Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wildfire

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

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

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

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

@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)

@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)

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

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. SounderBruce 03:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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. SounderBruce 04:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@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)

Additional criteria:

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

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

@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)

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

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Wikipedia:Current wildfireWikipedia: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

In my opinion yes - this could be done in national articles - for example I intend to do at Talk:2024 Turkey wildfires#Proposal to merge all years into Wildfires in Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 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)

edit | discuss

Wildfires in 2018

articles

Spring Creek Fire (2018)

Mendocino Complex Fire

Carr Fire

Woolsey Fire

Camp Fire (2018)

2018 British Columbia wildfires

2018 California wildfires

2018 Montana wildfires

2018 Nevada wildfires

2018 Oregon wildfires

2018 Utah wildfires

2018 Washington wildfires

2018 Sweden wildfires

2018 Latvia wildfires

2018 Attica wildfires

2018 United Kingdom wildfires

2017–18 Australian bushfire season

2018–19 Australian bushfire season

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 
  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)

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

More information Wikitext, userbox ...

Wikitext	userbox	where used
{{User WikiProject Wildfire}}	This user is a member of WikiProject Wildfire.	linked pages

Close

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

Fountain Fire (an article about a massive, destructive 1992 wildfire in Northern California) has been nominated for WP:FAC. If you are interested in reviewing it or leaving comments, I invite you to do so at the nomination page - the review has not garnered much feedback yet. Any time is appreciated. Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

<nowiki>Hello all. I've recently been working on updating some pages relating mostly to wildfires in Colorado. I usually use Inciweb, but I've seen some folks citing a website called Watch Duty. It looks to me like the website is mainly a user-generated driven website, but I could be wrong. Is it a reliable source for when a fire cannot be found on Inciweb despite being over 1,000 acres? Thank you, Sethcampbell7293 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like a response to this question as well. I have been using it in several articles but it may constitute original research. @EF5 Wildfireupdateman (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@EF5 and Sethcampbell7293: I asked at Wp:Reliable discussion here and this result was that its sourcing/reporting is not generally meeting reliability standards. Also just in general, many wildfires just never meet the threshold WP:GNG standards for inclusion.--Kevmin § 16:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

One person saying something doesn’t constitute consensus; seems reliable to me. ^EF⁵ 16:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kevmin and EF5: I apologize if it seems like I'm barging into something I shouldn't be in, but this page is on my watchlist. I think we can use Watch Duty if we use other sources to verify the information, such as InciWeb, local news outlets, or a wildfire and smoke map. We should not use information provided by the WildCAD and NIFC bots, because they are automated accounts. As mentioned in the RS discussion, we could use linked reports, depending on the context. I believe it is an appropriate external link, I have seen it used here. Watch Duty should not be used as a single source for wildfire information, but I think it can be used if other sources support the information. Thanks, Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be great to hear your opinion at Talk:2024 Turkey wildfires#Proposal to merge all years into Wildfires in TurkeyChidgk1 (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jasper wildfire#Requested move 6 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I just created an article for the Butternut Fire, a major ongoing fire in Massachusetts. Thriley (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I doubt this fire meets notability guidelines. It's large by east coast standards but there were no injuries or damage to structures and very little reporting aside from updates on the size of the fire. That said, I think one article for the fires in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts could be appropriate under a title such as "Northeastern United States Wildfires 2024". Picea glauca (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe the Davis Fire in Nevada that burned this September is notable enough for an article. However, I am new to editing, and would like some help starting a draft. I posted the same remark on the 2024 Nevada Wildfires talk page, as well. I may not respond for a few days, though. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lake Fire#Requested move 10 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Palisades Fire (2025)#Requested move 9 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Delectopierre (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Article Names for Natural Disasters that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Delectopierre (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on reliability of Watch Duty as a source here at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please provide opinions there as the 2025 wildfire season is starting to pick up.--Kevmin § 17:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

FWIW the use of Watch Duty references seems to have proliferated throughout almost all wildfire tracking articles in 2025, likely due to its recent rise to fame. Notability != reliability, and all that, but it may be too late to enforce this guideline. OceanLoop (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I would say the main cause for this is that it's difficult for people to gather different sorts of data over a large time interval from different sites (e.g. Cal Fire, NIFC, USFS, Inciweb, radio traffic, etc.) and Watchduty combines all of those into one easily accessible site. Another (likely major) reason is that Inciweb does NOT keep archives; once a fire is contained, the page for it is usually removed permanently within a couple months; which causes issues, while watchduty has all past incidents saved. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Except that the app is using openstreet software which is grey area reliabiligy, and the deputized "reporters" make the app close to a wiki-style database, these put it over the line into Wp:Primary and unacceptable as a Wp:reliable source.--Kevmin § 14:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Please be more specific: which exact reliable source guideline is not being met to qualify these reports? OceanLoop (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am improving this. I know Turkey but not wildfires so any help you can give either by editing directly or by reviewing on talk page or suggestions on talk page would be much appreciated Chidgk1 (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

