Talk:2007 California wildfires

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deaths[edit]

The L.A. Times is reporting six deaths. Four of the newest deaths were evacuees. I don't know how to work this in terms of adding the source onto the page, so can someone please update this. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.87.214 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They reported 4 of them being elderly and not being directly killed by the fire.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fire24oct24,0,5795853.story?coll=la-home-center is the source article.

Alexkraegen 05:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)alexkraegen[reply]

So, we have three definitely killed by the fire, four migrant workers possibly killed by the fire, four elderly evacuees dying possibly as a result of the fire, and one arson suspect shot by police while fleeing. Is this correct? Orville Eastland 02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of today, OES has the following numbers: 9 dead (a tenth possible discovered today, but cause of death must be determined by the coroner) with 139 injured. Those numbers DO NOT include fire fighters and other first responders. And the "possible arsonist" is also not included. Coyote chindi 00:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I'm proposing that, at this stage, all the fires should redirect here. With historical hindsight we can decide whether individual fires are worth their own article. Rockpocket 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd rather leave them as they are and merge them only if historical hindsight says to merge. With events happening fast right now, discussion on merging is a distraction from improving the article(s), in my opinion. Johntex\talk 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the fires have fragmented and, occasionally, merged and new names of fires are being touted by the media at all the time as they spring up. If all the different names merged here, then we can ensure a proper encyclopaedic article can be written rather than fragmented bits of info on each fire. If we don't we are going to be getting a lot of duplication and conflict of information, as things are so fast moving. Rockpocket 22:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, 1 article may be easier to expand than 3. I have no strong opinion either way at the moment - may change my opinion again later. Johntex\talk 22:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recent edits to the article about the name of the Malibu fire is a case in point. My experience with fast moving articles is that centralization helps keep things under control. Rockpocket 22:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected all the other fire names in the article here for the moment (so we don't get forks) and proposed a merge for the ones that already exist. I have to head out myself and brave the smoke, if there is no further objections in the next few hours, it would be good if someone could go ahead and merge these. Rockpocket 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's reasonable to do a merge while this is ongoing. Witch Fire has been partially merged and redirected. I'll tidy up the redirect. --Elliskev 00:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merged them all, although they may still need some work. EricNau 00:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
added ranch fire, corrected mistake. Djgranados 05:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new fire[edit]

will add this one once more info becomes available. as yet unnamed fire. According to the Los Angeles County Fire Department, an additional fire began at approximately 10:35 p.m. PST October 22 near Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road off the 14 highway in Santa Clarita. Djgranados 06:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here is some info it it, from abc, i believe its called soledad fire Jerrycobra 06:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=5721452

Number of firefighters[edit]

One thing we are currently missing is an estimate of how many firefighters and firefighting vehicles are working these fires. I think it would be very good to include an overall estimate, even if it is only accurate within 2-3x, if we could find a source. Johntex\talk 08:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the external links - this one: Google map showing fire locations and information on their size and containment has some information on the number of firefighters -look at each fire icon. — Zaui (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard reports that say anywhere from 4,600 to 6,000 firefighters and fire chiefs have been dispatched to work on these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.219.138 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed wildfire info, including firefighter counts, is available on the following San Diego Unito-Tribune site: http://www.signonsandiego.com/firemap/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.172.50 (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the links to the fire maps. The fire maps are great resources as external links. However, they are not really great as a sitable source. For one thing, firefighters might be moving from one blaze to another, so double counting becomes a real possibility. It would be great to find a source we can actually cite. Johntex\talk 07:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Santiago Fire Source[edit]

I'm not 100% sure how to add a source and I noticed that in the Santiago Fire section that reference was requested for the fire having 3 ignition spots.

source: http://www.ocregister.com/news/fire-firefighters-irvine-1901405-morning-day

paragraph 8-10. There's a better source yesterday in the same paper about the evidence of arson, but I'm in class and don't have time to look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.62.59 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA[edit]

They're about to announce what they're going to do to help the people out for this situation. I'm not a very good Wikipedia editor, but I'll try to keep you guys up to date as to what happens. 68.8.104.62 15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to leave the computer for a while, but if you paste links here someone will probably be able to integrate them into the article as appropriate. Johntex\talk 15:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get to watch the conference, but I got this from their site: http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=41428 68.8.104.62 18:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to organize information on all of FEMA's programs and rules on Wikipedia. There is a separate wiki for this purpose: FEMAanswers.org. I just created a page on the FEMAanswers.org home page that can be used to post information such as the press release above, see California wildfires of October 2007. Your contributions can help those displaced! Thanks. Castellanet 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

I just rearranged the pictures and took out two. The entire right side of the article was thumbnails of pictures, and a couple of them were redundant, so I tried to clean it up. The two pictures I took out were:

  • Image:Sun in hazy sky due to SoCal wildfires.jpg|right|thumb|The sun sets in San Diego's smoky skies, October 212007.
  • Image:Two specially equipped MH-60S Seahawk helicopters.jpg|right|thumb|Two specially equipped MH-60S Seahawk helicopters

Tyro 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer banner[edit]

What's the opinion putting the banner that's used on active Hurricanes somewhere in this article?

