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[edit]

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)![edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

@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[edit]

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]

Additional criteria:

Fire costs >$500,000 in fire fighting costs.Tedweverka (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bluecut Fire in the news[edit]

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[edit]

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'?[edit]

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"?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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!)[edit]

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[edit]

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]

October 2017 wildfires siege[edit]

Considering the scope of the devistation in northern california today, I am suggesting we create an

page designed specifically to report and document the fires burning in Napa,Lake Sonoma, Mendocino and Butte. This page would be designed similarly to that of the

-- a seperate article made completely of the fires burning within this area at this time. Considering the amount of destruction and size of these fires it would be a very in depth page, so I need all the help I can get. It would be extremely appericiated! --DanEverett45— Preceding unsigned comment added by DanEverett45 (talk • contribs) 5:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that the page has been created, I've proposed merging the individual articles (or at least attributing copied content properly). Funcrunch (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Portugal wildfires listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2017 Portugal wildfires to be moved to June 2017 Portugal wildfires. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:46, 17 October 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.

Standard wildfire article naming practices[edit]

There's a discussion regarding the standard practice of capitalizing wildfire proper names (South Canyon Fire, Tubbs Fire, etc.) going on at Talk:October 2017 Northern California wildfires. Y'all are invited to join the discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably that discussion needs to be here, since this is where the relevant guideline is, which asserts that "the name of the fire is a proper noun." This of course is the point of contention. In the rest of Wikipedia, we infer something is a proper name if sources cap it pretty consistently. That's not the case with these fires, which are very often not capped in sources, like in today's LA Times. I'd say that South Canyon Fire has achieved proper name status (and nobody has proposed otherwise, unless I've missed something), and maybe these others will, too, some day, but not yet. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these fires have proper names, though. The proper name of a fire incident is declared by the agency which initiated fire suppression. Each incident is named (generally based upon a local street or geographical feature) as soon as the first-arriving responder sizes up the incident and initiates an incident command. This practice has long been standardized across the entire United States. The Tubbs Fire is a specific fire incident in a specific place at a specific point in time. The fire itself has been named. It's not a matter of "achieving proper name status," whatever that means, the fire quite simply has a proper name from the moment it's entered into a dispatch console. Every responder from then on assigned to the incident is responding to the Tubbs Fire and no other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I would add that you are right to move the High Cascades Complex - the proper name of a complex fire is indeed simply "Complex." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that there's an officialdom that treats these as proper names; at the same time, many reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, which have their own styles and editorial staff) do not. And the High Cascades Complex Fires over-capping suggests that a lot of WP editors just copy the caps they see; this is where most WP over-capitalization comes from, and when I see it I tend to just fix it, without looking to see if there's a local project-endorsed reasoning to it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the other page, many newspapers and other media sources do capitalize the name in their own style (including the San Francisco Chronicle) as do academic sources (see link to International Journal of Wildland Fire, etc.) You are suggesting that because some newspapers don't capitalize it, we should ignore the unanimous official sources, the academic sources and the many other mainstream media reliable sources that do capitalize it. This seems entirely backward to me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in the context used is a proper noun.--MONGO 02:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So this is now a discussion occurring at 2016 Fort McMurray Wildfire. I am looking to start another discussion that goes beyond WikiProject Wildfire's naming policy, and covers all event-based articles (e.g. tornadoes, floods, etc.). I'll connect back when I find an appropriate channel or find some answers. --Natural R_X 15:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Fabian Gonzalez[edit]

Jesus Fabian Gonzalez is an article about the arrest of a homeless immigrant self-admitted arsonist who set fires in the same area not longer after the giant wildfires killed 41. There seem to be number of editors determined to keep this incident out of Wikipedia even though there is a balanced treatment of media and authorities who believe he is dangerous and might be linked to the larger fire and immigration issues and those who believe he is harmless and not notable and only a minor routine arrest like a convenience story robbery. Please look at it and the request for deletionBachcell (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Badger Creek Fire[edit]

Hi there. Is Badger Creek Fire notable, and where is it? Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I found the location, roughly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ash pit image[edit]

Does anyone have a photo of an ash pit? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Fire (2018) listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Camp Fire (2018) to be moved to Camp Fire (wildfire). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Holy Fire (2018) listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Holy Fire (2018) to be moved to Holy Fire (wildfire). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mann Gulch fire[edit]

Pinging members of this project that there is an editing dispute at Mann Gulch fire. I have requested that the article be full-protected at the status quo ante version. There is a need for new eyes and third opinions. The wholesale revision that triggered this dispute is in the article history. The discussion between the two primary editors is at the talkpage, as are my comments and those of a couple others. I am not a wildfire expert and think the article dispute should be reviewed and resolved by those who work regularly in this area. My own choice to become involved stemmed from having been asked to step in. I would prefer to step out. I am available to add my 2 cents as a Montanan who took a few photos of the site and such, but the nuances of source materials and fire behavior are best left to others. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 18:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peshtigo Fire listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Peshtigo Fire to be moved to Peshtigo fire. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

