Talk:Black Saturday bushfires

Further naming discussion (March 2 onwards)

A few things regarding the naming of this event and the title of the article:

1.The shortcomings of the "February 2009 Victorian bushfires" title are becoming apparent as several of the fires that started on the 7th of Feb are still burning and we are now in March, making the current title incorrect.

2. The prevalence of the term "Black Saturday" has been continuously gaining prominence in common usage, non-commercial media sources have also begun using the term and I, as one of many residents in Melbourne, have heard the term used on a few occasions in day-to-day conversation.

So it appears that we have two leading possibilities for the naming of this event and the subsequent title of the article: "Black Saturday bushfires" and "2009 Victorian bushfires". Given the increased prevelence of the former title and understanding the fact that we have a dedicated article for bushfires in the 2008-09 season, I am in support of the title "Black Saturday bushfires" Nick carson (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the renaming of the article to "Black Saturday bushfires" as I have also heard it being referred as such in the Canberra and Sydney TV news reports. Scrooke (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not totally in agreement that the term "Black Saturday" is what the fires are now called, however, I do like that name's ability to focus the fires on the tragedy of Sat 7th Feb. Currently we have fires that have broken out in the month of Feb and now the article is having March fires added. Come on, fires happen in Australia every summer, but we all know that the 7 Feb is what is actually notable here. Fires that fall out of this can go to 2008–09 Australian bushfire season. Some focus now needs to be applied to the unwieldy beast (albeit scrupulously referenced) article. --Merbabu (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose rename. I haven't heard "Black Saturday" being used for the bushfires that commonly, while the term is used for other calamities (List of Black Saturdays) Kransky (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support renaming it Black Saturday Bushfires, as that distinguishes it from other events and focuses on the fires on the 7th/8th rather than somewhat of a list of fires during the season. Kransky, you must have your head in the sand then. [1] --27GV (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose rename for this article. Black Saturday Bushfires should only be about the 7th of February not after the 7th. February - March 2009 Victorian bushfires could be better suited. Bidgee (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - with reference to Bidgee's comment, perhaps then we need an article about he 7 February disaster only, which doesn't include a listing of all subsequent fires.--Merbabu (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, but can't we simply move mention/description of the other fires not on the 7th to here? >>> 2008–09 Australian bushfire season that is the correct place. --27GV (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to move a few, but got reverted. --Merbabu (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Merbau's comment. There needs to be a page specifically about the situation and happenings on the 7th of Feb, Black Saturday, if we are to name it that. People keep directing to 2008–09 Australian bushfire season, but that is just a summarised Australia-wide page, it is not specific to the other fires that have happened and does not do them justice. Maybe a 2008-09 Victoria page? Also we might want to look into this rather swiftly as the fires could very well flare up again tomorrow. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 14:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC

Just to clarify, what the article is actually called is of less concern to me, rather it's the scope of the article I'd like to see narrowed to the 7 Feb disaster and events directly related to it (say, a mentions of the benefit concert). Although, I'd be supportive of a name that made that scope 7 Feb scope obvious. cheers--Merbabu (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay well we have a majority in support of renamming the article to "Black Saturday bushfires". The title focusses the scope to all fires which began on the 7th of february (or early feb at least) and all subsequent fires that were unrelated to the early feb fires shall be mentioned, included or moved to the 2008-09 Australian bushfire season article. I'll let some more discussion be had before I actually change the name. (Bidgee, I understand where your coming from, but the dedicated season articles can contain all general info about bushfires in oz, for major bushfire events, such as these widespread fires and the Kinglake firestorm, Black Saturday really does hit the nail on the head. Let's hope that names that fall into common usage in the future are a little more creative) Nick carson (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the name was reverted as we had discussed it here and have a majority in support of the name change. I let it sit for a while to allow further comment to which end none was made and the situation remained unchanged. I then proceeded to change the name and fix links in other articles only to discover that it had been changed back. Please revert back to avoid edit wars and any further changes must be discussed here first. Nick carson (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Please read Wikipedia:Requested moves in the Requesting uncontroversial moves section which states "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial.". Make a request in the Requesting potentially controversial moves section. Bidgee (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Any opposition against the renaming of the article to "Black Saturday bushfires" is irrational (which should not be confused with any judgement of character) as the alternative proposals "February 2009 Victorian bushfires", "2009 Victorian bushfires", "February-March 2009 Victorian bushfires" are non-specific to the particular fires ignited in early February 2009. All subsequent fires such as the Yarra Flats bushfire, the Daylesford bushfire, etc, come under the scope of the 2008-09 Australian bushfire season article. Also of note is the fact that the overwhelming focus of the scope of this article is on the fires ignited in early Feb, specifically the 7th, in which several firestorms took hold such as the Kinglake complex, Murrindindi, Churchill and Bunyip State Park, the intensity of these firestorms and subsequent complexes are uncomparible to that of all subsequent fires, further strengthening the case for the focussing of this article's scope on such fires ignited in early Feb. Nick carson (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the current name was changed without consensus from "2009 Victorian bushfires" to "February 2009 Victorian bushfires", so if anything we should revert it back to the former. Nick carson (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats your view Nick but when you have an article were 1 or 2 people oppose the move out of say 3 or 4 then you should always treat it as controversial. Black Saturday bushfires should only be used for that (7 February 2009) day not for any other fires and I neutrally feel that name doesn't suit this article. I neutrally feel that a new article on the Victorian bushfire season should be started with some part of this article moved into that (Along with parts of the Australian season moved into that article). Re: Not my issue if this article was changed in the past without a consensus (As I've not read that discussion and we are talking about now not last month). Bidgee (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not my view...