--Elliskev 17:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea - people shouldn't be coming to this article for evacuation info. I'll add it, if someone disagrees feel free to take it outTyro 18:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been a fan of that template. Not for hurricanes or anything else. People are smart and they are going to use all available information sources, including this one. I would prefer we remove the template - it is ugly, it is insulting to the reader, and it just serves to denigrate the hard work and good information provided here. Johntex\talk 04:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have wikinews for that, problem is Wikinews isn't being updated as frequently as this one. Also, I disagree with your action, the banner should be brought back up. If you want you can go and fix up the wikinews article (Xoirun 05:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Why would I do that? Wikinews is a division of effort and a waste of time. We should just get rid of it completely. All relevant information belongs here. Johntex\talk 06:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acres vs. square miles (square km)[edit]

Now that sources are giving area burned in sq. miles, should we follow? It means the same but my be eaier to comprehend by the reader, e.g. 245,957 acres, or 384 square miles. --Elliskev 18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of one arsonist[edit]

This is just announced: One arsonist has been arrested, is in custody. This should be placed. This is now being reported on ALL news outlets. FBI and police are after more arsonists. 65.173.104.140 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate Witch Creek Fire Information[edit]

You guys haven't listed all the cities affected by the Witch Creek Fire. The city of Escondido is also in part of the burn zone - we've lost 50-some homes and the city council is holding an emergency meeting at 4 PM today. Check fireblog.signonsandiego.com for the most up-to-date information. 72.207.56.161 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Slide fire numbers are off as well. Last I heard 213 building have been destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.219.138 (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, keep in mind that this isn't a forum, newspaper or bulletin area. This is an encyclopedia article. Accurate numbers for a situation that in continually changing aren't going to be that accurate. The goal here is to capture the really important highlights of the incident and the sources that provide the information. For this article, try to write as if it were a year since it happened, and you want to summarize what happened. If you write from that perspective, it will help those of us who do the long-term maintenance on fire-related articles down the road, and we hone it into what is expected to be in an encyclopedia. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, all the hard work here by so many diligent editors may have been more appropriate under Wikinews rather than an encyclopedia. This article is more current and informative than that on Wikinews. And I have to say how impressed I was to see this article evolve to the point where it was the single best source of information on the event (in my opinion). Alanraywiki 21:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good encyclopedia article will always be better than a news report. I have yet to see any important event, from Hurricane Katrina to Michael Vick's criminal investigation, to these fires, where Wikinews did a better job of covering the events than the English Wikipedia. We should really look seriously at whether we should dissolve Wikinews as an unnecessary distraction / duplication of effort. Johntex\talk 04:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with johntex.- Djgranados 04:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy[edit]

I created tables for the three areas with lots of fires to make updating the key stats easier. I went through and took out this info (start time, acres burned, containment, etc) from the actual sentence writeups to avoid saying the exact same thing twice in the same section. A few editors have been putting it back in though. What do people think... keep the info in the table, in the bulleted writeups, or do both? I would like to keep the key stats in the table, and then use the bullets to mention things unique to each fire. Tyro 22:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Their are two troubles I see with the table. The first is that it currently relies too heavily on just one source. We should not be relying on a single source, even if it is CalFire, for so much of the important information on the fires. We could potentially solve this problem by adding a column for references. The second problem with the table is that it only gives one time point. Keeping information in a text narrative form allows people to better understand the chronology of the events. Therefore, I believe the table needs to be expanded to include references, and the text needs to also be included to show how things changed over time. Johntex\talk 04:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

simple english version[edit]

Hi. Could someone help improve the Simple English version, create the nessecary templates, make it easier to read in simple english, remove the broken links, reword the article, etc, because it's a mess right now? I tried to do all that but I ran out of time. I might work on it tomorrow, but can someone please help clean it now? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second fatality[edit]

The KCBS-TV homepage has reported a second fatality in one of the Santa Clarita fires... Ranma9617 02:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of 9:35pm local time, October 232007 all media reports I am seeing are saying that second fatality report was incorrect and that the death toll still stands at 1. Johntex\talk 04:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke[edit]

I think there should be a section on smoke. A lot of people are having increased allergies and asthma right now. I think you should mention also to cancel outdoor activities due to the smoke.

