Talk:2016 Fort McMurray wildfire

Conflicting stats
While aware that this is a breaking news story, could someone possibly resolve the two reffed conflicting statements regarding 29,000 and 80,000 people being affected? Which is accurate? Thanks. Hamamelis (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * From what I hear on CBC Radio Edmonton, the 60,000 - 80,000. (~61,000 is what the population is listed on Google.) From my understanding, there was either a fire that spread to Fort McMurray, or one that got much worse after firefighters thought it was under control. A great resource for developing this page is the Alberta Emergency Alert webpage. The first alert was "There is a wildfire southwest of Fort McMurray." (not yet in Fort McMurray). Next alert "There is a wildfire southwest of Fort McMurray. A state of local emergency has been declared. A mandatory evacuation order has been issued for Centennial Park, south of Airport Road and Gregoire.". Next alert added " A Reception Centre is set up at MacDonald Island at 1 C.A. Knight Way.", and information on those needing transit. Followed by http://www.emergencyalert.alberta.ca/alerts/2016/05/3701.html, http://www.emergencyalert.alberta.ca/alerts/2016/05/3711.html , http://www.emergencyalert.alberta.ca/alerts/2016/05/3712.html , http://www.emergencyalert.alberta.ca/alerts/2016/05/3713.html  etc etc. I have also heard about the possibility of other fire departments helping, but do not have that info. Someone who called into CBC Edmonton told them the Shell station, Super8 Motel, and McDonald's are destroyed. Again -- I don't have a source. --CoolCanuck (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have some conflicts with the size of the fire, this article says 522895 ha but the Alberta Wildfire website says 522892 ha. --Gmo'sAreBad Gmo&#39;sAreBad (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Various knowledge
(not sure if this is encyclopedia worthy): Facebook has activated their Safety Check https://www.facebook.com/safetycheck/fortmcmurray-wildfire-may03-2016/ (note: don't click "I'm safe if you're not in the impacted area <- dont include that note in article)

Canadian Red Cross is prepared (I assume currently providing) support and is accepting cash donations http://www.redcross.ca/

Radio stations based in Fort McMurray were forced to go off-air (lack of announcers/staff because of mandatory evacuation). Because CBC Edmonton is based in Edmonton, they are still able to broadcast. CBC Edmonton is broadcasting a special broadcast because of the fires. Regular programming occurs, but news coverage is every other hour. (hour after the hour / flip flop)

According to CBC Edmonton, "about" 18 firefighters and 4 firetrucks from Edmonton will arrive to assist (Twitter link is Edmonton fire cheif) https://twitter.com/yegfirechief/status/727709380964167680

Many motels and hotels (too many to list) are offering complementary rooms to those affected. (info is easily findable)

Super8 motel & surrounding Area completely gone (destroyed by fire). (including McDonald's and Shell gas station) in Fort McMurray https://twitter.com/TiffanyGlobal/status/727675602484928512 --CoolCanuck (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * more info: the hashtag #ymmfire and #ymm is used throughout social media (eg: twitter). Various Facebook groups have been created for those who need help, and those who can help. Premier of Alberta says the province is matching donations made to the @RedCrossAB in response to #ymmfire - $2M approved so far #ymm (CTV Edmonton) --CoolCanuck (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Time conversion
Providing times in MST and then providing the UTC time in brackets is consistent with WP:TIMEZONE. But is there some kind of conversion template? -- Natural  R X 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to look closer. The examples of acceptable use include use of British Summer Time. The article should really be written using the local time, which is MDT (-6) not MST/MT (-7) at this time of year. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 06:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

2016
It is not necessary to have "year" in the title of the article, when there has realistically only been one such notable fire in Fort McMurray's history. If no one opposes, I intend to move this article to "Fort McMurray fire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colipon (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't strictly necessary, I agree. However, the general standard practice on Wikipedia has long been to preface such disaster articles with the year.  At any rate, might I suggest tabling this discussion for a few days, until the disaster has passed?  While I don't expect a heated move war on this article, I have seen enough of these cases in the past to believe that there is little to gain by worrying about this aspect of the title right now. Resolute 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would concur with Resolute. After all, if this keeps going, it may be bigger than Fort Mac and we'd have to move it to a totally new name. -- Natural  R X 19:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I brought up the same at Talk:2011 Slave Lake wildfire when that was going down. Since then, we've had 2013 Alberta floods. While the year does appear redundant, it is obvious the convention is to include it, and I'm reluctant to support removing the year here without a more fulsome multi-article proposed move discussion involving all three articles mentioned here and other implicated Canadian natural disaster articles. Hwy43 (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason is that it's much easier to naturally disambiguate now by including the year than it would be at some time in the future (by moving the page) should there be another event with the same or a similar name, after multiple articles have been linked to this one. (So please consider me opposed.)  General Ization  Talk   20:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur as well. I do not think it is necessary to include “2016” in the title of the article. If there so happens to be another major fire in Fort McMurray (which is very unlikely), we can simply rename the article again. ―PapíDimmi (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Mixing numbers and percentages