"February 2009 Victorian bushfires" - is no longer relevant as the fires started on the 7th have burnt into March now. This is not my view, opinion, etc, this is just the reality of the situation.

"February-March 2009 Victorian bushfires" - may be relevant to Feb/March bushfires, but does not fit the scope of this article which deals with fires that started on the 7th (or early feb at max definition).

"Black Saturday bushfires" keeps with namming conventions for other major bushfire events, days, firestorms, etc. It keeps with the scope of the article's subject matter. I would have thought that something a bit more creative like Grey February or Silent Saturday, etc, would have been more appropriate but you can't overlook how it ties in with naming convention for bushfire informally established over the last 150 odd years. In addition, Black Saturday has fallen into common usage, not just in the commercial media, but also in community and public media, print, radio, TV, everything, and common usage; I live just west of Warrandyte, the boundary of Greater Melbourne and the bush and have a good perspective, however these direct observations only serve as anecdotal additions as the common usage across all aspects of the media is enough to reference and cite verifiability here on WP. Nick carson (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I agree Black Saturday is achieving popular usage I just don't think these fires should use the same naming convention as other fires because events like Black Friday and Ash Wednesday occurred primarily on one or two days before rain came, these fires have burnt for almost a month without containment and continued to pose threats on days other than Black Saturday. Indeed lives were only lost on one day but the fire sizes etc have developed over the weeks. Having said that I see no better alternative and agree that the current name is now invalid. Just my two cents --60.241.89.119 (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the mainstream media have been calling it "Black Saturday" now for long enough for it to be appropriate for use in the article title. But it doesn't need to be edit warred over. - Mark 06:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with you, just remember that it isn't just the mainstream/commercial media that dictates common usage, there are many other factors that come into play. Nick carson (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Black Saturday" has it's advatanges, but it's clearly not going to get consensus. How about "7 February Bushfire disaster" or something similar? The word disaster is important as it focusses on the fact that these were not just you average summer bush fires. (yes, I know that losing bushland is a disaster and this happens all the time, but it is not in the same scale as 7 Feb) --Merbabu (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not really up to us to determine what the "best" or "most appropriate" name for this event would be, as much as I'd like WP policy to be amended to enable such discussion, it just sin't up to us. This is an encyclopedia and all content must already have been published, be verifiable and naming should have entered common usage which I have already explained. Please read my comment above on each of the predominant suggestions for naming. Naming and scope are both valid points to discuss, not merely just scope. Nick carson (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming the article "Black Saturday" would be clearly misleading because the article covers weeks and weeks of developments, not just a single day. The fact that the name is in dispute is irrelevent because the article is not only about the first Saturday anyway. I do agree that the term is far from universal, and does appear to be being pushed by the Herald Sun more so than the wider community.144.140.22.4 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be misleading, doubly not clearly. The scope of the article has been stated several times above (those fires that began in early feb as a max definition) as we have a dedicated 2008-09 Australian bushfire season article for all other fires. Black Saturday warrants a dedicated article as it was one of, if not the worst, bushfire conditions which led to a firestorm(s) that claimed many lives, burnt around half a million hectares of land and destroyed thousnads of buildings. The reason why it encompasses 3 to 4 weeks worth of chronology is because thats is the ammount of time many of these fires have continued ot burn. The name "Black Saturday" was initially pushed far too early in my opinion by all sorts of entities in the commercial media, not just the Herald Sun, but also Austereo Network and Channels 7 and 10, to name a few. It has been almost a month and 'Black Saturday' has entered common useage not only in these hasty commercial media entities but in all types of aspects of society and the community. Nick carson (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support renaming to Black Saturday bushfires. References to the name "Black Saturday" have become quite prevalent in the last week or so in various media reports and the name was mentioned by the Prime Minister at the memorial service. Renaming the article will help to focus on the major events of that day and define the article scope, while of course allowing for mention of events leading up to that day and consequential events. Other significant bushfire events of February such as the Wilsons Promontory and Upwey fires can then be moved to/covered at 2008-09 Australian bushfire season. Melburnian (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well put :] (4-5 in support, 2 opposed, note that the 2 oppositions include one editor who explains that they have not heard the term used in reference to the bushfires although it is being used frequently, and another who supports the focussing of the scope, just not the name, I'm unsure as to why this is not consensus, especially after we have a majority in support, besides, what are we doing here? writing an article about the opinions of it's editors or contributing to an encyclopedia?) Nick carson (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to introducing the "Black Saturday" moniker at this point. It's still too soon to tell whether this term, currently being pushed by some media organisations, is actually going to catch on and be used as the predominant label to refer to the fires. News organisations that are using it are not being consistent with it, sometimes using it and sometimes not. Constructions like "Victorian bushfires" or "bushfire crisis" are still far more common. When the Royal Commission's interim report is out the picture with respect to terminology will be much clearer. --bainer (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment As I am watching for consensus on this article being renamed I must note at this stage that there appear to be 4-5 in support and 4 in opposition. This is clearly not a consensus as of this time and date stamp.--VS ^talk 20:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support rename to Black Saturday Bushfires or similar. All media seems to be using it now. I am strongly in support of any move to make it Feb-7-specific, so that unrelated, non-lethal grass fires can finally be moved out of the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm unsure how we can achieve a consensus when many editors offering their support or opposition are not accurately informed of conditions surrounding the naming of this event. Much of the opposition is misinformed or poorly informed. I don't want to keep repeating myself in the conveyance of information, and I feel it's being ignored anyway. VS, how do we address this problem? Nick carson (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[OD] Response Good question Nick and one that often comes up, in various forms, from various sides of any consensus forming discussion. In a nutshell if you have to repeat yourself too often without swaying results, then its a pretty clear reflection that views haven't swayed to one or the other side of the consensus. From that perspective it would seem to me when I read all of the returns that the comment from Stephen Bain above which states When the Royal Commission's interim report is out the picture with respect to terminology will be much clearer; may offer the most logical solution - because at that point of time an obviously verifiable conclusion can be referenced.'--VS ^talk 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