Bisurge 04:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should go ahead and add this to the Impact section, maybe make a subsection :) Tyro 04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Pendleton fire[edit]

I've heard some reports about a new fire in Camp Pendleton, but I can't find any sources. It's being called the Horno Fire. If someone could maybe find a source for this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.219.138 (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google maps & the banner[edit]

I re-added that banner just now per WP:IAR. Hurts nothing, no harm in having it up a day or two in any way. No one should remove it for simple common sense. It is NPOV, so thats no concern in any imaginable sense. Also, why were the Google maps listed here removed? I think that Google and the relevant news agencies managing them are fine for WP:EL obviously. • Lawrence Cohen 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking at the banner in exactly the wrong way. In my opinion, "common sense" is that people are smart and they don't need a banner reminding them to check official news sources. The banner really should go, for all the reasons already mentioned above. Namely:
  1. The banner is insulting to the intelligence of our readers.
  2. The banner is ugly and distracting.
  3. The banner is an insult to all the great work being done here on this article.
  4. (Bonus not mentioned above) The banner is extremely unlikely to make any difference. Anyone who is so careless with that life as to not check official sources is beyond the help of a distracting banner.
I do agree with you that the Google maps should definitely be linked. Johntex\talk 06:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll readd the Google maps links, pulling them out of history now. The banner... I guess I'm just trying to be helpful to people by stating the obvious. There a lot of dumb or desperate people out there, but... well, there it is. I was just thinking in terms of covering some bases as a courtesy for someone who may look at the article and make a dumb choice. Even smart people do stupid things in pressing situations. I won't object if its removed. • Lawrence Cohen 06:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stupid; someone already redid the maps. I was looking at an old revision. • Lawrence Cohen 06:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've gained a reputation for speedy concise coverage of unfolding events ever since the Virginia Tech massacre. I'd say the warning is well-warranted. --Hemlock Martinis 06:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the warning, as primary it shouldn't be there in the first place. But the wording it was also bad, as it would imply that the article are only applicable to resident in certain parts of California, and not the rest of the world. →AzaToth 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention?[edit]

"Some fire commanders worried [the Witch fire] would merge with so-called Poomacha Fire, which broke out early Tuesday on La Jolla Indian Reservation." (10/24/07 am ABC) -- Should this be mentioned? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 11:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Editors Effected by the Evacuation?[edit]

I apologize to everyone for my behavior with this issue. I have several friends irl effected by this blaze and I must admit I am a tad bit emotional about it. I have blanked the prior content after review of policy WP:NOR. Again I apologize and wish everyone a great day. --Amaraiel 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Amaraiel, while we need to remain on-topic and professional here on this page, we understand your concern. Why don't you create something in your user-space, like User_talk:Amaraiel/Wildfires and invite people to come there to add there names? Such use of of user-space is not unprecedented (although some observers may still object). Johntex\talk 14:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats[edit]

Per WP:DATE, most dates should be wikilinked in the following fashion: October 242007. The purpose of this is to allow the user's preferences to control how this date is displayed.

Also, please use the full date rather than phrases such as "currently" or "since Sunday" or "On Wednesday". Such statements can be very confusing / misleading. This will be especially true if/when the event stretches past one week. Thanks very much, Johntex\talk 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[2007-10-24]] works too on the date parameter on the citations; I've been fixing some of them. I started to correct the times per WP:MOSNUM and WP:UNITS, but I stopped when I realized there's no standardization within the article. It needs to be am or a.m. but never AM, with a non-breaking hardspace between the numerical and non-numerical portion. Since the table uses a.m., should we switch the others to agree? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please be aware of WP:MOS#Captions in terms of whether to punctuate the caption (sentence fragments or not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, Sandy, thank you. Johntex\talk 03:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A trickle of images[edit]

Image:RedskyatdawnSanDiego.jpg - I'm volunteering with the disaster and will upload images as I get the chance. If you're looking for a way to help, please check my Commons account history for updates and categorize them, etc. I probably won't have time. Best, DurovaCharge! 15:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to California wildfires of October 2007.
Thanks Durova, we will keep watch on your contributions for images.
I have been in touch with many people on Flickr and quite a few people have relicensed images for us to use.
To anyone who wants to upload images, please upload them to Commons and place them in the image collection linked here--->
Best, Johntex\talk 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about a gallery? • Lawrence Cohen 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Manual of Style frowns on photo galleries in most cases. I'd prefer to see us continue expanding the article and then place relevant pictures right alongside the text they are illustrating. Then we have the link to Commons for all the others. A couple of the pictures in this article (the satellite image and the Mira Mesa evacuation center) have been uploaded to the English language Wikipedia and they need to be moved to Commons when someone has time. Johntex\talk 17:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an October 23 version of the NASA shot showing the smoke plumes, since there was more smoke on the 23rd than the 22nd? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the images availabel since 21:th. There are two satellites (or three but the third sat is not found anywhere on the net): following is the images from 21:th. →AzaToth 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Terra 2007-10-21
    Terra 2007-10-21
  • Terra 2007-10-22
    Terra 2007-10-22
  • Terra 2007-10-23
    Terra 2007-10-23
  • Terra 2007-10-24
    Terra 2007-10-24
  • Aqua 2007-10-21
    Aqua 2007-10-21
  • Aqua 2007-10-22
    Aqua 2007-10-22
  • Aqua 2007-10-23
    Aqua 2007-10-23
  • Aqua 2007-10-24
    Aqua 2007-10-24

