Talk:2013 Tasmanian bushfires

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2013 Tasmanian bushfires article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Wildfire Low‑importance

	2013 Tasmanian bushfires is part of WikiProject Wildfire, which collaborates on wildfire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.WildfireWikipedia:WikiProject WildfireTemplate:WikiProject WildfireWildfire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Tasmania Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2013 Tasmanian bushfires is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Firefighting Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

--

Pics?

I know there are some pretty good pictures of these fires, can anyone upload some of them? Would be much appreciated, thanks. --Collingwood26 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have one now, [1] of the fires at Forcett/Copping, or at least the smoke column rising from them, courtesy Tasmanian editor Chuq (talk · contribs) - 220 of ^Borg 03:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great Thankyou!--124.189.200.75 (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) It just so happened I was on a plane to a Wikimedia Australia event in Melbourne as the smoke plume was visible! -- Chuq (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other wikipedia article (I have no idea what language it is!) has a photo from Flickr here. It apparently shows, a bit distantly, actual hillsides on fire. It also says "free to use". Taken from Hamilton, Same source, but closer up here. Can we? - 220 of ^Borg 10:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both are now on commons and I've added one to the article.--Melburnian (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Toni Fish here, owner the Repulse fire photo under discussion. I'm happy for it and any of the other photos I took of the fire (in my Flickr stream) to be used on Wikipedia. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.234.17 (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making them available.--Melburnian (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and thanks for arranging the upload Melburnian! - 220 of ^Borg 12:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hectares or Acres?

Noticed that thee measurement is in hectares with acreage in brackets. Wouldn't it make sense to have it the other way around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count of Tuscany (talk • contribs) 09:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the legal unit of land area in Australia is the hectare. WWGB (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whoa, you learn something every day - I had always thought we used acres by default. Cheers. --His Lordship,The Count of Tuscany (you wish to address his honor?) 12:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hectares is certainly the official term. When Australia metricated back in the 1970s, the changes were pretty much compulsory across all industries, with only a tiny number of temporary exceptions. Real estate agents were still allowed to use acres in some advertising situations. Never could understand why. Of course, since they're smaller, advertising something in acres allows a larger number to be used than if hectares are used. Now, I would never suggest that real estate agents would ever stretch a rule beyond its intentions, or use deceptive advertising, but... HiLo48 (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100 missing

links for article http://www.news.com.au/national/bushfires-may-have-claimed-lives/story-fndo4eg9-1226548178110 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-06/thousands-stranded-as-crews-continue-to-battle-fires/4454600 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.168 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly accounted for. 245 properties in Dunalley have been checked. No human remains have been found (yet). "Fears ease for missing in bushfire crisis". theaustralian.com.au, 7 January 2013 1:33PM, (about 3.5 hours ago). Retrieved 06:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC), - 220 of ^Borg 06:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Locations/*

Just a question - are any of the other regular editors of this article locals? I ask because there have been several bushfires in Tasmania the last few days - the Forcett/Copping/Dunalley one is the "main" one as it is the largest one that is affecting people and property - 20,000 ha. There are several others:

Lake Repulse
Bicheno/East Coast
Giblin River (Southwest National Park) - larger than the Dunalley one at 30,000 ha but no-one lives in the area.

Check this map for a guide - note that it will update over time so may not be of any use in a few days time - http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/Show?pageId=colGMapBushfires

I ask the question because some references to these other fires have worked their way into this article - which is fine, but it should be clear that they are separate. -- Chuq (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added a link in the External links section to a TFS map, not sure if it is the best link (but it's fun to play with as it is quite 'interactive'!) I also found once specific to the 'Forcett fire' here, Map of the Forcett bushfire, but it dates from 4 Jan.(Friday). I was trying to find a more up to date version when I found the TFS 'interactive' map.- 220 of ^Borg 07:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still Ongoing?

Just a question are these fires still ongoing? --124.189.200.75 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This link shows current bushfires in Tasmania.--Melburnian (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see now, there are still 40 fires burning uncontrolled and communities are still under threat, so not over yet.--124.189.200.75 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STILL ONGOING??

Surely this cannot be an ongoing event??

No. Why do you ask? And do be careful where you put your signature. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "ongoing" in the infobox. St Anselm (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously an oversight. Feel free to fix it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. An edit to the lead and to the infobox have probably cleared this up. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Tasmanian bushfires. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131030045812/http://www.police.tas.gov.au/news/posts/view/3768/fires-update-0800/ to http://www.police.tas.gov.au/news/posts/view/3768/fires-update-0800/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]