Template talk:Infobox wildfire

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes 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.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Wildfire

Infobox wildfire is part of WikiProject Wildfire, which collaborates on wildfire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the template 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

Acres conversion to Square miles and Hectare instead of Square km

The original example uses Template:convert|1032900|acre|km2|0|abbr=on which converts acres to sq kilometers. Example: 1,032,900 acres (4,180 km²). USA firefighters use acres instead of square miles for burn areas. Other nations use hectares instead of square kilometers; see Talk:Hectare and Category:2009 wildfires for examples. Most nonfirefighters in USA understand square miles better than acres and don't know what square kilometers would be. I propose using Template:convert|1032900|acre|sqmi ha|0|lk=on would convert acres to sq mi (for USA) and hectare (for international). Example: 1,032,900 acres (1,614 sq mi; 418,000 ha) Also note that the parameter abbr=on doesn't need to be used. |lk=on parameter turns wikilinks on for the units. Petersam (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, using the template to convert hectare to both acres and square miles doesn't work -Template:convert|418000|ha|acre sqmi|0|lk=on Example: 418,000 hectares (1,032,900 acres; 1,614 sq mi). However, a single conversion works - Template:convert|418000|ha|acre|0|lk=on - Example: 418,000 hectares (1,032,900 acres) or Template:convert|418000|ha|sqmi|0|lk=on - Example: 418,000 hectares (1,614 sq mi) - Petersam (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:convert has now been fixed to work as above. Petersam (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Containment

Has there ever been any talk about adding a "percent contained" to the template?? Just wondering. --Zackmann08 (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cost

At one stage, there used to be cost as a field on this template. Is there a reason why it's been removed; or not included? Thanks Rangasyd (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perps

What exactly is supposed to go in the "perps" field: number of them, names, convictions? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

SounderBruce made an interesting addition to the template, a map parameter. Initially I liked the idea, but then I saw how it was implemented. Just adding a map showing the location of the incident (File:Map of Washington highlighting Okanogan County.svg is really not helpful. Now if this was a fireground map, that would be very different. A map showing the perimeter of the fire, etc. But just adding a map of the county to the infobox adds nothing but clutter. There is already a location parameter as well as a parameter for adding GPS coordinates. We don't also need a map showing where in the state the fire is. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My addition to the Okanogan Complex fire article was merely a placeholder. The maps parameter in the infobox can be used for any image, so a PD-sourced map of the extent of a wildfire at its greatest extent could be very useful (alongside the push-pin map for context). I'd like you to add the parameter back in. Sounder Bruce 22:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other examples where maps have been used in an infobox that is not about a location? Obviously pages about settlements (cities, towns, etc...) get maps. But I see no other disaster type infobox that has a map. For example neither {{Infobox aircraft occurrence}} nor {{Infobox tornado}} have maps. I just don't see any added value. Now there are files like File:HappyCampComplexMap.jpg that I think add great value to an article. But in this case it can simply be the main photograph (Happy Camp Complex Fire). Same thing goes for MODIS images such as File:King Fire, California.jpg. Nothing is gained by having a picture of trees on fire AND a map in the infobox. Pic one for the infobox, put the other in the body of the article. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings count

What gets counted in the "buildings" parameter? I'd assumed it would exclude "outbuildings" which are typically small sheds and the like. The CalFire pages, at least, distinguish between them; see. e.g. the Calfire page on the Soberanes Fire (at [1], [2]) (currently "57 homes, 11 outbuildings").

An IP editor added the outbuildings into the total, and I can't really say that that's wrong; but I think it would be good to agree and document either way, so that there is consistency across the articles that use it. Consistency may sometimes be the hobgoblin of little minds, but in a case like this, where wildfires may be compared to one another, I think consistency is a worthy goal.

