actively burning" (true), but also that it "has not been 100 percent contained" (which is no longer true.)
— TJRC, Talk:Loma Fire

I think this is an EXCELLENT question that warrants discussion. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, once a fire is deemed 100% contained, it shifts to a past tense. Yes cleanup work may still be taking place, litigation may still be in the works for perps, investigations on going, etc. But Once a fire is 100% contained, even if it is still burning within its containment lines, in the fire community the fire is considered "out". --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, in retrospect, I think I've come to agree with you, in particular for another factor not mentioned. The 100% containment event seems to be the final update provided by the firefighting unit. For example, in the Loma Fire, there's not going to be another statement from CalFire saying that it's out or extinguished; and that in turn drives the media coverage, so there presumably won't be a published news article marking some hypothetical "extinguished" event.

Given that, most wildfires won't have a bright-line date for end-of-fire other than the 100% containment date. Even if an occasional fire did have such a date documented, I'd rather be consistent and use the same event, containment. Someone studying wildfires may wish to analyze duration, for example, and consistency on this makes the data more usable. TJRC (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:METEO

How does this project relate to {{WikiProject Droughts and Fire Events}} (a subproject of WikiProject Meteorology)? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of fires in the Southeastern United States

I'm not sure where to start, but a map with this newspaper article suggests a Wikipedia article is warranted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vchimpanzee/2016 Southeastern United States wildfires is what I have done so far. I don't think it's any condition to move to mainspace, but with some effort by others who know what they're doing, it seems likely to pass.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today contradicts WVLT. There's no way the total number of fires is so low, but maybe USA Today is counting them differently.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I sort of resolved the issue. Meanwhile, I decided to move to article space. If it's a mess, you have only yourselves to blame for not watching this page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I am getting help. I'll leave it to the rest of you. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Current wildfire

Wikipedia:Current wildfire is presently a redirect to Template talk:Current disaster#What qualifies as 'current' where there is a 2015-rfc about when a wildfire should be described as "current" and have the {{Current wildfire}} template on the article. The redirect has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 27#Wikipedia:Current wildfire, your comments there are invited.
I suggest that the result of the RfC and the supplement to it in the following section be combined and added to the "Guidelines" section on the main page of this project which also cover, in part, current wildfires. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Fire (2003) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cedar Fire (2003) to be moved to Cedar Fire. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Current Major Wildfires of 2017 (Help needed!)

I made an article page for the 2017 California wildfires a while back-- many incidents have broken out since then. However in the last couple of days, several MAJOR wildfires have broken out throughout California. Two of which are the Alamo Fire and Wall Fire. I need help creating good constructive articles for both incidents and I'd appreciate if any of you in this project could help me do that. I've yet to start an article on the Alamo fire although the incident is very interesting on its own-- (It burned a mere 175 acres, was about to be contained, but then exploded into 19,000 acres in a single day.) But anyway, just more help on creating articles for and updating the 2017 California wildfires would be greatly appreciated! --DanEverett45 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just became active again because there's a wildfire in my area that just became visible. Just realized it was the Alamo fire. I have some good pictures.Evancahill (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whereabouts are you? There's a huge major wildfire buring near Goleta now. Probably the Whittier fire? --DanEverett45 (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's the Whittier fire, I had trouble getting information on it last night. I have some decent photos of the smoke, I might use them. Evancahill (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire List needs edits

I am new here so please be patient with me. I have been working in the fire industry for 15 years and I feel like I can make some quality contributions here. I look forward to working on this project. To start off, I would like to get some feedback from the group on this page: List of Wildfires This list doesn't specify the criteria for the list and it's description is very vague. I would like some suggestions on what to do to fix this page. I've made a post on the talk page. Mreed72 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]