From what i can tell no-one has responded to my suggestion for "7 February Victorian bushfires" (or the variation "7 february Victorian bushfire disaster". ) Whatever it's merits (or not), Black Saturday doesnt seem likely to get consensus soon. Thus is my suggestion a good compromise? It's certainly specific like the BS proposal. --Merbabu (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Merbabu, I think I responded a while back, it is a good compromise, ideal for this interim period. VS, the name "Black Saturday" can easily be referenced from an abundant variety of sources, so it's not a question of validity, nor appropriateness, as I said, the opposition to "Black Saturday" appears to be misinformed and/or unaware. Nick carson (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Merbabu, I supported you above, when I said, "I am strongly in support of any move to make it Feb-7-specific, so that unrelated, non-lethal grass fires can finally be moved out of the article." I suggest simply adding a "7" to the front of the name ("7 February 2009 Victorian bushfires"). The presence of minor fires in the article, such as Wilsons Promontory, is distracting and annoying, and seriously detracts from the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the renaming of the article to "Black Saturday bushfires", due to widespread useage of this name, and I am strongly in support of any move to make the article 7 February specific. (Pwhytcross (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Update - So, as of May 14, we have 6 in support (several strongly) and 2 in opposition. Nick carson (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you make this happen Nick? I don't know anybody who doesn't use the term 'Black Saturday' when referring to the fires. I doubt many users type 'February 2009 Victorian bushfires' when searching for this page - three months on, most probably wouldn't even remember that they occurred in February. The naming of terrible bushfire events is traditional in Victoria (the name 'Black Saturday' was used by both Melbourne newspapers on 8 February - the morning after the fires), and this continuing history should be respected. I propose the we change the article's name to 'Black Saturday Bushfires'.(Pwhytcross (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

I wish I could, and I probably can, but I don't have the time to learn how to fiddle with redirects, etc, as someone in the past hastily altered the name of the article and created a redirect or 2 or 3 :( In addition, the 2 in opposition to the rename have not really given any valid explanation of their reasoning behind why they think the name should remain as "February 2009 Victorian bushfires". If someone with more knowledge on the intricacies of WP can help out here that'd be much appreciated. Nick carson (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Article scope