Witch and Poochama Fire combines[edit]

" Witch, Poomacha fires combine Posted @ 11:10 AM

The Witch and Poomacha fires have combined to form a 225,000-acre blaze, with hot spots heading east towards Julian, north to Palomar Mountain and northeast into the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, according to the San Diego - County Office of Emergency Services."
Not very good with moving this stuff together, so if anyone elses volunteer (Xoirun 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

External Links[edit]

I have created a message board site, designed to help those suffering in the fires (www.CAFirestorm.com). I added the link yesterday, and made it clear that it was not for profit, which is true. I believe it will help at least some people communicate with each other on a more personal level. Please do not remove this link from the external links, otherwise please let me know why it should be removed. Apm500 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a promotion service; your forum has almost no posts, and is not established. Per policy, links to be avoided include "links mainly intended to promote a website." Tyro 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Tyro; see WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Wiki is an encyclopedia, nota support group. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Tyro, come back if your board gets established independently. Johntex\talk 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who first removed the link, I want to emphasize that we're not criticizing your website. In fact, I commend you on all the hard work you've put into it. However, it's simply not appropriate for Wikipedia at this time. szyslak 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might you have any suggestions for getting this site known or heard about? Apm500 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

"This evacuation comes almost four years to the day after the Cedar Fire of 2003." Is this notable? Surely all major fires will occur at roughly the same time of year. Plasticup T/C 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, trivia is discouraged, support removal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, what is discouraged is a section labeled trivia. Whether any particular fact is trivia or not is in the eye of the beholder. I do think it is notable and that it should remain in the article. Two points:
  1. Anniversary dates do resonate with a lot of people. As proof of this, just look at how many media reports chose to mention this.
  2. The very fact that these fires do come at around the same time each year is important to understanding the phenomenon.
Therefore, we should leave this correctly sourced fact in the article. It is not trivia. Johntex\talk 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you say so, no problem :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johntex. I think it is notable enough to mention because it seems like every news reporter and government official on television/radio have said that exact same thing multiple times. It would be informative to the reader and WP:TRIV does not suggest it’s removal. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 22:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not trivial to mention the anniversary. While we're on the subject of trivia, I'm glad we're not being hit with unencyclopedic silliness about "responses" to this disaster, in the vein of "Bessarabian response to Hurricane Katrina" or "The Principality of Sealand's response to the Virginia Tech massacre". Not yet, anyway. szyslak 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, California hasn't had any ather major series of wildfires this year, so including the word October in the title is unnecessary. Would it be appropriate to move the article to California wildfires of 2007 or 2007 California wildfires? 17Drew 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still several more months left in the fire season. Another outburst of firestorms could happen in November or December. So I say we leave the title as it is until 2007 becomes 2008. szyslak 00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait until at least November, which is not far away. Some of these fires may still be burning then, so the article may need to renamed just to capture the fact that the fires continued past November. Johntex\talk 01:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't disambiguate unless there's a specific reason to do so. For example, Wind It Up was at that location and not Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song) because any speculation that there would be another notable song with the same title was...well, speculation. If there is another series of wildfires in California this year, then this article should be moved back to California wildfires of October 2007. 17Drew 03:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is really not speculation to say that there will be more fires this year. There are always fires in Southern California in November and December. The Santa Anna winds continue until March and December is their peak. The only question is how big they will be and whether someone will write an article about them.
Also, there already have been other wildfires in California this year prior to October. We just don't have articles on them because Wikipedia is incomplete. If we renamed the article as you suggest, then the title would be misleading because the article does not cover any of those earlier 2007 fires. Johntex\talk 03:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to major wildfires in SoCal this year, there was the "Angora" fire, June 2007. Coyote chindi 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fires in Mexico[edit]

Another interesting point is that the fire does not respect the international border, so these are not strictly California fires. I've added a short mention of the fires in Northern Mexico. Johntex\talk 04:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you remember but there was a fairly big fire around Lake Tahoe in June. It destroyed a couple hundred houses and buildings, so it is necessary to differentiate between the fires.69.104.219.138 00:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there so few fires in Mexico? The maps seem to show it stoipping at the border. (The exceptions seem to have been pretty quickly cured by the Mewican authorities. Is the terrain so very different as one crosses the border? If not, what otehr factors afre at work?
Johnbibby 14:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest movement of Americans since Civil War[edit]

The lead sentence reads that the event is the "largest peacetime movement of Americans since the Civil War." I am changing this phrase to "Civil War era", since any movement of Americans during the Civil War would not have been a "peacetime" movement. 66.65.42.83 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That statistic is likely in error anyway. "Millions" evacuated due to Hurricane Rita. [Reference:"Hurricane Rita Information". Texas Online. State of Texas. Retrieved 2007-10-24.] I am removing it from the lead and putting it in the body of the article where the conflicting accounts can better be explained. Per WP:LEAD, we should generally not place information in the lead unless it is also in the body of the article. Johntex\talk 02:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest[edit]