Without knowing how many houses are in a neighbourhood, things like 50% and 90% don't mean much. When next to actual numbers in other neighbourhoods, it gets a bit more confusing. I get that numbers aren't always available, especially early, but try to find them. A percentage in parentheses could stil work. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, the only numbers we have are coming from the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, and that is what they are giving us. Hopefully once the fire passes and they can get in to do proper counts, we will have the data to be consistent. At this time though, we can only work with what we have. Resolute 22:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , we have the RMWB's 2015 municipal census report, which lists total dwelling units by area within Table 3.4 on page 40. By cross-referencing with this source, I would be satisfied with content along the lines of "Approximately 80% of the 607 dwellings within the Beacon Hill area were destroyed by the wildfire." Just my two cents. Hwy43 (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Oddly enough, I just restored an edit of yours at the 2016 census article. Small world. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Though I understand your suggestion, just a thought that to many readers the percentages may be in some ways just as or even more meaningful as raw numbers of homes. If one says that 300 houses were destroyed, I don't know whether that's 300 houses within a 1/4 mile radius, a 1/2 mile radius or a 3 mile radius (without density information).  However, if I learn that 50% of the homes in a neighborhood were destroyed, I can extrapolate that to an understanding that one of every two homes was destroyed, and visualize it (probably based, not necessarily accurately, on a mental image of the homes on my street).  So the percentages still have value in terms of a quick, non-technical understanding of the devastation that has occurred.  General Ization   Talk   02:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Aye. In a perfect world, we'd have both. And in this world, we'll probably have both later. No huge rush. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wildfire Alberta webpage
I added a reference for the Alberta government wildfire status map. Other pages on that website show detailed information on each active fire, including the Fort McMurray fire, and also add other useful government links we can incorporate into the article. Can someone with better skills than me convert the current status map into a Wikimedia image and also retain the info bubbles? - Tenebris 66.11.191.152 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Just a note to whoever makes the image..Don't quote me on this, but as far as I know, only the area I highlighted is impacted. While the colour is orange, that's just the colour classification for areas. I do not believe the fire reaches the entire area in orange. http://i.imgur.com/lJdptVQ.png --CoolCanuck (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is about one wildfire, not all active wildfires in northern Alberta. Thus, I do not think a map similar to those provided above is effective. A map of the geographic extent of the fire zoomed into Fort McMurray, with the urban service area boundary and the with the affected areas identified would be ideal. When things settle down, maps showing the extent of the wildfire will be published, and we can take our queue from that. Hwy43 (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all points. Yahoo’s image search finds a fairly detailed map hosted by the CBC, showing the extent as of noon yesterday, but I can’t find its page context or whether it’s one of a series. CTV’s site is showing a CP map of affected neighbourhoods in a couple of their stories.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  02:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an example of a map that will likely be updated to show the geographic footprint of the wildfire when the emergency subsides. Here are some examples of affected area maps.  Ultimately a single map that shows both the footprint of the fire and the affected areas should be prepared, and I'm willing to do it like done for 2013 Alberta floods when all info comes available and when I have the time to do it. Hwy43 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Copyright warning -- CBC images are not government images, and so are not in the public domain. - Tenebris 66.11.191.152 (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure; neither are CP’s or the Calgary Herald’s, and moreover Canadian provincial and federal government works are under Crown copyright. That’s why user-created content is preferable; it also avoids the hassle of preparing & maintaining fair-use rationales.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  04:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Invalid copyright warning example of a map is not owned or created by CBC. It's created by the regional municipality (Municipal Government)  http://www.rmwb.ca source: https://twitter.com/RMWoodBuffalo/status/727368935587368960    full size image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChgiMV-WIAAKGCS.jpg:orig (if saving, change file extension to simply jpg.