2019 Brazil wildfires listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2019 Brazil wildfires to be moved to 2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires to be moved to 2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kincade Fire[edit]

Hello, can you review the draft at Draft:Kincade Fire? I think it should be published soon because it is a growing fire.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire notability[edit]

I made the article Nustar Fire just because I had a photo of its smoke plume, before I was aware that the project has notability guidelines. The article survived an AfD, but probably still doesn't meet the project's criteria for notability – though as a fuel-tank fire it's a big oddball with small acreage. The Sky Fire near the same location burned 10X more acres, but was arguably less significant, and still not meeting notability guidelines. So what do we do with these? Ignore them? Or is there some place to list and detail "other fires" that don't deserve their own articles? Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Getty Fire also doesn't meet any of the usual notability guidelines, but it would be lame to ignore it. Do we need better guidelines? Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on bushfire seasons[edit]

There is an RfC on whether future Australian bushfire season article template start and end dates should use the official season or the beginning and end of significant fires. Please comment here --

2019–20 Australian bushfire season listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2019–20 Australian bushfire season to be moved to 2019–2020 Australian bushfire season. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recommendations to make August 2020 North California Wildfires[edit]

I heavily recommend we make accommodations for a high-capacity article detailing all the major wildfires burning out of control in north california-- most (if not all) started by lightning. The title ideas may vary but I recommend going with the August 2020 North California Wildfires in the same vein that we did in 2017 for the now infamous October 2017 Northern California Firestorms. Because --like those fires did-- they are all burning in the same general vicinity of each other. Also, as stated before, almost all of them were caused by abnormally dry thunderstorms. These fires are likely to destroy hundreds if not thousands of homes and most definitely are going to be far bigger that the October 2017 Siege was in terms of acreage. Because, unlike those fires, this Siege isn't simply relegated to the Napa-Sonoma area with some Butte County outlyers-- this firestorm has extended from Big Sur all the way north to Susanville. Dripwoods (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dripwoods: Yeah, I have created this page already: August 2020 California lightning wildfires on 21 August. And I'm pretty mad now because it's been almost 2 weeks and for such a major wildfire event (probably one of the biggest in California history), only around 55 edits have been made to this page. Additionally, it's only been me stressing out and doing most of the changes. So I don't understand now, how in the world are you supposed to make it known to other editors that you have created a page about a specific topic, so that they can come help you out in editing it? Also I would really appreciate it now if you and other people on the wildfire team could come and help to improve this page, b/c I don't think I can do all of it myself. EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeetstuff, Dajagr, and TJRC: I see you guys have made many edits to the SCU and LNU fire pages, so I would greatly appreciate it if you all could also come and edit this page ^. It would be really nice if you can turn it into a good-quality page similar to other fire pages. Also you all should try to invite other editors somehow, so that this page doesn't have to remain unknown. EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EagerBeaverPJ: I think the article looks pretty good, and you have nothing to apologize for. My activity on the SCU and CZU articles (I don't think I hit the LNU complex that much) is because of their personal importance to me, and the fact that I see more of them in the news than other fires (since those are the ones I'm looking out for). And most of my updates have been small, devoted to keeping it current, not a lot of heavy lifting. TJRC (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EagerBeaverPJ: I think you've done a quite solid job on this article, although I'll try to see to adding to it. Also, it's a bit frustrating that several other major wildfires that have their own offshoot articles are woefully underwritten right now. LNU Complex fires, August Complex fires, CZU Complex fires and SCU Complex fires. It's stressing me out too. I would contribute more to these articles but I personally am too busy right now as well. We're honestly just understaffed for how many major fires there have been in the last month. Also, we have an upcoming heatwave and then Santa Ana winds this week-- so we may likely see many more major fires that we'll inevitably write more articles for by the end of the month... Dripwoods (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LNU Lightning Complex fire [edit]

I am suggesting the following article be created: LNU Lightning Complex fire. Appears to be the largest fire currently burning in California. I'll be happy to collaborate if the article is created, but I do not have the time currently to start it myself. The subject certainly meets notability. Thanks guys.Juneau Mike (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun work on the conflagration at LNU Lightning Complex-- although this is in its early stages of development. I hope that this article can be a team effort because this is an overwhelming situation to report on. Dripwoods (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bushfires in Australia listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bushfires in Australia to be moved to Bushfire. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

September 2020 Western United States wildfires listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for September 2020 Western United States wildfires to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Structure wildfire articles[edit]