IMO, fighting over a name misses the point. More important is the article scope. Sure, a well-chosen name could be very helpful in focussing the article, but the name is not as important as article content and there are other ways. In this new section here, let's at least try to get consensus on the scope. my strong recommendation is to focus on the 7 Feb disaster. This of course includes responses, investigations, consequences, etc. What it doesn't include are in-depth discussions on any fire that happened in Feb with no impact on the 7 Feb disaster. --Merbabu (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Much of the discussions regarding the naming have also encompassed the article scope. The scope of this article should be focussed on those fires than began on or around the 7th of Feb (or early Feb as a max definition). All other fires will be included in the dedicated 2008-09 Australian bushfire season article. This is nothing new, this proposal for the scope has been adopted in the articles for all other major bushfire events in Australia such as Black Friday, Ash Wednesday, etc. Nick carson (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i know the discussion on scope is in there above. I just thought if we can't get agreement on the name at this point, then let's not let that stop us moving on with the more important topic of the article itself. I agree with your comments on the fire season. I will try to move some stuff there as appropriate. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best if we continue discussion regarding naming. Sounds good! :] Nick carson (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pages locked against moving for now

Hello folks - in reference to discussion and attempts to move the article and talk pages I have just now put an indefinite hold on such action. Please come back to me once consensus has been established and I will unlock.--VS ^talk 07:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no need or request for such action to be locked. There may have been 1 or 2 occasions where things have been changed, then changed back in short altercation, but nothing that would constitute an edit war. I'd advise against such heavy-handed restraints and censorship on an open source collaboration without request or need. Nick carson (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's only protected from being moved, so I see no censorship issue whatsoever. Kevin (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no need or request. And when/if we need to move it, we shouldn't have to ask permission if there was never any request or need to begin with. Nick carson (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[EC]Settle down Nick - the lock down is only to prevent moving the page nothing else - Look more carefully there is no mention of an edit war, rather there is a reference to a move war (of which you are a combatant) and such an action certainly doesn't censor anyone - unless you are suggesting that you are being censored for trying to move the page before the discussion to move it ends? Also you will note just above that others are concerned also about your action and you in fact are now returning to say that we should continue the discussion.--VS ^talk 08:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful that the software allows us the flexibility to focus on the content of the article even if other aspects of the article are blocked from change. --Merbabu (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Merbabu - that was exactly my intention. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 08:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps censorship is an exaggeration, but I still am of the opinion that it wasn't requested, needed and is a tad heavy handed. I'm happy to return to discussion if others dispute the consensus which has recently been brought to my attention was not adequate, despite having 3 or 4 in support and 2 opposed. I did also leave time for more discussion before making the move myself, in which time no one continued the discussion. Nick carson (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[OD]Given your interest in the name change, and the number of different opinions it would probably be best, for reasons of transperancy, that you don't actually form the conclusion yourself Nick. I also note that you will not need to come to me to ask permission as you put it, any other admin can consider the conclusion of the discussion on name changing and then unlock the page - for my part I was just offering my services for when that time comes.--VS ^talk 21:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Points taken. Though I would disagree with the assertion that I came to conclusions myself. Nick carson (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission terms of reference

The terms of reference for the Royal Commission have been released which include inquiring into and reporting on "The causes and circumstances of the bushfires which burned in various parts of Victoria in late January and in February 2009 ("2009 Bushfires")" [2] Melburnian (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that :] We could put a reference to the fact that the terms of reference have been set, but it's not overly important at this stage, we'll have to wait till the whole thing has been conducted to get any significant info that'll impact upon this article's content. Nick carson (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nick & Co.I just added external link on Royal Commission page.I don't think it's needed at end of this article.Okay?Thanks for all the workErn Malleyscrub (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for splitting Kinglake/Marysville areas

In making better quality maps it became obvious that the Kinglake and Marysville areas should be split. The fires that affected both areas had separate origins and only merged after a (comparitively small) section from the Kinglake area burnt into the Marysville area. The only reason the two fire areas were merged was for CFA purposes in coordinating the control effort during the fires, this is why we had organised them here on WP in the "Kilmore-Murrindindi Complex" (sometimes also known as the 'Kinglake Complex'). This definition is no longer useful as the two areas were affected by two separate fires. Nick carson (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The CFA terminology was changed at a number of points during the fires. There were at least three different revisions (first Kilmore East/Murrundindi Mill; then Kinglake Complex; finally Kilmore East-Murrundindi Complex North & South). Since this is by far the largest of the fires, I think it would be good to have a paragraph on terminology, then subsections for each of the areas affected within the complex (Kinglake, Marysville etc). --bainer (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, I'll put it in the description of the fires section once I've got some time. Nick carson (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Kinglake/Flowerdale and Narbethong/Buxton/Marysville fires were actually quite separate, until joined by a narrow section. The history of the name changes is of interest, but these two fires should have their own sections Peter Campbell 11:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved discussions

For unresolved discussions from February. Nick carson (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Creation of an animated map, similar to the one used in the 2003 Canberra bushfires article.
• Tidy up news updates, out-dated information, past-tense, etc, throughout the article.