-  :orig forces twitter to use original) Second image is property of Calgary Hearld (as far as I can tell). News1130 image looks deleted (would not load for me). --CoolCanuck eh? 04:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not exactly sure what you are suggesting, but I can advise I am not suggesting uploading and using these examples. What I am suggesting is that there will be plenty of maps to draw from in getting an interested editor here to create their own map for inclusion in this article. Hwy43 (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how it applies in this case, but maps are copyright protected so even a user generated map based on someone else's map is likely to be an infringement. The only way I can see a map being included is either someone releasing theirs under an appropriate license, or someone creating one based on publicly available data, but not on the map itself. Unless maybe it can be proven to be a case of fair use, though I'm not sure how we normally treat maps and fair use here. &#160; Discant  X  10:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The information in a map is not copyrighted, only the “creative expression”. If “based on” means in effect reproducing the original, that’s not OK, but plotting the same data with a different style of presentation (possibly using conventional symbols on a free base-map) is fine. So is combining data from multiple maps, as long as it doesn’t resemble any of them. It’s the same thing we do with textual sources, summarizing and paraphrasing in an encyclopedic style.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  17:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Disingenuous. The information of a map is in large part inherent to its creative expression: which is not limited to a couple of arrows, symbols, or even text bubbles. Wikipedia could independently match that standard by borrowing its default Alberta map and adding symbols to match the fire information. Incidentally, that was why I linked the government site in the first place. Government images are always in the public domain. - Tenebris 66.11.191.152 (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * U.S. government works are PD, and I believe some U.S. states’, but that’s not the case in most other countries; in Canada, like much of the Commonwealth, there’s Crown copyright. This isn’t a good place to debate intellectual-property law, so I’ll leave it there.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  20:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That one was new to me. An interesting uniqueness to Commonwealth monarchies. - Tenebris66.11.191.152 (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Best map I think is here: http://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/interactive-map?zoom=9&lon=-892246.41508193&lat=980403.10976365&month=5&day=19&year=2016 I'm new and not really well versed in the formatting so hopefully that link shows up. Mrplastic (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Cause of fire?
? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.24.204 (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Patience. Extinguishing the fire is the priority. Not determining the cause. That will come, and may not come for months after it is extinguished. It took quite a while for the investigation to determine the trigger of the 2011 Slave Lake wildfire if I recall correctly. Hwy43 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hwy43 is correct. Wildfire fire investigation teams won't even enter the burned area until control is near 100% and fire activity has been heavily reduced. Even then, wildfire cause investigations often aren't definitive - especially if the ignition site gets burned over again by shifting winds.  The Interior  (Talk) 16:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Never too early to blame heat and flammability, though. Those bastards! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing anon's point: some times, the cause of a fire is known from the outset, especially if it was reported by the person who started or discovered it. At other times, authorities will make a statement of belief as to its cause, pending further investigation. In the absence of either of those scenarios being stated here, it's not unreasonable to ask if it has been stated elsewhere, and just not yet included here. Bricology (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * When the cause of fire is known, you can find it in http://wildfire.alberta.ca/reports/activeld.pdf -- (please note, the lightning listed is NOT the cause of LARGE fire, other smaller fires were caused by lightning. Large fire cause is under investigation).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolCanuck (talk • contribs) 21:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Expedia
An interesting side note, Expedia.com lists 28 hotels in Fort McMurray. For every one of them, it gives the status as "we are sold out". I assume this means the hotels are closed, not full. Could we get clarification on this? Are there evacuees hunkering down in local hotels, who might be in danger? I emailed Expedia, but have not heard back. (That would be original research even if I do hear back, and I wouldn't add it to the article) If the hotels are closed, then this info doesn't need to be included in the article. But if they indeed are full, and locals/visitors are hunkered down in town, that is remarkable. Juneau Mike (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The whole community has been evacuated. It would be ridiculous and irresponsible if the evacuation made hotels exempt, and if so there would be coverage in the media about that and resulting controversy. The Super 8 was lost to the fire. Does the site say it is "sold out"? There is nothing to pursue here. Hwy43 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I checked, and Expedia does list the Super 8. If you don't know why Expedia's website says the hotels are sold out as opposed to closed, that is fine. But there is no sense commenting if you don't have the answer. By the way, Super8.com lists the Fort McMurray location as unavailable. The Global News reporter said during the broadcast documenting the Super 8's destruction that he has a hotel reservation near the site of the burned Super 8, a reservation he is clearly dubious about. Much of the reporting details a fair amount of people still in Fort McMurray, and surrounding areas, as described by fire officials.  