Talk:Waldo Canyon Fire

Wildfire Low‑importance

	Waldo Canyon Fire is part of WikiProject Wildfire, which collaborates on wildfire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Colorado Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Colorado portal This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

Pyramid Mountain Fire

The Pyramid Mountain Fire was a separate fire from the Waldo Canyon Fire. From the Colorado Division of Emergency Management: The Pyramid Mountain Fire occurred yesterday and was contained. It is not the same fire as the current Waldo Fire. Updating page to reflect this. --Aliceaitch (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

It seems to me that it is time to reorganize this article into a more integrated prose style (it's already half-way there, but could use a little more work), to move it away from the timeline style that tends to predominate as an active wildfire article is edited (see Lockheed Fire for an extreme example). This wildfire was contained and extinguished nearly a year ago now, so I doubt there will be many new developments. I would appreciate any thoughts other editors here have regarding how best to go about this, or please feel free to be bold and make a copyedit to the article. Thanks! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone (living in Colorado Springs) who has been involved in editing and updating the Waldo Canyon fire article, I feel it would not be beneficial to remove the timeline format. There is just too much detail to put into, basically, a simple beginning-middle-end format. Because of the length of the fire, I feel it remains necessary to show the progression of events. It is because of analysis of the WCF progression that changes have been made in our city/county/state which have been successfully used to improve our response to subsequent fires. And even though the recent Black Forest fire has caused more material damage (in an area not as cleared of potential fuel as much of the WC burn area was prior to ignition), BFF was able to be contained in about half the time as WCF partly because of the lessons learned from the latter (and partly because the terrain involving BFF was much smoother than the rugged canyons and hillsides the WCF hit much closer to our city). RJBaran (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That hardly seems an objective response. Living in Colorado Springs does not make one editor more of an expert on this topic than another who lives elsewhere (FWIW, I too live in Colorado Springs, but I don't see how that's relevant to the article). The overly detailed play-by-play entries are an expected instance of recentism as a wildfire unfolds, but they serve little or no purpose in an encyclopedic article. I see that User:Causa sui has also taken issue with this, as he recently tagged the article with {{overly detailed}} along with other issues. A year after the fire, the time has come to edit this down to more concise and encyclopedic article that is easy to read and navigate, for the benefit of our worldwide audience. If RJBaran meant to imply that this article is useful to Colorado Springs city officials, I certainly hope they have access to better reports than this Wikipedia article! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments and have made edits to improve grammar, clear up the progressive time line, and correct tense issues, as this wild fire occurred in the past. The page read as though the fire was currently occurring, and so I edited it accordingly. I also removed pieces of the article that appeared opinionated rather than based in fact. Please let me know if there are any other edits that you feel would improve the article.--DBKJRDUCCS (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Waldo Canyon fire. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20121119173929/http://inciweb.org/incident/2929/ to http://www.inciweb.org/incident/2929/

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} 08:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Waldo Canyon Fire. 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/20130618143013/http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23451177/black-forest-fire-evacuation-zone-expands-winds-lightning to http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23451177/black-forest-fire-evacuation-zone-expands-winds-lightning

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) 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on recovery

It would be interesting to see the article updated with information on damage assessment and recovery in subsequent years. Here are some links to start:

— Molly-in-md (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]