The news outlets have revealed that one arsonist is in custody, and the FBI and police are after others. This has been repeatedly all over the news literally all day. See FOX News's website and CNN's website, the local media websites as well. 65.173.104.140 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be "Californian wildfires of October 2007"[edit]

"California wildfires of October 2007" doesn't sound right I think California should be change to Californian.--71.170.106.104 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this case either way would be grammatically correct. For unrelated examples with the same syntax, see Texas State Fair (not Texan State Fair) or United States-Mexico border (not American-Mexican Border). Or consider that you would normally say, the "California state capital is Sacramento". Johntex\talk 03:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Texas state fair redirects to State Fair of Texas--71.170.106.104 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. I had not noticed that. Still, we have a redirect for that form and there is no redirect for Texan State Fair or Texian State Fair. I think the other examples I cite are still valid as well. Johntex\talk 06:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be california. Djgranados 07:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism[edit]

Pyroterrorism, very few ghits, mostly to wikipedia. 169.229.75.132 03:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The word is not used in the body of the article so it has no business in the lead. Besides which, the stated source did not use the word at all. I have removed it. Johntex\talk 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this is a joke? Pyroterrorism? • Lawrence Cohen 05:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pyroterrorism. Complete nonsense. • Lawrence Cohen 05:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy deleted it. Thanks. Johntex\talk 06:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KNBC ref cleanup[edit]

I started to work on ref cleanup, but found that most of the KNBC links don't work; does anyone understand their website or know how to find those links? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New images[edit]

I've uploaded 14 new images taken at Qualcomm stadium today. My favorite is Image:Qualcomm11.jpg - see the caption. I've thrown it to the Commons FPC sharks and have no idea how it'll do over there. Anyway, at least now the site has some free images of the relief effort. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 07:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted higher on the page. Moving so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. See here for the complete category. DurovaCharge! 13:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

It might be important to note the depleted state of the National Guard due to the Guard's involvement in Iraq. Equipment is not available for use to combat the fires. On a sad note, regarding the federal response, CNN reports VP Cheney fell asleep during a cabinet meeting where the president was being briefed about the fires. Bbrown8370 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to reference that, as most news sources are reporting it and it directly relates to the ability to fight the fires. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then, of course, the correct rebuttals (also given by reliable sources) will also be included. It doesn't matter how many firefighters or how much equipment you have or don't have when there are sustained winds at 70 mph, and gusts to 100mph. There is no shortage, according to officials. D'oh. You can't fight that kind of fire until the winds die down, no matter how many people you throw at it. And by the way, shouldn't we delete now the absurd reference to global warming from this article? Global warming didn't cause the arsonists to strike, didn't cause the overturned trucks or other fire causes, didn't cause the people to build too close to forests and deserts, and Santa Ana winds have always existed, etc. Just because one person mentioned global warming doesn't mean it must be included in this article. Maybe one person also mentioned illegal immigration leading to arson; do we need to include that, too. Sheesh, the politicization of this article already ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the conspiracy theories about how the Government actually launched the fires to use pyroterrorism in the 2008 election need inclusion, too. • Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Some editors are actually involved with the devastation. I sure don't want to be frustrated by having to read here about the politicization of a tragedy. Unwatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the Reid passage before. It's actually pretty neutral, right now. • Lawrence Cohen 19:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, as long as we are going to bring up something like this, I don't see any reference to how US Northern Command is using state of the art military intelligence equipment track and image the fires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.249.100 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October Fire / Nightsky Fire[edit]

Are these separate incidents, or is one a re-naming of the other? There is no reference to an "October Fire" on the CalFire site currently. -- Takwish | Talk 19:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind--they're separate incidents. -- Takwish | Talk 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time article[edit]

Here's a good article that just "came across my desk": Time: Cue Disaster, Cut to Schwarzenegger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

calif. dept. of forestry budget cuts[edit]

can someone verify this? i was told the following recently:

"One of the reasons so many homes were lost during the last burn was due to this species of beetle called the Bark Beetle who started attacking and subsequently killing a huge percentage of the pine and eucalyptus trees that fill the mountain sides. This began god, I don't know, like maybe ten years ago? The forest service was really active in trying to remove the dead and dying trees, clear cutting many areas. They were sending out notices to homeowners to inform them of the problem and their efforts to try and keep up with the daunting task of removing these dead trees. Right after the last fire, we noticed a dramatic drop in the number of trees being removed in our area, as well as the rest of the unburned forest. No money for the Department of Forestry budget for manpower because Bush cut their funding by almost 75%, if I am remembering the figures correctly. We were left surrounded by an almost dead forest, kindling for a MAJOR disaster just awaiting the right mixture of Santa Ana winds and low humidity."

true or not true? please only respond based on what you know or what statistics you can find to verify/refute this, rather than what you think or what this sounds like. if this is true it deserves a mention on this page. until then, obviously, i'm not going to edit anything into the page along these lines.