If you have some spare time, please help update wildfire season articles! I have a few articles that haven't been monitored too much:

• 2025 Colorado wildfires: needs updates on acreage and containment and needs more fires added.
• 2025 New Mexico wildfires: needs updates on acreage and containment and needs more fires added.
• 2025 Idaho wildfires: was significantly out of date until I updated it a couple days ago, would be helpful if someone else could help monitor it.
• 2025 Oregon wildfires: was also out of date until I updated a week or so ago, would be helpful if someone else could help monitor.

I will try to update these articles, but this could be a problem for next season with these articles. This winter, I will try to write several notable wildfire articles that have occurred in recent years, and we need more editors willing to update these season articles and write more notable wildfire articles. They must meet WP:WILDFIRE-NOTE, and if they do not completely meet requirements 2 or 3, sustained coverage must be shown in sources from at least six months later. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Your input would be welcome at here, at Talk:2023 Arizona wildfires, deciding whether or not Flying V Fire should be merged or sent to Articles for Deletion. Thank you, Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I realise I need to remove a lot of detail and make other improvements to bring Wildfires in Turkey up to a good standard but as I know almost nothing about wildfires is there any chance one of you guys could give me another country article to use as a good example. Surprisingly none is rated good yet or even B class.

I guess a lot of you are American so is there any chance you could improve Wildfires in the United States so I could get some good ideas? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best country article would be, as there are different stiles, such as Wildfires in the United States is an overview of wildfires in the US, but List of fires in Canada is a list approach. If you want to take the time and effort, you could combine the two ideas, adding a list similar to List of Washington wildfires and adding general information about seasons and wildfire trends in the country. I would not be able to improve Wildfires in the United States, because I am not a very experienced editor and edit about individual fires and seasons, but I hope I have given you some ideas. Have a good day, Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricane Wind and Fire Thank you yes good idea I will combine overview and details of individual years. By the way I just came across the term “differenced NBR (dNBR)” and would like to wikilink it, but I cannot find a Wikipedia article on it. Might it be part of another article do you know? Or maybe it is not important? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 I searched the term, and found this page on the United Nations website. I could not find an article that mentions it, but if you put it in the article, consider putting a note to inform readers. It would be best to avoid the term if not extremely necessary, though, because I am fairly knowledgeable in the subject and I did not know the term. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking for advice on the article (South Canyon/Storm King Fire) that I've been heavily revamping. I'm also happy to help out and offer advice on any wildfire topics, as I do fight wildfires in the U.S. Note, my experience is not as varied and U.S. wildfire operations are quite different than per say Australian operations, so I will not know nearly as much about them. Independentgeoscience (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Independentgeoscience I do not know if there is a discord server for the wildfire editing community, but there is a discord for the Wikipedia community overall, with a link here. However, I can give you some advice here, and if you would like more input, ask at the WikiProject Weather talk page, with more editors editing in the project.

1. Expand the Incident section past the blowup point. There are a couple references need to verify the information, as well.

2. The memorials section is unsourced. You should find some references for verification.

That's all I have for now, but if you want more input, just ask! 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 01:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Got it thank you! I didn't write the memorial section so I'm going to hop on that soon. Independentgeoscience (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If any of you are in the Wikimedia discord, I made a thread which I'll link to here. Feel free to contribute! Independentgeoscience (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If you're interested in helping me, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Reading through it, some people who contributed large chunks were assigned it for a class, and unfortunately do not have a fantastic grasp on some of the tactics listed. There's a lot of grammar mistakes, and in general, this is an absolutely critical article that needs to be repaired. I will be avoiding foreign wildfire operations due to lack of knowledge I possess for them. Independentgeoscience (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