Juneau Mike (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: Priceline.com has listings for three hotels that are available in Fort McMurray. One is listed as "Book now! 4 rooms left!", with 4 rooms available tonight. The process of remaining in town and "hunkering down" as I put it above is known as sheltering in place. When this fire is put out, and its toll calculated, we will find out how many local residents and visitors remained behind. I did not mean to come across as snarky in my earlier reply. My apologies.Juneau Mike (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * All we are seeing here is a case of external computer programs using a best fit scenario for something that doesn't exist in their system.  Expedia, as an example won't have a "it burned down" or "inaccessable due to evacuation" option, so they just mark it as "sold out".  Nobody will be hunkering down in those hotels, given they are directly in the path of destruction, and at least three of them have already burned to the ground. Resolute 16:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Similar to Resolute's comments, I am 99% confident that Priceline.com is reporting vacancies because the previously scheduled bookings in its database made before the fire have now lapsed and therefore it is now automatically showing a certain number of rooms as available. Tomorrow more rooms at these hotels, and rooms at more hotels will likely suddenly appear as open. It is computer programming, and certainly the hotel employees required to evacuate didn't hang back for an extra few minutes to clear the database. It is time to move on. Hwy43 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Google Flights is showing flights being available to Fort McMurray, tonight... which is clearly not the case. Air Canada's booking website has dates until Sunday blacked out for YMM. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Fatalities
I'm moving this here because I do not need to violate WP:3RR. There were two deaths that occurred on Highway 881 south of Fort McMurray. I think we can agree that these deaths were indirect (they were not killed by the fire itself), but the CBC article cited states the following:


 * Minister of Municipal Affairs, Danielle Larivee, confirmed the fatalities Wednesday afternoon during a media availability about the Fort McMurray wildfire that continues to rage out of control, and resulted in the evacuation of the entire city.
 * "We do know there are fatalities associated with that collision, however were still not sure of the associated with the evacuation," she said.
 * "We do know there are fatalities associated with that collision, however were still not sure of the associated with the evacuation," she said.

Until we have another source that links the two, should be keep fatalities listed in the infobox as 0? Or should we differentiate between direct and indirect? -- Natural  R X 15:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * How about just leaving it blank for now, with no zero, and perhaps use hypertext to keep it from being edited until the numbers can be confirmed. Thanks.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to do that, so if you could do that, that'd be great. For now, I will differentiate. -- Natural  R X 17:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Showing it as "0 (direct)" and "2 (indirect)" in the infobox as it is current is more than satisfactory. As this is a current event with new, more accurate information slowly becoming available, I would not be too concerned about having it exactly right at the moment. The best we can do is be reasonable and use the current best info available. Hwy43 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That seems a reasonable compromise for the time being, but I’d just like to reiterate that the connection of the crash to the topic is very tenuous and speculative, even as an indirect or consequential effect, and also to point out that accidents on Hwys. 63 & 881 are very frequent, with fatalities about every other week (offhand guess, no actual stats to hand).—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking them as indirect casualties of the fire seems appropriate, as the victims were evacuees fleeing it. Resolute 16:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes: I agree the victims’ having been identified as evacuees makes it relevant.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Snowstorm articles have no qualms about counting incidental deaths like crashes and heart attacks. Mass shooting articles include those who hyperventilated or tripped while scattering among the injured. There may even be smoke and stress-related deaths twenty years down the road, but we should draw the line at what reliable sources have linked, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Are these fatalities a result of the fire? I don't know if vehicles crashing while in close proximity to the fire counts? I am kind of split. RES2773 (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . I boldly moved your thread up to sit as an extension of the previous discussion on the same matter. Hope you don't mind. Please see how this discussion transpired recently. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * the connection isn’t due to “close proximity”—the accident occurred something like 300 km from Fort McMurray—but the victims were Ft. Mac residents fleeing the fire.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  02:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Either that, or following the evacuation order. A longer chain then, but still clear enough, since the fire sparked the order. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Video
This video of the fire is cc-licensed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ09mtOxKoo Victor Grigas (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not upload this video to Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The CC license is not true. Nav Canada images (webcams) are not in the public domain.