Should there be a section about causes in a basic structure of wildfires? There is now only mention of what sparked them (investigation), but the basic structure doesn't allow to discuss underlying causes such as poor fire management and climate change. Much of their scientific study about wildfires is about underlying causes. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

California fire camps listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for California fire camps to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

2020 Western United States wildfires listed at Requested moves[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2020 Western United States wildfires to be moved to 2020 Western United States wildfire season. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merger of weather-related WikiProjects into WikiProject Weather[edit]

Closing with no consensus for a merge. Noah^Talk 20:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In August of last year, there was a discussion on whether or not weather-related Wikiprojects (such as WikiProject Tropical cyclones, WikiProject Non-tropical storms, and others I can't think of off the top of my head) should be merged into a bigger WikiProject, WikiProject Weather. The discussion ended with consensus to merge. This is because a lot of projects (except WPTC) have been suffering from a lack of people working on articles and getting them up to speed/updating them during current events. Since then, there have been .a few discussions about the formatting of these projects and which articles to have/which projects to merge in. Since then, a few people have said that it would be acceptable to merge in WikiProject Wildfires, but we need to notify you all and see what you think before doing so.

Questions and comments are welcome. (I don't know much about the process, since I'm just playing the role of the messenger, but I'm sure that others may be able to help with your queries!) codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 21:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Hurricane Noah, Jason Rees, Hurricanehink, and CycloneFootball71: so that you know about this thread. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 21:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Also pinging @LightandDark2000: as AFAIK the last one wouldn't have worked.codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 04:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Just to back @CodingCyclone: up and expand on what she said here, several editors are looking at merging the various meteorology projects into one. These include WP:Non Tropical Storms, WP:Meteorology, WP:Severe, WP:Tropical Cyclones and WP:Floods as we feel that Wikipedia would be better served with all of these wikiprojects as one whole wikiproject where we could collaborate, share reviewers, resources, knowledge etc a lot easier. I would have included WP:Wildfires in the original notice/proposal but wasn't aware of the project's existence, as a result, I would like to open the discussion and talk about a potential merger of the Weather Project and WP:Wildfires. Jason Rees (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: – Just a small note: I'd like to be referred to as a she, thanks! codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 04:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To further elaborate a bit, we are proposing this merger due to the many weather processes that occur that are related to wildfires. For example, many (not all) are started from periods of drought or lightning. Wildfires also can produce Pyrocumulus, Pyrocumulonimbus, strong winds, Fire whirls, Firestorms, and even in some cases actual tornadoes and supercells. Also, wildfires have effects on atmospheric conditions, including the injection of many aerosols, pollutants, and other things high into the atmoshpere, and that can remain for long periods of time. In areas where fires have burned, they can also locally change the environment/climate of a certain location, causing weather conditions to vary when compared to areas unaffected by such burns. That is just a little bit of background info as to why we want to merge this project in to WP Weather. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 04:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneFootball71: – Thanks for elaborating! This is a very useful explanation. :) codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 04:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Glad it was useful :). 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 04:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose – WP:WILDFIRE may be on the smaller side of the WikiProjects that are out there, but I really don't see the point in this merger. Heck, there are a bunch of other science topics out there that involve some kind of weather as well (Astronomy, Volcanology, Climate Change, Geology). I don't think we should merge them all. We should just stick with the WikiProjects that are strictly about the weather. And even those are being contested for 2 WikiProjects (WP:WPSVR and WP:WPTC). I don't think merging WP:Wildfire or any other WikiProject beyond the original targets is necessary or would be all that beneficial. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be more prudent to ping the active users on this WikiProject, since there aren't that many overlaps with WPTC editors here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - While wildfire is certainly weather-related, it's also related to many other things - natural resources management, protected areas, urban planning, emergency management, ecology, etc. I don't think the nexus is singular or strong enough. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed move of 19 wildfire articles[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Camp Fire (2018) § Requested move 14 June 2021. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic for 2018[edit]

@EagerBeaverPJ, Missvain, Antandrus, Michaelh2001, LightandDark2000, NorthBySouthBaranof, JoleBruh, SounderBruce, DerekELee, CAPTAIN RAJU, Salithak1, Mreed72, NaveenNkadalaveni, MONGO, Bachcell, Ehershkovitz, Montanabw, Dripwoods, GyozaDumpling, Prairie Astronomer, MarioJump83, CycloneFootball71, LightningComplexFire, and FreeWikiFrog: Would anyone be interested in working on a topic for wildfires in 2018? It would require taking lists to FL and any regular article to GA minimum. I am hoping to improve coverage of various weather and related events. We already have people diligently working on a topic for tropical cyclones for the same year. I hope we can eventually have an entire topic for weather-related events with subtopics for each. I hope we can use this as an opportunity to cooperate on achieving a large topic. Noah^Talk 22:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complex Naming[edit]