160.39.129.60 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What link was this on? We can review if it is a reliable source and see if it is worth including. • Lawrence Cohen 22:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CNN reported last night that for the past 17 years, the federal forest service has exceeded their budget for fighting forest fires and therefore they would tap into their prevention budget to make up the shortfall. So, this would mean that it started prior to the Bush administration. Of course, just because a budget gets cut does not mean the cut was unreasonable. Ask most any teenager how much money they want for an allowance and see if you get a resonable answer. Government budgets are the same. I have yet to meet a government agency that thought they had too much, or even sufficient, money for their cause. Johntex\talk 03:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bush is there[edit]

Bush is there right now. This should be noted, and maybe even include a brief discription of what he did there (met with Schwarzenegger and Feinstein). Msteelman1 22:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEChA[edit]

I just deleted an edit alleging that MEChA had claimed responsibility for setting the fires, citing this article: http://www.cnnheadlienews.com/2007/US/10/25/fire.mecha/index.html This is clearly a hoax. Examine the URL and the links on the page. -- Takwish | Talk 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit said these were allegations. Even if the the letters were meant to simply slander MEChA the organization they are newsworthy and certainly if it makes its way to CNN then we can agree the letter at least exists. The Chief of fire for Orange county, confirmed it was likely arson and and indivual has been arrested. I would have done the same if the arsonists had claimed to be a member of the Toastmasters club. We live in an era of polically motivated violence live with it. --Mricbm 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not CNN. Look closer to the URL...cnnheadlienews - it's a hoax page. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fox / Alqaeda nonsense[edit]

Removed--those two sources are blogs, so neither in this case is a valid reliable source. Since we no source to list at Fox--where did they say this? Who said it? When?--this needs to go. It adds nothing to the article anyway to include a random pundit's unnotable opinion. • Lawrence Cohen 05:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if one's going to blame Al Qaeda for every little thing, one might as well blame Mrs. O'Leary's cow! Or a jinn, which everyone (well, every good Muslim, anyhow) knows is made of fire (albeit the non-polluting kind). Until then, let's stop looking for escape goats without sourcing, ok? 204.52.215.107 06:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentalists Implicated[edit]

FOX News and CNN, other news outlets have, especially FOX News, have indicated that the "EnvironMENTAList Whackos" (Rush did as well) have prevented the Forest service from removing underbrush, thinning out trees, etc. because these nuts (NOT MY TERMINOLOGY) keep interfering, stating BS about rare plants and animals (all killed, burned up in the fires) that would be destroyed. This is all over FOX News, Conservative Radio, even on CNN. 65.173.104.140 18:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be stated ? 65.173.104.140 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link or Reliable source to review. • Lawrence Cohen 18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FOX News has been doing the implication for two days straight, as is "Talk Radio". Try Google. 65.173.104.140 21:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Fox / Alqaeda nonsense above. Just because some right-wing whackos make political capital out of the fires, does not make it notable or relevant for this article. Rockpocket 21:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would say any single-source punditry is irrelevant and to be scrubbed from the article. If Fox or Rush blame Qaeda or liberals for the policy, not relevant. If Ted Kennedy or CNN blame the fires on the Iraq War, not relevant. If CNN and Fox both blame someone, it may be fair game. • Lawrence Cohen 22:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This canard has been used after every major fire for the last decade. Thinning trees and cutting brush costs a fortune, doesn't last long, and fails to protect slopes from erosion. If there is actual evidence of efforts (stymied or not) to pursue cutting and thinning in the fire areas then we should report that. Pundits have opinions on everything and we shouldn't report whatever they say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4S Ranch not significantly hit[edit]

Should probably be edited to remove 4S Ranch from the significantly hit communities.

According to [1], there were no structure losses within the 4S Ranch tracts.

There were a few custom homes lost on the hills north and west of 4S Ranch (including Larry Himmel's home), but my understanding is that those homes mostly predate the existence of the 4S Ranch community.

--75.5.100.82 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense?[edit]

Has time come to use past tense on this event? One of today's AP stories starts with "With the worst of the wildfires dying down..."--Tonycointoss 00:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give it a few days. • Lawrence Cohen 05:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, according to http://www.inciweb.org/state/5/ there are still 9 active fires at this time, with at least 4 of them still a major threat to many communities a no where near containment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.216.120.12 (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of yesterday, all of the 23 total fires in this outbreak were %100 contained. It is important to differentiate between "contained" and "out."Coyote chindi 00:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've been past tense copyediting over the last 2-3 weeks on this article, but it needs more attention. Rosiestephenson (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow article?[edit]

Does this article seem to be loading about 10 times slower for everyone else? I just did that revision for the vandal blanking of a section, and I'd swear it took a total of 10-15 seconds. It's been like that on and off all day, but not on any other articles. • Lawrence Cohen 05:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More pics[edit]

I've uploaded some more from the Del Mar evacuation center, taken yesterday.