 * Copyright 2003 © NAV CANADA. All rights reserved.NAV CANADA is the owner of copyright in this site and other intellectual property related to this website. By entering this website you acknowledge and agree that any name, logo, trademark or servicemark contained on this website is owned or licensed by NAV CANADA. No portion of this website, including but not limited to the content, information, text, images, audio or video, may be used in any manner, or for any purpose, without NAV CANADA’s prior written permission, except if indicated herein. All material and information found in this website is protected under the copyright and trademark laws of Canada and other applicable jurisdictions. The display of trademarks, tradenames or design marks in this website does not imply that a license of any kind has been granted to any other party. Without in any way waiving any of the foregoing rights, you may download one copy of the material on this website for your personal, non-commercial home use only, provided you do not delete, obstruct or change any copyright, trademark or other proprietary notices. Modification, re-posting or use of the material on this website in any other manner whatsoever and for any other purpose violates NAV CANADA’s legal rights.Any unauthorized use regarding publication, copying or modification of information on this website, including trademarks, tradenames and design marks, may violate applicable legislation and may result in legal action and may subject you to penalties or damages including but not limited to those related to violation of trademarks, copyrights, privacy and publicity rights. Use or transmission of all or any part of this publication in violation of any applicable Canadian or other legislation is hereby expressly prohibited.] --CoolCanuck eh? 19:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

photos
https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26738887316/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26160574883/ Victor Grigas (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Free NASA images from here http://globalnews.ca/news/2683261/nasa-sees-fort-mcmurray-wildfires-from-space/ Victor Grigas (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Super 8 motel burned https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26728653602/in/dateposted/ campground burned https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26549864230/in/photostream/ Flying J gas station burned https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26728712752/in/photostream/ Victor Grigas (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Most of these have already been uploaded to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2016_Fort_McMurray_wildfire Thanks. --CoolCanuck eh? 21:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Accident to firefighting aircraft
During firefighting operations, a Convair 540 crashed on landing at Manning Airport. This does not meet the threshold for an article, but is it worth a mention in this article? Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was fighting a different fire: CBC says “near Manning”, and the distance between Fort Mac and Manning is almost 400 km. P.S. Confirmed: Global has more detail, saying this fire was “at Loon River near Red Earth Creek.”—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  21:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm in UK so not au fait with Canadian geography. Looks like it's not related then. Mjroots (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wildfire prevention funding cuts
Be advised that I removed this as its location and the manner in which it was written could have appeared to insinuate that recent provincial funding cuts to wildfire prevention could have prevented this wildfire from becoming as devasting as it is. I hope/think that was not the intent, and that it was added in good faith, but we need to be very careful how we introduce something that is nothing more than a coincidence at this point. Content like this could lead to WP:SYNTH that the cuts are directly responsible for the magnitude of the wildfire. As it is reported in this article, the province stated "Regardless of the fiscal situation, when wildfires occur in our province, we take the necessary steps to protect Albertans, communities, and forests". If it is worthwhile to add this now or later when things settle down, please be mindful about tone and point of view, and lace it into a logical location. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Name
Seeing as this is spreading far beyond Fort McMurray, maybe this article should be renamed 2016 Alberta wildfire or 2016 Canadian wildfire or something. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 10 years 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We should be going with WP:COMMONNAME. I speculate it will be highly unlikely that something will usurp "Fort McMurray wildfire" as this fire's common name. Alberta and Canada are too general. There will be hundreds of wildfires in Alberta this year and thousands across Canada, thus disambiguation like current would be required. Hwy43 (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Social media controversy
I find this very interesting, but is it notable enough for inclusion, or is it WP:NOTNEWS, or is it too soon to tell? If he ends up getting fired over the comments after the investigation is complete, I would suggest the magnitude of this controversy would be elevated. Hwy43 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWS I would say. Also, WP:UNDUE.  "Small town idiot makes dumb comment" is something I would consider rather trivial. Resolute 22:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You confirmed my instinct. I was waiting for some insensitive idiot to get caught saying something stupid. He isn't the first and won't be the last. Hwy43 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Horse River Fire
I specifically recall hearing the media refer to this fire as the "Horse River Fire" in the first 48 hours before it advanced into Fort McMurray. After finally being referenced as requested, removal of the alternate name of this fire was unnecessary. It was supported by a source from a national newspaper. This name has also been used in the media at the provincial and local levels as well. Let's be reasonable and return "Horse River Fire" Lake Fire" as the alternate name of the fire in the infobox. Hwy43 (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Horse Lake or Horse River? Assuming that was just an attack of Word Association Football, sure.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  03:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Horse River. I knew I'd make that typo eventually due to familiarity with Horse Lake First Nation and its Horse Lakes 152B reserve, which surrounds Horse Lake. These are also in northern Alberta, but on opposite side near the BC border. Hwy43 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Size/area measurements
Would it be possible to give the size/area of the fire in SQUARE MILES equivalencies? Most people don't know how big (or small) "hectares" and "acres" are; as such, using only those measurements is not as informative, meaningful, nor impressive.68.231.71.119 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hectares are a pretty standard measure in Canada. I would welcome anyone with a US view to provide feedback on an imperial area measurement, I thought acres was comparable. I doubt other measurements would be more informative, its hard to get a sense of any land area unless you put in in comparable terms (e.g. 7 hockey rinks, 9 football fields)... -- Natural  R X 20:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For quantities this large I think it makes sense to ‘step up’ to larger units; one can get to km² by merely knocking two zeroes off the ha figure, but acres to sq.mi. is not so easy off the top of one’s head.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  20:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

My query about stating area ALSO in square miles IS "a US view" and the only people who are familiar with hectares & acres are people who deal with or live on land IN rural areas. City-folk deal in blocks and miles and most of the US population live in an urban (community/town/city) situation. And, most people in the US are still not metric savvy. Just about any measurement not in inches, feet, yards, or miles has no 'real' meaning for the average US citizen. I have several post-collegiate years of education and degrees and even to me area measurements not in the 'American' form really don't 'tell' me anything.