Death toll revision

The death toll has been revised down to 173. The maps will be updated sometime today. Nick carson (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A discrepancy in the numbers in the article remains, perhaps needs editing to explain: in General Statistics section it says 5 later died in hospital, but there is no "in hospital" category in the Location of Deaths section, which also adds up to the same total. There is a 115.128.0.86 (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up and focus

The article is so long, and contains so many images, that the download time is excessive. Potential readers are likely to click off rather than wait for the article to load. Trimming or splitting is necessary. WWGB (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is alot of past-tense information that has been left behind and needs to be removed entirely. For example, in the Kinglake-Marysville subsection, there are updates on how many houses were destroyed by particular times at particular locations (ex: By 9pm, 50 houses were feared lost at X location, etc.) These were posted as information was first comming through, such instances need to be cleaned up and removed, this can be done anytime, as soon as possible.

In the longer term, I think some candidates for splitting up sections would be things like 'International response', 'Investigations', etc. But these are best explored after the royal commission has been completed, at which time the entire article would benefit from a rewrite Nick carson (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a major clean up and a re-focus on Black Saturday needs to occur with this article. Starting with the Background section. McArthur's Forest Fire Danger Index needs its own article. The heatwave section should stay, as it was a major cause of Black Saturday. The Gippsland section should be kept in the 2008-9 Australian Fire Season article. Almost eight weeks have passed since the disaster, allowing us enough distance to safely conduct a clean-up. Like it or hate it, Black Saturday has entered the vernacular and should be the title of this article. (Pwhytcross (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm happy to go through and help out in the next few days, we don't need to rush it, the royal commission will perhaps bring the biggest rush of updated information, but that's not due for a fair while. Indicate your support for the renaming in the section above. Nick carson (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have started the clean-up of this article. The Gippsland Fires section has been inserted into the 2008-9 Australian Fire Season article, where it belongs. While the loss of 29 houses in this fire is significant, the Delburn fire complex reached its peak on 30 Jan and has no connection to the 7 Feb fires (which is the main focus of this article). The publication of "Black Saturday" by Harper Collins, edited by John McGourty, will assist me in the further editing and shaping of this article - which, quite frankly, is a mess at the moment. (Pwhytcross (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Understood now Pwhytcross - please make sure that you indicate the reasons for deletion of material in your edit summary. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 11:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, don't delete information on the fly, just because it isn't in that book doesn't mean it should/shouldn't go, there's alot of info here that was added as the event was current and may be lost if we chop it out straight away, it's gotta be a clinical job. I still assert that the best source of references will come from the royal commission, however, the book will also prove a useful source. Be careful. Nick carson (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Marysville deliberately lit

I have added info on this and a reference, but it is not in perfect citation format. --Biatch (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you summarise the situation, how they came to that conclusion, etc, here briefly? Nick carson (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's since come to my attention that the fire started in a grassy field upwind from a mill near Murrindindi, the fire was spotted shortly after igniting, there are suspicions that it was deliberately lit, but these are unconfirmed as yet. Nick carson (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Newbie here, edited Murrindindi times. Glad to see discussion of "unconfirmed" because that's primarily why I'm being so picky about the start time. There are a lot of power lines next to where the fire started, and "The Age" newspaper reported local resident Pat Mitchell heard a bang as the first alerting event. I have been following the Royal Commission very closely, and they are not allowed to investigate cause, because it is a Police criminal investigation. Go figure! This issue deserves a LOT more media attention, IMO. PleaseExplayne (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The power lines issue is a very sensitive one for governments. Obviously they are, at least at one level, responsible for their safety, but they can also try to blame the private power companies, if they're game and don't want to be sued. In the olden days before privatisation, the State Electricity Commission used to do lots of preventive maintenance, checking things before they broke. Nowadays it's all remedial maintenance, using "rapid" response teams to fix things after they break. It's supposed to be cheaper, but when the cost turns out to be the burning of towns and people dying, it's harder to justify. The preceding is all my own OR, for sure, but it's based on a lifetime of observing the evolution of the power industry. It's good to understand what justifies the various positions. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Following a recent conference with a Melbourne barrister, I am beginning to add verifiable facts that might indicate possible conductor clashing to an objective (=retired) electric power engineer. --PleaseExplayne (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Black Saturday bushfire rename

I have made the move to the new name following prolonged discussed at talk page and after the consensus seems to have moved to this name. I am going to try the rename and see if if brings further concerns. People further concerned with the name change should indicate their concerns below - nothing is set in concrete folks so this is just a "suck it and see" attempt to meet the majority desire. I hope most agree.--VS ^talk 11:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad we're moving forward :] Nick carson (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fixing all links to the 2009 Victorian bushfires redirects now. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. Nick carson (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've used up five days of the week now in naming bushfires "Black ...day". It's not a very sensible, practical or imaginative naming convention. Those with the job of predicting these things reckon we have worse to come. We're going to run out soon!