For that matter, do we agree that the count is only of buildings destroyed, and not merely damaged? The Calfire page lists three more homes and two more outbuildings that have been damaged. The template doc says only "buildings", which is not specific. TJRC (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TJRC: that is a GREAT question/comment. My personal opinion is to list both... I would do something like {{ubl|5 homes|4 outbuildings}}. But then another question is do we differentiate between "homes" and "structures"? For example what if a store burns to the ground? That isn't an outbuilding, but it also isn't a home. Again great question.. Also something that would absolutely be covered in the documentation of the Wildfires Project if it gets formed. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good solution, and I've made the corresponding edit on Soberanes Fire. As to my second part, I just realized that the template renders as "Buildings destroyed", so that answers that: buildings damaged but not destroyed should not be included.

I'll update the template documentation consistent with this discussion. TJRC (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Displaced

The templates lacks a "displaced" line, to show how many people were displaced.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: that is because it is not something that belongs in the infobox. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add personnel?

Before I make a change, does anyone object to adding the parameter for "personnel" to the template?--MONGO (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: not necessarily an objection, but lets talk it out. What do you mean by personnel? I assume you mean the number of people assigned to the fire? But that fluctuates every day. So do you mean the total number over time? The peak #? Are we counting firefighters and private contractors? What about overhead? Law enforcement? SAR? Air Resources? etc. That number just seems WAY too fluid in my opinion. I like the idea but have some concerns so talk it out? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most fires report assigned numbers not always specifing what the personnel do. I'd say it can be changed as the fire progresses and then subsides of course but peak numbers give some idea of how big the response was.--MONGO (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: if you want to add the parameter than we need to have a consensus and documentation on what it means... The peak number... the final number, etc... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur it's best to work for consensus but I'm not very rules driven as far as this sort of thing being "enforced". Editors could always decide to leave the parameter blank too. Perhaps maximum known assigned personnel would be what to shoot for and with a reliable reference from NIFC reports or similar.--MONGO (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying but a random number in the infobox with no real definition of what it means is a very bad idea. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Means maximum number as noted by reliable sources, so Maximum personnel. I see no reason to not have it. If others don't want to use it then don't use it. If there are no other objections I see no sound reason to not have the parameter..in fact not having it is ridiculous.--MONGO (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is such an arbitrary number. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a silent parameter as they all are if left blank. In most cases, the maximum number of personnel assigned are oftentimes easily referenced.[3]--MONGO (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see any value in adding a number of people that will constantly be changing. This is coming from someone who has spent a lot of time on the front lines of major fires... That being said, I'm open to the idea if other care to chime in...--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

parameter ordering "cost" vs fatalities (& injuries)

I'd like to propose a rearrangement to put fatalaties (and injuries) higher up than replacable material things like money ('cost' parameter) and buildings, due to the relative importance that ordering implies.
--Philologia 22:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried to do this and it didn't work, I've never edited an infobox before, not sure how it works (or doesn't).--Philologia 02:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related proposal: change "cost" to something like "monetary cost" or "financial cost" (since loss of life &/or health - i.e. injuries - is also a major type of cost).--Philologia 02:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need to add livestock

The Black Thursday bushfires in Australia, for example, killed 1,000,000 livestock. The socioeconomic damage to farms and farmers cannot be overstated. Yet the template only accounts for humans and for buildings. Farm animals should be included in the template. XavierItzm (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Maybe we can add the percentage contained? It can be useful for current wildfires --a gd fan (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropocentrism

Why does the infobox only list human deaths? The death toll in a wildfire is usually significantly higher than just fatalities within one species. E.g. in the Australian bushfires of 2019/20 one billion lifefroms perished. This is not something to just ignore. ♆ CUSH ♆

How to get rid of link to -1 for first season documented?

I see on 2002 California wildfires there is a redlink for previous.

But we don't need an article for every year in Turkey so can we get rid of the link to previous season from 2020 Turkey wildfires. If so how? Please ping me if you have an idea

Thanks

Chidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New parameter for structures damaged?

Hi all! I agree that the purpose of the current 'Buildings destroyed' parameter is clear (though I think it should be changed to 'Structures destroyed', so as to be clearer that it can include a detached garage just as easily as an apartment building). However, a lot of sources also list the # of structures damaged as the result of a fire — Cal Fire counts them separately and releases them at the same time, for instance. I think we ought to have a space for that metric?

Cheers

Gdoehne (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]