As for converting either hectares or acres to sq. mi., there's no need to do it "off the top of one's head." I did an earlier edit and put in the sq. mi. equivalency, but only after I verified it at several sites that automatically do the conversion from hectares to sq. mi. The neighborhood where I lived has about 4 home/house plots per acre, but you cross the street where the homes/houses are closer together and it's more like 6 to 8 per acre; and in another area of my city, there are "farmettes" that have 1 to 2 homes/houses per acre. And this is true across the country. As such, there really is no standard of hectares/acres that the average US citizen can use or rely on to come up with a sense of how large (or small) of an area is being discussed. You talk in feet, yards, or miles, then we'll truly comprehend the size effected.68.231.71.119 (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't watch a lot of news on TV/cable/satellite but the other night there was nothing on that interested me, so I surfed all 5 local {Phoenix, Arizona, USA} English-language stations to pass the time. I was lucky enough to catch news/updates on the fire on 4 of the stations. All 4 stations gave the size of the fire in SQUARE MILES, and since the population of Phoenix (aka "The Valley of the Sun") is over 4 million, I'm obviously not the only person liking the size also given in sq.mi.68.231.71.119 (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The primary unit of measurement should be the one that is locally applied. Canada has not used square miles to measure anything for more than a generation, and instead uses the international units of measure instead of the one used almost exclusively in the United States.  The official reporting of the size of this blaze is given in square hectares or square kilometers. No objection to a template that would provide alternate units of measurement, but the primary one should always be the official one, which is in this case in SI units.  Risker (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with the locally used measurement system being the primary reported or officially used, but when there is international coverage and interest, the inclusion of equivalencies should be considered. The article already uses hectare/acre equivalencies, so why not go ahead and include sq.mi.? I like your idea for a template to provide alternate/equivalent units of measure. (If you go to the "Ongoing events" page [aka "Portal - Current events] and scroll down to the May 10 date and read the blurb on the fire, the size just happens to be given in sq.mi.!)68.231.71.119 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn’t think you were proposing that the square miles should come first. (BTW although I’d be the last person to support the retention of customary units, I think it’s worth noting that the mile-based township survey grid, similar to that used in the western US, is etched onto the landscape in these parts, so miles will never go away entirely.) Would anyone object to changing the area measure in the infobox from hectares (with conversion to acres) to square kilometres (with conversion to square miles)? The magic of Convert, already in use there, will let us ‘mix & match’ if we want, e.g. 248500 ha, if some such compromise will be more satisfactory. It can even provide multiple conversions, but I’d rather not do that in an infobox. (I hear on the radio that the fire grew again today … off to find a written report to cite for an update anyway.)—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  21:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Brevity is important, and adding multiple conversions interrupts the text. We should, as we always do, offer one imperial conversion when the primary is metric/SI.  The question, ultimately, should simply be one of which is better for the reader: acres, or square miles? Resolute 21:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In the interests of brevity (reducing the number of digits) I’ve changed the units in the infobox in the course of updating the area.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  21:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not a huge fan of it being changed to km^2. I have not seen any news report the number in km. The slave lake wildfire is in hectares. We should use what the news is using and not change from it. CoolCanuck eh? 20:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Accord with the sources is a legitimate consideration (although, as I mentioned above, interconverting ha & km² is very easy). What do you think of the hectares-with-square-miles option, for the benefit of non-metricated readers (like the OP) who have trouble picturing areas in the millions of acres?—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe hectares are the units use to measure boreal forest fires and makes it easy to compare to historical ones. From our article The dominant fire regime in the boreal forest is high-intensity crown fires or severe surface fires of very large size, often more than 10,000 ha, and sometimes more than 400,000 ha --DHeyward (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For things like this, hectares is the proper unit of measurement, not km^2. Resolute 23:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the recent comments I’ve changed it back to hectares, but kept the conversion to square miles—the compromise I suggested above—since nobody seems to be arguing for acres. Let me take this opportunity to request to anyone updating the figures, that a new reference be provided as well; the last couple of times, citations showing an outdated figure have been left in place.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  00:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * All right, now that people are edit-warring to eliminate customary measures altogether, I give up. Obviously some things are much more important than making the information comprehensible to our readers.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  02:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hectares are metric, acres are imperial. This covers both the US and Canadian systems of measurement. Discussion of wildfires in the media, on government pages, and on other Wikipedia pages about wildfires including both the list of Canadian Wildfires page and the list of wildfires page show area in both hectares and acres.  This is consistent across forms.  Neither hectares nor acres are esoteric forms of measurement.  The best way to indicate the overall area covered to make it comprehensible is visually with maps and satellite photos which are currently hard to keep updated on the page.  Mrplastic (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There's oil burning, not just trees?