I really don't like to be driven on these things by the Herald Sun. I don't and won't refer to the fires as Black Saturday HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes your opinion so important? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My first para was an observation, not an opinion. My last sentence was as statement of fact, about me, perhaps in response to Nick Carson earlier telling us that to think like that was irrational. Happy to be accused of that. I'll leave others to judge. :-) (It seems you already have.) My second last sentence IS opinion. We get a lot of that here.

Let's stay nice on this please. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't trying to be rude or anything, sorry! Just making the point; that's what they all call it, so what can we do? Change the wiki name in protest? That's now how it works, we have to go with the most prominent name - which is, like it or not, Black Saturday. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is common. I've been thinking about how the names evolve over time. When I was a young'n growing up in Gippsland, talk of "the Black Friday" fires was common. That name now seems to have been replaced with "the 1939 fires". I'll watch with interest.

I just checked Wikipedia's Bushfire page. Monday is the only day of the week not yet associated with the name of a major Australian bushfire. I hope nature realises. ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Reduction of article size

I've reduced the article size from 143 kilobytes to 122 kilobytes. I moved the responses section into a new article Responses to the Black Saturday bushfires and we may consider moving the 'Investigations' and perhaps 'Timeline' sections to their own articles, but at least in the short term we've got it down to almost acceptable size. I also went through the timeline section, sorted out a few inconsistencies and added a few key events. Nick carson (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the Royal Commission content to it's own article, and made a number of adjustments, reorganisation, moved images, updated information, omitted out of date info, etc. This has reduced the article's size to 114 kilobytes. Nick carson (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

New fire hazard rating system?

I've heard a bunch of news about this new 6-tier system, but I havn't got the time to research it, learn all about it and add it here or at the "Responses..." article. So if others are willing to, that'd be much appreciated. Nick carson (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why have more people paid attention to the russian waterbombers than the new fire rating system? Get your priorities right people and discuss the issues that matter... Nick carson (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There was an article in the Adelaide Review recently about the building standards for defending homes at each level. Ref:

Maxwell, Tom (December 2009). "Catastrophe in waiting". Adelaide Review. No. 358. p. 46. Retrieved 2010-02-23.

I'll leave it up to you to include the info, I am collecting refs for an article on the long-term responses.

Ottre 07:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian waterbombers

I think we need to be careful about what the real facts are in this story. The bushfires have created an emotionally loaded, politically charged environment, with a lot of biased people out there. News stories seem to evolve daily. I'll accept the version that appears in the Royal Commission's report. Realistically, would these bombers be able to easily load up with the required amounts of water in Victoria during a drought? They can't hover over a lake or dam like a helicopter. HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We now have two references for this news, both very recent news items from the same date, and both quite contradictory. It's very unsafe to be specific about what happened. I will simplify the article. HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ABC story is far more reliable (and neutral) and also quotes John Brumby, Idea with referencing on Wiki is to cite content which is stated in the source in which the ABC story states, by changing it to your version is totally incorrect and not a neutral POV[3]. Bidgee (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This article - http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-water-plane-order-cancelled-20091021-h91c.html - is now telling us about an American fire bombing aircraft which had also been under consideration, according to a union. Let's wait a bit until all this news has become clearer. Maybe include the references. HiLo48 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be new "news" on this topic about every twleve hours. Surely it's better to wait until the news settles down than to rush to be the first to edit with something new. The media doesn't always (often?) get it right first time around. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, no use in rushing into things. Nick carson (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath / Environmental effects sections

It's now a year after the event, so some of the natural controversy has faided,overall article seems well put together if complex.The ongoing environmental effects are more easily assessed, such as:Surrounding areas creeks and rivers that feed into downstream fisheries experience raise in water temperature (due to lose of canopy)enough to kill the new fish stocks six months later.All fish stocks at the time of the fires died and had to be buried.This may seem irrelevant to some, but the environment isn't a collection of map grids.Perhaps the anniversary will inspire those hard working wiki editors/ interested parties, to consolidate the existing work.Thanks to all for your efforts, especially Nick Carson.Perhaps a seperate section or new article dealing with the enormous loss of life and peoples adjustment is required?The Royal Commission deserves its own articleErn Malleyscrub (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change?

