Talk:King Fire

California Stub‑class Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wildfire Low‑importance

	King Fire 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.

Name[edit]

The article mentions that the name has changed, but it doesn't explain why it is named "King Fire". This would be a helpful addition. —Ost (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wildland fires in California are usually by the CAD system for a road or other landmark that comes up when taking the call. In this case the fire started off of King Of The Mountain Road in Pollock Pines and the CAD system assigned the name "King". — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigWhiteFireDog (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End Date for California Fires[edit]

In California in general, 100% containment now means the fire is controlled and the only truly controlled wildland fire is one that is out. For both Cal Fire and the U.S.F.S., 100% means the fire is out and on small fires, that they are leaving. On major fires like this, while there may be occasional flare ups, 100% contained means that there are adequate lines 100% around the fire, that the fire has been "mopped up 100-200 feet in from all lines, that there is no active fire or smouldering fuel in the mopped up area and no major active burning inside the perimeter. Large storms are no guarantee that all the hot spots in the perimeter are extinguished as the Rim fire of 2013 still had hot spots this year. Using the date of a large storm as the end date of a fire just because it's a storm is inaccurate.BigWhiteFireDog (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, that isn't completely true. Cal Fire has clarified on its website that the 100% containment applies only to the perimeter of the wildfire, while full control is the actual extinguishing of the wildfire (this is possibly also explained on the InciWeb website, though I can't remember exactly where). Only in rare cases (or small-medium-sized fires) does full containment also imply full control, so this should not be assumed for each wildfire. Besides, the "end date" slot for the wildfires is for the date of full control, not 100% containment, unless they both happen on the same date. InciWeb's bulletins indicated that the King Fire was still active on October 14, meaning that the control date is definitely beyond that, for starters. Just a tip, do a little more research on this kind of stuff. Also, please try to improve your English, because I had a hard time understanding parts of what you posted above. LightandDark2000 (talk)

Then learn to read as I am a native English speaker. As for research, I am a former career fire officer with Cal Fire, run a fire update/news service and have over 50 fire related certifications so I've "done a little more research"... 100% containment is full control. Cal Fire officers often now used the term "contained-controlled when wrapping up fires. All wildfire dates listed in official publications are from the start date to date of 100% containment. If you will notice Cal Fire stopped updated King Fire Information on the 9th, and Inci-Web on the 10th so you couldn't have read anything new on the 14th. As far as they are concerned the fire is controlled. As far as the storms are concerned, there may still be hot spots smouldering through until spring as has happened on many major fires (such as the Rim fire, which had "smokes" pp up this year). A storm doesn't mean a fire is completely dead.

From the NWCGs definitions http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/c.htm "Controlled The completion of control line around a fire, any spot fires therefrom, and any interior islands to be saved; burned out any unburned area adjacent to the fire side of the control lines; and cool down all hot spots that are immediate threats to the control line, until the lines can reasonably be expected to hold under the foreseeable conditions." Current practice is to not count a constructed line as part of "containment" until the above issues are rectified. That's why the containment date kept getting pushed back.

As for the name, it was never called the "Pollock Pines Fire" The media has been wrong multiple times. I personally heard the original dispatch (I live in El Dorado county and monitor scanners during fire season) and it was called the "King Incident" from the time of dispatch as is the practice. The name is assigned by the CAD system at the time of dispatch for a land mark or feature such as King of the Mountain road.BigWhiteFireDog (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the King Fire was called the "Pollock Pines Fire" for a few days by some media outlets, before they abandoned the term by September 16. I tried to access the link that was originally used to cite this, but that link no longer exists. And even if the media was wrong, that name was widespread enough during those days to be noted here in the main article of the King Fire. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for media outlets often refer to fires by the name of the town they are near, verses the official name of the fire. If they even did that, which you can't seem to prove, that doesn't make it the name of the fire nor correct for here. AS I said, I heard the dispatch (I live less than 10 miles from the west flank of the fire), monitored and reported on it the entire time it was burning, AND per Cal Fire policy it was named the King Incident from the time of dispatch. In addition, I never heard the local news refer to it by any other name. Here is a Wildland fire discussion forum that has almost a blow by blow record taken from scanner traffic and personal observations. IF the fire had ever been referred to by any other name, it would be recorded here. It isn't... http://hotlist.wildlandfire.com/threads/43013-CA-ENF-King-%28was-AEU%29-%28Contained%29/page20 Nor is it here in the questions and answers section. http://hotlist.wildlandfire.com/threads/43033-CA-ENF-King-%28Q-amp-D%29/page66. They even note when it changed agency designators from Cal Fire's "AEU" prefix to the U.S.F.S's "ENF" prefix when true jurisdiction was determined but you will not see any name changes.

In addition, you will note that there are no more posts on that forum for the King fire after 100% containment. Many of the people on that forum are current or (like me) former wildland and WUI firefighters and they too consider a fire that is 100% to be controlled and legally "out". You are wrong, and I can and will keep correcting you for as long as it takes.BigWhiteFireDog (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]