Talk:2024 Washington wildfires

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.

Wildfire Low‑importance

	2024 Washington wildfires 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Watchduty

What aspects are we looking at that qualify watchduty as WP:Reliable?--Kev min § 21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that too. I use InciWeb as a reliable state/federal government source instead. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the app a little closer, I think this falls under the greater "wiki like" umbrella and I dont consider it to meet Reliability standards. For example one of the Watchduty entries is for the Joe Barker Fire in Walla Walla county lists the size as 1,000 acres, but is only reported on by one "reporter" (user) and this news article from July 16 notes the fire was contained and assessed at 1 acre, consistent with NWCC listings. @68.8.81.93 and 2bre99: as the original editors to add Watchduty as a ref.--Kev min § 02:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound good. Let's consider it deprecated unless somebody can make a good case for it. By the way pings to anon (IP) editors don't work. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also I always hope that one day IP pinging will magically work. XD --Kev min § 19:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting Watch Duty also gets their information from official sources. NIFC has the fire listed at 1,436 acres with perimeter mapping. WatchOutBroo (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having offical input on some entries doesn't clear it of the wikipedia like user generated data which places it into unreliable source status.--Kev min § 23:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find another source for the Long Hollow Fire other than Watch Duty due to the fire being now contained and Inciweb likely removed the fire page since it got contained. WatchOutBroo (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, found source. WatchOutBroo (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WatchOutBroo:, as a note, Watchduty should not be used as a ref.--Kev min § 21:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note?

@Kevmin I believe there should be a note. Many don't know what "containment" means exactly. A short explanation with a source should explain to the reader what the meaning of "containment" is. I want to know your opinion. I have already put that note on many wildfire season pages. So, I don't see the reason in not adding extra bytes. CostalCal (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CostalCal: Im of the opposite opinion, coming from the fire season prone northeastern Washington, containment is very simple conceptually. What situations have lead you to have the view that people think contaimment is something other then what it sounds like? (Also I will note that @Bri: has already had to clarify the note you posted once and added references (which your note lacks an really should have).--Kev min § 14:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we do further clarify containment, it might be worth mentioning that containment percentage can go down when the fire spreads. This has happened recently with the 2025 Bear Gulch Fire that went from 10% IIRC to 2% or something like that. We unfortunately imply with the progress bar that it's like a file download and only gets more complete as time goes by. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: Should I change the summary of the definition? Or get rid of it altogether? CostalCal (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CostalCal: given @Bri:s really good comment on containment levels fluctuating lower as well as higher, I would suggest that we keep the note but that it should be refactored to address the fluid nature of containment and that things like blowouts (1988 White Mountain Fire) happen and reduce the percentages.--Kev min § 17:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]