I've just read this article for the first time and I can't believe the reasons given for the magnitude of the fires. Most people I've seen interviewed, or that I have spoken to personally about their experiences, have blamed the lack of land clearing, owing to strict environmental laws, as the reason as to why these fires were worse than any others in history. Obviously the weather conditions at the time were the leading cause of the fire, but people being unable to clear lands that they have historically been allowed to clear, is the reason so many died. To leave this reason out, but to claim 'climate change'(whatever that means) was a factor, is ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.117.187 (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The land clearing reason is one that you will hear from some sectors of society, but not all. It's not an independent view. You know what climate change is. To say "whatever that means" is an unhelpful comment. HiLo48 (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you'll hear the land clearing reason from those sectors of society without a political agenda, those who simply saw what happened with their own two eyes, which makes it the most independent view you can hope for. And no, I don't know how 'climate change' could account for a few months of dry weather combined with favourable wind conditions. Perhaps you can explain to me how an unproven(well, disproven actually) global theory can account for localised weather conditions? This article has a painful, and unnecessary, pro-environmentalist slant. It's an insult to those who lost their lives and their livelihoods and assumes that nothing can be done to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.116.249 (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To start with, it wasn't a few months of dry weather. It was twelve years. And global climate change has not been disproven. That is a fringe view. Even most of those who argue that it has not been caused by humans accept that climate change is happening. Stop trolling. (And learn to sign your posts.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying to lay most of the blame on global warming for these bush fires is a insult to the dead. The number one reason for why these fires were so devastating was that Green groups would not allow back-burning. Back-burning reduces fuel buildup and decreases the likelihood of serious hotter fires. As usual the Greens are spreading their lies and disinformation all over the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.76.131.131 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this matter here as I suggested. I don't think the article tries "to lay most of the blame on global warming". In fact, the section titled Climate change is quite cautious in its conclusions. You must know that your views on "back-burning", etc, are not universally held. Others hold different views. (See the section on the Wilsons Promontory fire.) And content in Wikipedia articles must be reliably sourced. That's why you cannot simply remove content you don't like and add your own opinion. If you want the article to say something more about back-burning, you must find a source and link to it from the article. It would also be wise to bring your proposal here firs for discussion before adding it to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

While some of the initial inquiries hinted that long-term temperature trends may have been a factor in the increased probability of the fires occurring, the quoted references do not cite either anthropogenic or natural climate change as a cause of the fires. It is misleading, and possibly politically motivated, to suggest or imply that it is. As to its validity, despite the poor choice of references, this hypothesis has been explored in the academic literature and been largely discarded. For example, see: Crompton, McAneney, Chen, Pielke and Haynes (2010), Crompton, McAneney, Chen, Pielke and Haynes (2011), Neumayer and Barthel (2011). Even the IPCC, on page 268 of the 2012 report entitled <a href="http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf">Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation</a> states "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses [that is, adjusted for exposure and wealth of the increasing populations] have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change". Both the claim, and its references should be removed.

References: Crompton, R. P., K. J. McAneney, K. Chen, R. A. Pielke Jr., and K. Haynes, 2010. Influence of Location, Population and Climate on Building Damage and Fatalities due to Australian Bushfire: 1925-2009. Weather, Climate, and Society, Vol. 2, pp. 300-310, DOI: 10.1175/2010WCAS1063.1. Crompton, R.P., K.J. McAneney, K. Chen, R.A. Pielke, Jr., and K. Haynes, 2011. Reply to the Nicholls (2011) comment on Crompton et al. (2010), “Influence of location, population, and climate on building damage and fatalities due to Australian bushfire: 1925–2009”. Weather, Climate, and Society, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp. 63-66, DOI: 10.1175/WCAS-D-11-00002 Neumayer, E. and F. Barthel, 2011: Normalizing Economic Loss from Natural Disasters: A Global Analysis. Global Environmental Change, Vol 22, Issue 1, pp. 13-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.10.004

130.102.158.16 (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Major rework

OK, so I've now pretty much completed my major rework of the article (mostly done in Feb, but have been delaying for a while while I got around to adding in the updated Building codes stuff). Sure, there's still a lot of improvements that could be made, but I think it's a bit more coherent than it was.

Now the one thing I couldn't bring myself to work on was the Lawsuits section. It's not that big, but most of the stuff in there is pretty outdated, much of it dating to about a week after the fires. If anyone else wants to work on that and update the current progress, then please do. (FWIW I read recently that some of the earlier class actions, e.g., for the 2003 fires, have been let slide without actually taking them to court, but I don't know the current state of these ones).

