2015–16 Australian bushfire season 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
2015–16 Australian bushfire season 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
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
@Donama: Yes that looks good, it just has to be updated to the latest figures. i.e. 91 homes lost, 2 deaths, then I would move it to mainspace at 220ofBorg20:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference between a fire being "contained" vs being "extinguished"? The table in the "Fires of note" section has a "contained date" but no "extinguished date". News reports that a fires is "contained but not controlled" (example) are not uncommon, so surely "contained" does not mean "extinguished". Likewise, the "active" columns does not have any rows indicating "not active / extinguished" - surely they aren't all still burning! Mitch Ames (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
being on the books as a volunteer firefighter (sic) I find such stuff like this to be really problematic Mitch. There is no such thing as any of the above, it is all the fanciful world of journos and cannot be accepted.
contained usually means a fire that is still burning, or not extinguished in any sense of the word. We (fellow firefighters) can sometimes be kept on roster to take up to a week to 'watch' the remains of a fire, (it can and will reignite and start again), before it is adequately controlled. So whether a fire is still active or not is not up to journos, but the firefighters or the controlling body DFES. Contained usually is used to say it isnt going anywhere else from where it is, but has the propensity to become a problem again with wind changes and temperature changes. Controlled usually assumes that it is contained, but such claims, even from dfes, it is usually firefighters who will watch for days after, specially where there are possibilities of further outbreaks. As for extinguished, as a vollie firefighter who has been called in the middle of the night to attend a fire that was considered over and done with, nah, such a claim is something that is, if it is used, long after the fire has been officially watched and damped down - in effect when An All Clear is issued once when the threat has passed., to worry about extinguish and meaning is a wrong direction. The lessening of the threat or all clear is far more relevant - see http://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/alerts/Pages/OtherInformation.aspx they would never talk about extinguish from memory, it is a fiction, they can always start again. and as for your comment surely they arent all still burning, yes, many take days after all clears to be classed as fire that are adequately supressed, just watching stags and other delightful remnants of fires for up to over a week puts extinguish as a misused word, specially in the australian bush. JarrahTree10:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the logic of never declaring it extinguished because you can never be certain that it won't flare up again, (although I find it somewhat disturbing that the fire brigade will never actually claim to have extinguished a fire) but perhaps it might be appropriate to have an "all clear date" column and/or status. "Active?" seems like a strange name for the column. If some some rows have "yes", one would logically expect to see (eventually) some rows with "no". A "status" column, possibly with a mixture or DFES and journalist terms ("emergency warning", "contained", "controlled", "all clear" as appropriate) might be better. "Contained" doesn't tell me whether the brigade is still pouring water on it (it's still burning, but not spreading), or just keeping an eye on it, or have left it completely.
Perhaps a brief explanation above the table as to the various "status" values and what them mean would be helpful - remembering that the average reader is not a firefighter, or even familiar with the risks of the Australian bush (90% of Australians live in suburbia and know only what we read in the newspapers about these things). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I simply saw your talk page comment here, and hadnt even ventured onto the table issue. Status values as a mix - I strongly disagree with. Also I disagree with demographics argument, a much larger number of australians have been affected by fire than a simple distinction, as family, friends, and communities that are urban' have been affected in all states... I would strongly suggest a trawl through other state fire service websites, and a search for what they focus upon. This is not 'make up'from the sources to hand, it needs a proper check of how each state fire service determines fire status, anything less is lazy. cheers JarrahTree12:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On demographics: I didn't suggest that 90% had not been affected; I suggested that many/most readers might not understand what "contained", "controlled" etc meant in this context, so some explanatory text might be helpful.
As to what columns/values should be in the table - as is often the case, I don't have the background knowledge to fix the problem, but I can see that there probably is one; thus I raise the issue in the hope that someone more knowledgeable that I can fix/explain it. (We know how much grief it can cause when I edit articles on topics that I know very little of. ) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
controlled and contained was the description of the Esperance fire before it claimed 4 lives, DPAW rejected local attempts to enter reserves to further reduce the risk prior to a known change in weather conditions approaching. These words mean very little it would be better to tag it as all clear when who ever is controlling the fire says so. Gnangarra13:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that, even then, re my comments above, even then, that is not the 100% certainty it wont start again even when they say that JarrahTree14:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