I read well into the article, and can't figure out if this is a fire from trees burning - a forest fire, or if it is a fire fueled by the oil sands that's setting trees on fire too. That really needs to come out first thing in the article. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At Wildfire (with emphasis added): "A wildfire or wildland fire is an uncontrolled fire in an area of combustible vegetation ..." No source has as yet said that any oil or oil sands have burned during this event, and if they did, the event would probably be called something other than a wildfire.   General Ization   Talk   02:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oil burns. Sand doesn't. Oilsands probably don't. Sandoil might, but might not exist. Animal fat gets pretty hot, and porcupines are pretty slow. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.  General Ization  Talk   02:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Super 8 Motel
Are we sure that's actually a photo of a motel destroyed in the wildfire? The trees in the background look remarkably intact for there to have been a roaring furnace having passed through...AnnaGoFast (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Furnace?? Also, tree argument is irrelevant - Here's the flower beds, with the accessible parking sign, here's the illustrated photo. so yes. It's the super 8 motel. CoolCanuck eh?  —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you look closely at the trees, their foliage has been burned off. All that's left is the skeletal trunk and limbs.  If you've ever been in a burn area, you'll see that trees don't burn/fall down or turn to ash like human-built structures do.  Also, a fast moving fire will only burn off the foliage/leaves and leave a scorched bare tree behind.  That's what you see in the background.68.231.71.119 (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/729161496425533440, You can see the same type of photo, with the "triangle" at the back of the building. DO NOT UPLOAD THIS PHOTO. IT IS NOT FREE/FAIR USE CoolCanuck eh? 19:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Currency not clear
The costs given say $ BUT the article pointed to as a reference is a Canadian news article and it is given in Candian $ - which is about 77% value to US dollar. As all the other wikipedia articles give figures in US$ - this needs to be made clear WHICH dollar is being used and diambiguated with a US$ figure in brackets. OR saying clearly CAD$. I do not know how wikipedia does that. BUT I highlight it here as an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.76.250 (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The infobox and financial sections now wikilink to Canadian dollar and display as C$. -- Natural  R X 19:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Current status
I'm going to guess that based on this page the fire is still active, but under control - DarkNITE (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can confidently make that assumption. The source says one of 114 wildfires in that region remains burning but under control. It however does not confirm the one is "this one". Surely there is another source out there that can confirm one way or the other. Hwy43 (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Good news. We have a source that confirms it. A map. Hwy43 (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * See also the summary report from the same site (which I linked in my last ES reverting an end date). These pages get updated pretty regularly, so no guesses should be needed.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  07:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition to both the above map and summary report still confirming the fire is active, albeit under control, this article also advises the same and further indicates that the fire will likely smoulder underground during the winter. Hwy43 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me that this article is about a devastating event that destroyed buildings and evacuated a town, not a fire, of which Alberta and Saskatchewan have many. Perhaps the end date of the fire is not the best date to choose as an end date for the infobox. Perhaps the end date should be the end of the active event? 117Avenue (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I would support applying an end date to the devastating aspect of the wildfire event if there is a consensus date confirmed by multiple reliable sources, with a footnote indicating the fire itself remains active. Hwy43 (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We have sources that confrim this is going to burn through the winter. I have modified the infobox to include a new note, to differentiate between the fact that it under control, but still active. -- Natural  R X 19:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Residents were allowed to return June 1, the state of emergency ended July 1. 117Avenue (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The parameter produces Date(s): as a heading. Thus, can we not provide three date ranges?