DurovaCharge! 16:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1,500 Homes?[edit]

Looking at http://www.signonsandiego.com/firemap/structuresburned.html I see significantly fewer (1/2) than that. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SignonSanDiego may be covering only San Diego vs all of California; or it is possible that one (either one) of the sources is truly in error. Johntex\talk 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too detailed[edit]

I think this article is too detailed. It's time to fork out what can be and gut what can't. --Elliskev 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree- Some information is too detailed; some information is repeated over and over. Time for comprehensive copyedit. Rosiestephenson (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too long ?[edit]

I see no discussion above of the Too long tag, so I'm removing it. The readable prose WP:SIZE of this article, as measured by Dr pda's prose size script is 19KB, well under the recommended guidelines of 30 to 50 KB readable prose. I'm also fixing the TOC per WP:LEAD; the TOC goes between the lead and the first section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section right up above. Anyway, fair enough with the 19K analysis. It just seems a little too detailed to me. It's one of those blah, blah, blah things. --Elliskev 00:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, I see. Well too detailed is different than too long; by too detailed, I guess you mean daughter articles are needed now. But it's still not too long. By the way, the very long template goes on talk pages (not main page - readers coming to articles linked to the main page don't need to see Wiki self-references). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the article is too detailed or too long. I support removal of the template. Johntex\talk 04:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. :) --Elliskev 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add index item on animals?[edit]

I am new to Wikipeidia so do not want to jump in and make changes, but I think you need something on people needing help looking after animals or finding their pets. I have a website http://wwww.calfireinfo.com with a lot of links on this subject. HoosierGal 18:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you are right that information on animals evacuated/lost could have a place in the article. i just checked your website though and either the link is wrong or the site is down. I'll check again later, or you can post other links here and I will see if I can add a small mention to the article. Welcome to Wikipedia, Johntex\talk 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fatfingered my link and put in too many "W's!" I have just been very busy

Here is the correct link and I am sorry for the inconvenince

http://www.calfireinfo.com

Thank you! Feel free to link to my page or mine my page for links.HoosierGal —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE[edit]

It's been a couple of days. Somebody needs to update this bitch! I'm pretty sure the fires are all done... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.56.74 (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries reduced by 8 for Poomacha Wildland Fire[edit]

Quotes from InciWeb: Poomacha Wildland Fire: "This fire has resulted in 13 firefighter injuries." "Injuries were reduced by 8 due to an error on the first 209 report." Do I just go in and change the number in the table from 21 to 13? Eliezerh 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original fire?[edit]

What's the origin of the wildfires? The only evidence I could find was the Ranch fire (according to the article, started the twentieth - all others on the charts started the twenty-first ), but I'm pretty sure that this is not the origin. Mr. Raptor 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were multiple origins to the fires. At least one was caused by aron. At least one was caused by downed power lines. At least one was caused by an over-turned 18 wheeler. Johntex\talk 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ended?[edit]

I checked www.fire.ca.gov and the fire is deemed still ongoing, although only two fires left and near complete contaiment. The question part is why the box on the side lists the fire as occurring from Oct. 20th through Oct. 31st? What are the parameters for classifying the fire as complete? ThanksAliceC 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a good question. I am not sure that we have a hard-and-fast criteria for the dates in the infobox.
I believe technically some remnants are still burning. As of today, the state of California said the fires were "under control".
Reference: "Governor Calls on Blue Ribbon Task Force to Review State Fire Response". State of California. November 62007. Retrieved 2007-11-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
I have updated the text of the article to include this statement. I am not sure what is best to put in the Infobox. Johntex\talk 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More image uploads[edit]

I've uploaded some more pics to Commons including a couple of homes that were destroyed in the blaze. So far they seem to be the first shots we have of the damage aftermath. DurovaCharge! 15:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - there were a few pictures on Yahoo! detailing firefighters watering down burning houses, and there's shots of Bush and various people walking through ruins. Mr. Raptor 07:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both the LA Times and the San Diego Union Tribune websites have multiple galleries of photos, from the beginning of the fires, through to the aftermath. Coyote chindi 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ended[edit]

