Expand : Reread cited refs to see if anything was missed. Can expand/find more info on prevention, especially with reference to building codes for homes on the wildland-urban interface. Eventually, split sections into articles as needed (e.g. Wildfire prevention and Wildfire detection much like Wildfire suppression).
I have reverted your removal of the banner because it is needed as wikipedia articles are to be described from a wolrdwide view, not one just with examples from Australia, North America and Europe. Dentren | Talk 18:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - the problem goes beyond just the use of images. Guettarda (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I just don't think you can back that statement up. A very prominent image of bushfires in Africa heads the opening chapter. There are examples from every continent except Antarctica in the Causes section. Examples from Sumatra, Japan and the Amazon in Fuel. References to Southeast Asia, southern Africa, Mediterranean Europe and the Amazon in Ecology, with a photo from Estonia. Examples from Malaysia, Indonesia and the Bahamas in Plant adaptation. Links to numerous Asian articles in Atmospheric effects, and an estimate of the CO2 release of indonesian fires. Germany, Italy, Spain, Native Americans, central America, the Baltic states and Finland all mentioned in Human involvement. Europe, Southeast Asia, Australian Aborigines and the Phillipines mentioned in Prevention, with a photo from Portugal. Detection is arguably too focused on US agencies and methods, but still includes examples from Europe and a sat photo of the Balkans. European damage costs and Thai extinguishment techniques mentioned in Suppression. The article needs a bit of work, but "world view" is not one of its problems.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we all can agree on the (obvious) underrepresentation (or rather inexistent representation) of images from Africa, Latin America and Asia (or any that part of the world that is not Australia, Anglo-America and Europe). That's enought to justify the template. Dentren | Talk 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
But it's not a problem with the whole article. Can I suggest that a request for picture template on the talk page might be a better option? -Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
If the template is put on the article and not in the talk page it think its a better idea since it directly points out what the article is in need for. Dentren | Talk 16:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not a good article with that template. I've sent it for re-assessement here. It should be fixed or delisted. Szzuk (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems that all Dentren cares about is the lack of images from countries where most of our editors don't live and therefore can't easily get pictures. As of today, the list of images includes:
I think that's one entire continent that is largely non-Anglophone, plus multiple European countries that are not even slightly Anglophone. There are already about 15 'location' type images, and nearly all have been chosen because they illustrate a particular concept. This is not an image gallery. It would be silly to replace, say, a clear image of a pyrocumulous cloud from the USA with a bit of smoke from Thailand merely because the useful picture was taken in the "wrong" country.
I do not think this tag is justifiable. I think it's being used as a badge of shame to embarrass other editors into doing what Dentren refuses to do himself (if he actually wanted pictures from other countries, he'd get them himself), and that does not actually need to be done. There is no rule on the English Wikipedia that the images considered in isolation must be geographically balanced. It's the whole article that matters, and the whole article certainly shows a reasonable amount of information about places for which we don't have clear, usable images.
IMO if Dentren wants to fight systemic bias, he would do more good at Talk:Pregnancy by trying to convince the single white males there that Wikipedia could legitimately include at least one image of a non-white pregnant woman, rather than solely light-skinned women in various states of undress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Please stay on topic, if WhatamIdoing want to discuss about the topic "Dentren" do so at another place, and avoid empty speeches like "do it your self" which obviously leads nowhere.
The are no "wrong" or "right" countries but there regions and forests that this article fails to represent adecuately. In that sence we are speaking about the whole article, if an article about forest fires in Thailand shows only pictures from that country there is no problem but here we have an article with global scope dominated in terms of ilustrations by the countries of the contributors, as WhatamIdoing pointed out. This is not surprise (see WP:BIAS) and it should be dumb to negate this. A problem is a problem no matter if the article has some other good aspecs which it obviouly have as reflected by tis GA status.Dentren | Talk 14:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely not, in this article. If it's a reliable source, and not contradicted by other, better, sources, it might fit in one of the commentary on global warming articles (public opinion? scientific opinion? We don't seem to a have a "media opinion on global warming"), but it doesn't fit here. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 20:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Why? Doesn't even seem related enough for an external link. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 06:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The term "fire season" is used several times in this article but never makes it clear what that means. This is especially confused when used as "year-round fire season" which would indicate it's not a season at all. Is there a better term that might be used? JMJimmy (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The quantitative measurement "percent contained" is frequently used in the media to characterize the state of progress in firefighting a wildfire in the United States. However, it is difficult to find a precise definition. Do you think it would be appropriate to add a section to this article or as an independent article a definition of the quantitative measurement of wildfire containment (e.g., as "Wildfire Containment Percentage" or "Quantifying Wildfire Containment")?
I would have thought that an obvious part of any definition is that wildfire that is contained is no longer wildfire. So surely what should be reported is the size of what is still wildfire. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)