Talk:Loma Fire

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Wildfire Low‑importance Loma 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 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yesterday, calfire's site said 100% contained, and the update was marked as FINAL. Now as I type this, it's back to 95%. I'm on a mobile device for the next couple days and not able to edit extensively, but it should probable go back to current. I've done a simple revert, but the numbers are now back to the sept 30 info; but better that than wrong. TJRC (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calfire announced again today that the fire is 100% contained, and this time that's also been reported in multiple media sources (e.g., [1], [2], [3]). But my understanding is that containment is not mean the fire is extinguished; it's still burning, although contained in geography.

Given that, I think it's premature to use past tense "was a fire"; it still is a fire; and no end-date should yet be on the infobox. In contrast, the {{Current wildfire}} template should be removed, given that that infobox declares not only that "this wildfire is still actively burning" (true), but also that it "has not been 100 percent contained" (which is no longer true.)

I'm going to edit consistent with the above; if there is disagreement, please discuss here. TJRC (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TJRC: I disagree with your assessment, BUT not so strongly that I feel the need to revert your work. You make a very valid point and I can absolutely see where you are coming from! I posted your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wildfire in hopes of getting more input. I don't think this is a very common case, and we are talking about a period of days or possibly a few weeks during which it would be "is" vs "was" so I'm not losing sleep over it... But great points that you brought up!!! Keep up the great work. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]