 * Wildfire: May 1, 2016 – present
 * State of emergency: May X, 2016 – July 1, 2016
 * Evacuation: May Y, 2016 – June 1, 2016
 * This would be an ideal way to resolve in my opinion. Hwy43 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I like it! if you want to find the dates of X and Y, would you be bold and add it to the infobox? -- Natural   R X 19:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have the sources or the time to find them and add the content until the holiday break. If no one else is bold in the meantime, I will return to do it over the holidays. Hwy43 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Someone has added an update-request tag and comment; just noting that today’s provincial summary (see PDF link above) still shows the fire as U[nder ]C[ontrol] and under investigation, no change since last summer.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  02:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest move
Yes the fire is technically still on-going, but 99% of activity was in 2016 and all 2017 action thus far has been insignificant. In the spirit of WP:UCRN, the article should remain at 2016 Fort McMurray Wildfire. -- Acefitt 17:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article should be moved back. Brad  v  17:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back until a consensus can be reached. There are at least 2 of us in opposition, I'd therefore invite DominikWSP to make a request at WP:RM. -- Acefitt 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with retaining original title, as per Acefitt. Also, 'the fire' is technically still burning, but it is not burning like a wildfire in 2017. -- Natural  R X 19:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with retaining the current name. The wildfire event, which is the focal point of this article, is over and will forever be tied to 2016. There is no chance "2016-17... " will ever emerge as the WP:COMMONNAME. Hwy43 (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I also find it inaccurate, because Fort McMurray is not currently on fire. 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I understand this, however when the fire will be finally extinguished, I thought maybe it would be remembered as "the 2016-2017 fire", and not only as the 2016 fire. However I might be wrong and I am open to discussion. DominikWSP (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As Hwy43 said, there's zero chance of that. If the fire flares up again into something significant and some authority says it's unquestionably the same fire, then we can revisit the discussion. Your request is equivalent to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami being "2004-2005" because aftershocks continued into January, which is obviously not something that would ever be considered. -- Acefitt 19:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Evacuations
The article should include more details on the evacuations, specifically how the residents were notified and which highways they took, and where they evacuated to, specific responses for animal rescues, etc. 171.116.245.211 (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Such a level of detail can run the risk of being seen as a WP:COATRACK situation, where what is essentially trivia is layered onto an article. Consider whether an individual reading about this fire for the first time is asking themselves questions for which the answer is the evacuation information you propose to add.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

When did the fire finally go out?
Article says the fire might not go out until Spring 2017. At this point, do we know when the fire was finally extinguished? Was it, in fact, extinguished? (Maybe it smoldered all winter long; dunno, could happen.) Thanks for any information on this point. 216.161.55.95 (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See the link to the fire-summary PDF from ASRD under “Current Status“ above; today’s edition still shows it as “UC”. I presume that means it’s indeed still smouldering in places.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  19:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How did it continue burning through the winter, across frozen ground with snow falling on it? Jim Michael (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fires may encounter underground deposits of fuel, such as coal seams, which may sustain them at a low level indefinitely.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting a title change...
Why would "Wildfire" be capitalized? I suggest making it lowercase instead. Lamp301 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * A Google search reveals that the fire is not named with a capital "W" by the vast majority of sources. The Calgary Herald seems to capitalize "wildfire," but they stand alone in that regard.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Totally agree, but I see WikiProject Wildfire and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wildfire, which is why it got moved to its current title. It is the reason why 2011 Slave Lake Wildfire was moved to such title also, yet severe weather, meteorology, and earthquake projects haven't made up their own rules to convert Edmonton tornado, Pine Lake tornado, 2013 Alberta floods, and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Hwy43 (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the case since it seems uncontroversial in this case. Dicklyon (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per the general practice described at WP:NCCAPS. The outcome of the bitter struggle over lower-casing bird names a couple of years ago demonstrated that the preferences of individual WikiProjects do not override the broader guideline. There might be more of a case to cap the F in Horse River Fire as part of the (official?) proper name, but as it turns out few sources (if any) actually refer to the fire that way, so there‘s no weight of sourcing here to overwhelm the general practice.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  19:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support with caution: WP:TITLEFORMAT says to use sentence case, and WP:NCCAPS gives a relevant example for multi-word articles: "1993 Russian constitutional crisis". I also give weight to Hwy43's point that other event-based projects (tornados, floods, ect.) also use sentence case. I think that's enough to change the article, but to make it solid, I think we have to have consensus on this more broadly. I will try and start a discussion that goes beyond WikiProject Wildfire's Naming policy and solidifies the naming convention for event-based articles. I'll connect back here once I find the appropriate channel. -- Natural  R X  15:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)