A lot of these fires weren't majorly significant in the sense that: they did not inspire change in wildfire technology or operating procedures; were not particularly large or destructive; or did not have massive amounts of resources sent to them. What I'm tending to notice is that the top articles are often articles written at the same time as those fires are devastating homes. While these are crucial, they were not game-changing, which is why I'm editing the list of Top fires and making notable fires with casualties or lessons learned the new Top importance ones. (see South Canyon Fire, Thirtymile Fire, Mann Gulch Fire, etc). Independentgeoscience (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, notoriety/fame outside of the firefighting community should also have a role in determining the importance of WP:WILDFIRE articles, as most readers likely aren't particularly interested in firefighting but are interested in the fire itself (we have WP:FD for articles related to firefighting). I generally agree with your assessments though (although Great Chicago at low importance might be a bit too low). WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply, and I touched on it on my reply. The Great Chicago wasn't a wildfire, therefore I don't consider it too relevant. The nearby fire (Great Michigan) was. Independentgeoscience (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with most of your ratings. However, for individual fires, it also depends on the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE for them and their WP:LASTING impact. If it is a notable fire receiving substantial coverage years after the fire, it would be appropriate to rate them higher than they originally were. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 22:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I concur, but not at Top-Importance. To me, top importance should be fires that were either the largest sizes, most destructive, or revolutionary in terms of SOPs/TTPs. I'm happy to have some fires placed in high, such as massive fires in California or Oregon, but I re-emphasize that top importance should be very selective. Independentgeoscience (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added a new section about season articles to WP:WILDFIRE-GUIDE. I would appreciate cleanup, expansion, and feedback for improvement. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 01:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Great addition, thanks! Independentgeoscience (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Good stuff, thank you! Penitentes (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 Chilean wildfires#Requested move 26 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to build up a WikiProject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian Wildfire. More details ---> User:CostalCal/sandbox. I don't know if it should be a task force. Suggestions? CostalCal (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I think countries should have task forces, primarily the big three: Australia, Canada, and the U.S. Independentgeoscience (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Independentgeoscience. Task forces would be the best in my opinion unless we can get at least 10-15 participants in the Canadian one. We would also want to get a European task force (see the 2025 season, its worse as a whole than individual countries) and we can leave Africa and Asia to the main project. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 19:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Changed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. CostalCal (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@CostalCal @Independentgeoscience, CostalCal originally moved the task force and I moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire/Canada task force. Should we create task forces for the U.S. and Australia? On second thought, I'm not sure we need task forces for other countries unless bad seasons become really consistent. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 22:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe Australia, but it would have to get quite bad. I think even this year could fall under one article "Australia 2026 fire season". I see this project (in my biased eyes) as largely American. Independentgeoscience (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

So we keep just a Canadian task force? 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 23:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It would be difficult to start another task force on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wildfire, due to the fact that the project doesn't have many users outside of the United States. Most editors have region bias; I certainly do. @Hurricane Wind and Fire, if you want to start your own task force. I'd join it. CostalCal (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Unless fire seasons in other countries get bad, I guess we can keep the U.S. with the main project. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 23:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I started a requested move at Talk:Donnie Creek fire to change the title to Donnie Creek Fire, but @The Interior pointed out WP:WILDFIRE-NAME (that states Articles should be titled with the name of the fire, such as Zaca Fire or Rim Fire (with Fire capitalized when it is part of a proper name, but not otherwise, per MOS:CAPS)) is followed for United States wildfires (for example, 2025 wildfires in the United States), but for Canada and Australia "fire" or "bushfire" is typically lowercased and pointed out how the Canadian government often names the wildfires with "fire" lowercased (see this). Most of the articles on Australian bushfires use sentence case: "bushfire" compared to "Bushfire", but there are a few exceptions.

I believe we should agree on what to do with the advice page, and these are three options.

• Option A: we keep the page as is, stating Articles should be titled with the name of the fire, such as Zaca Fire or Rim Fire (with Fire capitalized when it is part of a proper name, but not otherwise, per MOS:CAPS) and move all other articles to a title like "Zaca Fire".

• Option B: we change the page to say something along the lines of Articles should be titled with the name of the fire, such as Donnie Creek fire (with "fire" not capitalized) and move all current wildfire pages to a title like "Zaca fire".

• Option C (which is what I think we should do): Change the guideline saying we base the naming off the country the fire burned in, depending on the case officials use. The Canadian government puts fire in lowercase so we keep "Donnie Creek fire" (I will close the RM), CAL FIRE and InciWeb in the U.S. capitalize "Fire" so we keep "Palisades Fire", and I cannot find some consistent specific information from the Australian government with how they name the bushfires so I ask someone who edits about bushfires to tell me the standard case. For other regions, we judge based on what is more prevalent in reliable sources.

🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 23:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that the current phrasing does not say to capitalize "fire" for every article with a title like "Foo fire". It says to capitalize the word "when it is part of a proper name". That doesn't say very much, really, since Wikipedia's more global guidelines (WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, MOS:TITLECAPS) already say to capitalize the primary words in a proper name (words other than "and", "of", etc.). The trick is how to figure out whether the word fire is "part of a proper name". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking the best approach is going by something like WP:COMMONNAME. Some countries spell their wildfires differently (the U.S. is Palisades Fire but Australia is Wanneroo bushfire); I recognize what you're saying, and part of why I started this discussion is to clarify on the advice page. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 03:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I think A is best practice. The vast majority of the fires we publish here are American, and it would be a little bizarre to have to conform to a different standard. Option C is functional but less optimal, with us stating that fires in Canada or Australia have different naming conventions. Independentgeoscience (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)