There are also some dead links still drifting around. I found replacements for a number, or deleted them if they were unnecessary (e.g., duplicating what another ref already said), but there's some I couldn't find a replacement for, so if anyone wants to check up on that ... --jjron (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, while on refs, one thing I definitely learnt while going through this article is that refs from The Age and the ABC are far more reliable than those from News Ltd (Herald Sun, Australian, etc) and other web news sources such as Yahoo news, regional newspapers, etc. By reliable, I'm not just saying they're more accurate or whatever, but that they're far less likely to become dead links. Only a couple of years after the fires I was surprised by how many of the News ones had become dead links, while as far as I can remember all the Age and ABC ones were still there. Just something to bear in mind if people are contributing to these articles in the future - as much as possible source refs from The Age and ABC. --jjron (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.76.131.131 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about fire ban timings

Marking this this article question which was posted in the article by User_talk:NathanTCollier. Not sure how it can be addressed, though. Dl2000 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor grammatical change

I changed the sentence in the 'climate change' section. I do not believe that it changes the intended meaning. The sentence, as originally written, seem to be suggesting that global warming was a consequence of bushfires. I have split the sentence, and made explicit the converse. I do not think this will be controversial Jhunt29 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

:-) HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black Saturday bushfires. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215011337/http://www.canberratimes.com.au:80/news/local/news/general/prisoners-help-fight-beechworth-blaze/1429502.aspx to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/prisoners-help-fight-beechworth-blaze/1429502.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Black Saturday bushfires. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090224220121/http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/incidents/images/news_image/130209_Beechworth_Fire_Newsletter_FINALAM_(2)_21551.pdf to http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/incidents/images/news_image/130209_Beechworth_Fire_Newsletter_FINALAM_(2)_21551.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090209073134/http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au:80/article/2009/02/08/49421_news.html to http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2009/02/08/49421_news.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090313151520/http://www.police.vic.gov.au:80/content.asp?Document_ID=19190 to http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=19190
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090224220055/http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/incidents/images/news_image/Yea-Murrundindi_MediaMap_20090208_0015_21109.pdf to http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/incidents/images/news_image/Yea-Murrundindi_MediaMap_20090208_0015_21109.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090118001216/http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au:80/incidents/incident_updates.htm to http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/incidents/incident_updates.htm#1476708465993
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090210111138/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,27574,25027063-1243,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25027063-1243,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212123437/http://www.borderwatch.com.au:80/archives/2307 to http://www.borderwatch.com.au/archives/2307
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090516031620/http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/NewsRoom/BushFiresRoadClosures/ to http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/NewsRoom/BushFiresRoadClosures/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090210115638/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25031605-662,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25031605-662,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215190817/http://news.ert.gr:80/en/world/news/18807-ena-zeygari-ellinon-metaksy-ton-thymaton-tis-fotias-sti-biktoria-tis-aystralias.htm to http://news.ert.gr/en/world/news/18807-ena-zeygari-ellinon-metaksy-ton-thymaton-tis-fotias-sti-biktoria-tis-aystralias.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090910093356/http://mag.alumni.unimelb.edu.au:80/major-feature/responding-tragedy to http://mag.alumni.unimelb.edu.au/major-feature/responding-tragedy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215064620/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hn9MswZT1UDQOM4JFexha4JktfeQD969HIS80 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hn9MswZT1UDQOM4JFexha4JktfeQD969HIS80
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211064832/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/story/0,25197,25032778-5006784,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25032778-5006784,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219142939/http://standards.org.au:80/downloads/091002_Bushfire_Standard_Statement_FINAL.pdf to http://www.standards.org.au/downloads/091002_Bushfire_Standard_Statement_FINAL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black Saturday bushfires. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706123205/http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Documents/Document-files/Exhibits/WIT-3010-003-0287 to http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Documents/Document-files/Exhibits/WIT-3010-003-0287

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"International context" section

The table in this section is unsourced and looks both incomplete and like original research. I note there is a table at List of natural disasters by death toll#10 deadliest wildfires / bushfires that lists this as the ninth deadliest, not eighth. I'm going to remove the table for now and replace it with a link to the appropriate article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Black Saturday bushfires. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/incidents/images/news_image/130209_Beechworth_Fire_Newsletter_FINALAM_%282%29_21551.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C25027063-1243%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331020948/http://crosslight.org.au/2009/03/02/five-minutes-and-its-fire/ to http://crosslight.org.au/2009/03/02/five-minutes-and-its-fire/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211152700/http://wimmera.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/haven-school-hall-general-store-saved/1427514.aspx to http://wimmera.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/haven-school-hall-general-store-saved/1427514.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C25031605-662%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405140432/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=95950 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=95950
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C25032778-5006784%2C00.html

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) 11:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)