The wildfires was 100% contained on November 8, see www.fire.ca.gov. My English is not very well. 201.230.46.139 04:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you are correct. I checked the link you gave and there is a multi-page list of fires. I did not scroll through all the pages, but all the ones I looked at were 100% contained.
Still, I am not sure about the date. Today is November 9 and they all seem to be contained. You checked it yesterday and apparently saw the same thing. Maybe they were 100% contained on November 7 or even earlier?
It would be great if we could find a single source that says something like "On ___ the state announced that all fires were 100% contained" or "On ____ the State announced the last fire had been extinguished". That would be most definitive, in my opinion. Johntex\talk 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This problem is compounded by the fact that some sites seem to have lost interest in updating their information. For instance this fire map still shows several active fires, although if you click on those individual fires, they have not been updated for days.
Inciweb also shows several active fires, though some of them date from September!
Johntex\talk 17:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, our article claims the fires ended October 312007. I see no evidence for that date. Until we find a better date, or unless someone objects, I am going to change the end date to November 62007. We do have a quote from the governor's office, issued that day, that called the fires "under control". I don't view that as definitive, but I see no reference at all for the October 312007 date. Johntex\talk 17:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting problem[edit]

Just a quick problem I don't know how to fix: there's a template error or something between the Santiago fire and Green Valley fire in the Orange County section. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Databoxes[edit]

The databoxes need attention, starting with their widths. I'm not sure how to make the fix myself. Is the header "Date/time started" accurate, vs. "Date/time reported"? Either remove "Containment" column, or change header to "Date contained" and fill in dates. Or even better, one column called "Period" with start and end dates (start time might be viewed historically unimportant). "Injuries" header isn't accurate; recommend changing to something that encompasses injury and death. Rosiestephenson (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

drought [edit]

Today, it seems likely that Coachella Valley & Riverside County have experienced more rain than in a year.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


NORAD_Tracks_Santa North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command [edit]

Southern California does get severe windstorms; but, today's seem amongst the most so. Certainly, I thought of the norad silliness. There have been fires.

  • <

http://google.com/search?q=%22little+country+church%22+%22fire%22+%221750+north+argyle+avenue%22+%22%22 >;

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 18:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

I removed a Talk page template that claimed the article was structured in a confusing manner. I don't see any explanation here of why someone added the tag or any discussion on changing the structure. In the absence of such discussion ever taking place, the tag seems improper.

I just re-read the article after not working on it for about a month - the organization of the article seems fine to me. There is some minor clean-up needed, certainly, but the over-all organization seems appropriate and easy-to-follow. Please comment here if you have an opinion about this. Thanks, Johntex\talk 22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE A QUESTION?[edit]

HI MY NAME IS PAOLA AND I'M IN THE SEVENTH GRADE . FOR MY WINTER BREAK MY ENGLISH TEACHER GAVE MY CLASSMATES AND I AN ASSIGNMENT . WE HAD TO WRITE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAS IMPACTED A BIG POPULATION. I CHOSE TO WRITE ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES THAT JUST OCCURRED THIS OCTOBER. WE HAVE TO GET A CITED SOURCE FROM THE INTERNET BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO'S THE PERSON THAT WROTE THIS MAGNIFICENT ARTICLE.MAYBE I SHOULDN'T EVEN BE WRITING THIS HERE AND MAYBE WON'T GET AN ANSWER BUT IF ANYBODY KNOW'S THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.227.184 (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this answers your question but the guideline on how to cite Wikipedia is here: Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Good luck, Ameriquedialectics 01:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. You can see everyone who contributed to the article here, as you can see, it is a lot of people. We generally recommend you cite us using something like:
Wikipedia contributors. October 2007 California wildfires. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. January 2, 2008, at [the time you accessed it]. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_2007_California_wildfires&oldid=181744353.
Good luck with your assignment. Rockpocket 01:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are considered to be a secondary source. In general, it is a good practice to use the secondary source but also to go one step further and read (and reference) the appropriate primary sources. In this case, we cite over 100 sources that we ourselves used. You certainly don't need to use all of them, but it would be a good idea if you could use at least a couple of them. That will give your paper a lot of extra credibility. Good luck with the assignment, Johntex\talk 16:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Hurricane Katrina[edit]

On CNN and other major new sources, they compared The wildfires to Hurican Katriana, mainly on FEMA and reaction. Mainly in San Diego. Can some one incorporate this?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update[edit]

This article needs updating. In many cases, it says "As of" or "have been" etc. I'm sure final statistics exist. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also caught several hidden instances of vandalism in the article, some dating back to late Oct. 07. Could someone who knows more about the subject matter (perhaps a member of the applicable WikiProject) look into it? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming pages[edit]

There is a discussion about renaming the Category:Wildfires in California by year pages from <YEAR> California wildfires to <YEAR> California wildfire season on the talk page for Talk:2015 California wildfires. If you care to participate in the discussion, please comment here (so as to keep the discussion in one location. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add image in infobox[edit]

Hello editors of this page, I just put the file name of an image I want to have in the infobox. However, I have not created an account and I don't want to so I want someone logged on to do it. The image is at: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/196071main_calfires_20071105_HI.jpg. Also, please resize the image so it fits. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@73.223.175.207: that isn't the way things work. If you want to add an image then add it, but that photo isn't good for this article anyway. So stop adding a blank file to the article. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2007 California wildfires. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on 2007 California wildfires. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_California_wildfires&oldid=1196496520"