Here in California, and I believe across the US, complex fires are named in the singular, with a capital F on fire. For example, "North Complex Fire" For reference, consult InciWeb, Calfire, and/or official USFS releases. Crescent77 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historically speaking, complex fires managed by the Forest Service, at least, do not include the word "Fire" in their name - see, for example, the August Complex in Northern California and the SQF Complex in Central California, both last year. The multiple fires being managed under a complex are not singular, and indeed may not be physically connected at all. This is one of the quirks of wildfire management which is inconsistent and not intuitive to the average person. It may make more sense to use the names of the individual fires being managed under the complex when possible. Remember that a "Complex" is essentially an administrative construction created when it's determined that multiple fires can be efficiently managed by one incident management organization. And sometimes, "Complex" isn't used - this year's Alder Creek, Trail Creek, Christensen, and Black Mountain fires on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF in Montana are all being managed by the same IMT, yet they're not combined as a complex and have individual InciWeb pages. Why? *shrug*. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The North Complex Fire appears to be a counter-example - and thus I believe we're going to have to work on a case-by-case basis instead of attempting to apply rigid rules. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your page move of the SQF Complex is objectionable and undiscussed, and I have requested that it be reverted. It was explicitly not called the "SQF Lightning Complex," rather it was simply the "SQF Complex," and "Fire" was not part of the incident's proper name. Your confusion may stem from the fact that the SQF was not originally a CalFire incident, and did not use the "XXU Lightning Complex" naming terminology used by CalFire. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to call it the SQF Complex? That's different than a revert.Crescent77 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:38, August 8, 2021 (UTC)

No, the page was originally at SQF Complex, and was moved without discussion here and here. The fire was not, and never has been, called the "SQF Lightning Complex" - no such thing. I spent 21 days on that incident, and I should know. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That wasn't my doing, nor my point of discussion. The "Lightning" was an addition by an earlier editor. I support moving it back to "SQF Complex".

My issue is with "Named Fire" vs. "Named fire" and "Named Complex fires" vs. "Named Complex Fire".Crescent77 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:13, August 8, 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I just saw the page move and didn't see that it was part of a sequence that you didn't start. I think we're going to have to go on a case-by-case basis with "Complex Fire" depending on the official and common usage. For "North Complex Fire," it appears to be both. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So looking at many of the USFS press releases on both the August and the SQF (and the North), sometimes they go with "Complex", sometimes they go with "Complex Fire". Seems to fall in line with common usage : if it can be assumed the reader knows it's a fire, the word "Fire" is often omitted. But when it is included, "Fire" is used in the singular, and capitalized as a proper name. As far as titles here on Wikipedia go, either "Named Complex" or "Named Complex Fire" would seem appropriate.Crescent77 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:46, August 8, 2021 (UTC)

Alt barnstar[edit]

Hello members of WikiProject Wildfire, there is now an alternative version of the Wildfire Barnstar, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire/TAC. Jerm (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Yellowstone fires of 1988[edit]

I have nominated Yellowstone fires of 1988 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Noah^Talk 15:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources[edit]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho wildfires 2022[edit]

I tried posting at the /Article subpage that I got to somehow, but it looks like that's just a dead end so I'll repeat here. On a recent trip I got aerial shots of smoke plumes from the Moose Fire and Elmo Fire in Idaho (at least, that's what I think I got; see User:Dicklyon#Aerials from Denmark trip. But I don't find any articles mentioning these fires. I'm not really sure how this space and project work in WP. Should I make an article, or is there a place to add info and photos to? Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moose Fire, July 22, 2022
Elmo Fire behind Bonner's Ferry, Idaho, August 3, 2022
Elmo Fire behind Sandpoint, Idaho, August 3, 2022

I found the Moose Fire redlinked at Wildfires in 2022#North America, and added the Elmo Fire there, and the Moose Fire photo. Looks like a 2022 Idaho wildfires article is needed. Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta fires[edit]

I have created a draft for the currently ongoing wildfires in Alberta. Over 100 fires with 37 out of control, have occured. Draft:2023 Alberta fires feel free to contribute! VisiblityGale (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to let members know there is now another userbox available for those who are participating in this project, thank you.

Wikitext

userbox

where used

{{User WikiProject Wildfire}}

This user is a member of WikiProject Wildfire.

linked pages

Jerium (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for Fountain Fire[edit]

Hello! I've put the article on the 1992 Fountain Fire in Northern California up for peer review ahead of an eventual (hopefully) featured article nomination. The discussion is here. I'd be happy to take any commends, but some key points are in the discussion.

Cheers,

Penitentes (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]