Talk:Fire/Archive 1

message: This article, as writing goes, is really poorly put together. It jumps all over the place, and at times breaks down into short sentences which peel of facts without any attempt to make greater sense. In fact, in reading this I feel like I'm reading a 9th grade science report on fire. Surely we can do better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.196.211 (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Quality 

message: Does Halon work on the fourth component of fire or it just cut off two of the original three components?
:No fire extinguishers work on the fourth component of fire (ignition source), as a fire can continue burning even once it's removed. Halon works to eliminate the oxygen component of fire (and in to some extent I suppose the heat). Removing the fuel or the heat are two other common ways of putting out a fire. -Lommer | talk 05:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halon 

message: Why can't we move the bottom of the page to Fire (disambiguation)?? 66.245.74.77 01:13, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Would we/Where would we add material on the importance of NOT attempting to put out a grease fire with water?  Grease floats so water will not extinguish it, but the fire will boil the water which can aerosolize the grease resulting in a fireball.
There's a comment about not using water on petroleum fires but doesn't directly state the above hazard. RJFJR 02:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  grease fires 

message: When did man master fire? Something like this seems like a shoe-in for an article about fire. What early uses were made of fire? How did early man generate fire? - Vague | Rant 11:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Its already there: "Prometheus is the Titan chiefly honored for stealing fire from the gods in the stalk of a fennel plant and giving it to mortals for their use." --67.172.10.82 09:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of fire? 

message: I noticed that :Image:Hand made fire stoker.jpg has been re-added to the article after I removed it. It doesn't show fire in any way, and belongs more appropriately at Fireplace poker. Why do people feel it should be included here? I find this page already picture-heavy, so I've removed it again for now. -Lommer | talk 20:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Hand made fire stoker.jpg 

message: I removed the following links:
*The Fire Still Burns The Fire Of the Human Soul.
* www.hkc22.com/fireprotection.html
* thefireengineer.com Adventures in fire safety - The Fire Engineer and his team battle the forces of conflagration
kmccoy (talk) 11:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed external links 

message: When does a fire related term, such as burninate become notable enough to warrant mention on this page? When does transient popular culture become an accepted descriptive term?
ttogreh 27 Jul 2005
:Hrm. Its hard to provide a concrete definition (though that would be very desirable). I removed burninate because I'd never heard of it and the only source was homestar runner which is not at all related to fire. I reasoned that an uncommon term used only in an unrelated fictional series doesn't warrant a mention on the fire page. If enough people think I'm wrong it should definitely be reinserted. -Lommer | talk 05:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burninate 

message: I edited the information concerning Zoroastrianism. Kudos to whoever put it there, but there were some minor inaccuracies and an unintentional POV problem. It is not possible to objectively ascertain the age of the fire at Yazd (not Yazda), though roughly a millennium would be more accurate than two. Also, there are two other fires which are more holy than Yazd in Zoroastrianism anyway, so it was uneeded I thought. I capitalized 'god'. I'm fine with it being left uncapitalized, but it could be considered offensive considering Holy Ghost is capitalized and Ahura Mazda is denegrated to just 'a god'. Interestingly they're similar in concept (every living thing has a "spark" of the divine within them in Zoroastrianism, GBd. 18:2). As to details like the aforementioned I decided to abstain from adding it here, and instead created a link to Fire Temple. Nobody, of course, needs my permission to change anything back and I will admit the wording leaves something to be desired. But feel free to consult with me regarding anything Zoroastrian if you aren't sure about something. KhiradTalk
On the issue of whether to capitalize "God" or not, I think the capitalized form of the word generally refers to the Judeo/Christian god whereas the lowercase version refers more to the general form of being, that is a diety.  I don't think I explained that very well so I'll rephrase; God is generally the name of the Judeo/Christian diety; a god is a diety.  I'm not sure how widely accepted this is, or how followers of Zoroastrianism prefer to have their diety refered to, so I leave it to you.--CallmeNiel 08:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoroastrianism & Fire 

message: Should the word "blaze" be used for a non-controlled fire?
The answer is probably "no" since the word "blaze" describes only a (minor) characteristic of the burning process, i.e. the sudden bursting of the flame. Asknine 17:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blaze" for a non-controlled fire 

message: The following paragraph is quoted from the article:
:By the time of the Neolithic introduction of grain based agriculture, people the world over used fire as a tool in landscape management. These fires were typically controlled "cool fires," as opposed to uncontrolled "hot fires" that damage the soil. Such hot fires destroy plants and animals, and endanger communities. All too often this is a problem in the forests of today where traditional burning is prevented in order to encourage the growth of timber crops.
By using the phrase "all too often there is a problem in the forests of today", IMHO the paragraph suggests that human controlled fire in forests was a relevant factor in the management of forest wildfires in pre-historic times (e.g. in climate contexts). Given the number of people who existed then, and the amount of forest, I find that very hard to believe. I would revise it, but I'd rather that someone who worked on the article did, also because I could of course be totally wrong. TH 22:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controlled fire 

message: I am concerned that this article, although nice and technically correct in its definition, will scare off younger wikipedians. Perhaps we can rephrase or precede sentences like "[fire is a] self-sustaining exothermic oxidation process of combustible gases ejected from a fuel" with something like "fire is a chemical reaction involving oxygen that produces energy"?
- s<span
style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif";color:red'>Y</span><span
style='mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif"'>ndicate</span> talk 22:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to rewrite that section in language that's a bit simpler you're welcome to go ahead. Keep in mind though that there is a simple english wikipedia, and that our goal here is not to create an infinitely accessible medium. However I'd agree that as it stands now, the article uses language which is inaccessible to many well-educated people who don't have a specialty in physics. So yeah, go ahead and good luck trying to find that tricky balance. -Lommer | talk 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic article 

message: I added a "see also" link to Fire ecology in the science section.  I wasn't entirely sure whether that was the right thing for me to do.  On one hand, fire ecology is a stub, so people going there won't find all that much useful information.  On the other hand, it's definitely relevant to an article on fire, and maybe someone going to fire ecology will be able to expand that article.  Please revert me if you don't think the link should be there.  Thanks.  --Allen 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire ecology 

message: Hi, I'm missing information about the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) (http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de). Could someone take care about it? Scriberius 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFMC 

message: :However, fire is also used more directly; many nomadic peoples still use fire for cooking.
Um, I think lots of non-nomadic people use fire for cooking too... I think most restaurants, for example, use fire for cooking...   - Eric 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomadic people? 

message: There are sevral articles disproving or attempting to prove that fire is a alive and I believe we should write a subtopic article on this theme.
:The "Fire and religion" section would be a good place to write this. Ae-a 10:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Fire is Alive!''' 

message: Maybe one of the fire pictures should be replaced with the fire triangle. http://www.csmc.edu/6666.html or http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/hrforms/firesafetytraining/page4.html PrometheusX303 03:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire Triangle 

message: I'm moving the following from the article to here:
:This ash, as well as the smoke and other residue, are different compounds from the original ones.The ash that remains on trees after forest fires is sometimes used as a source of protein for wild animals.
The former seems trivially true to me.  Ash does not contain protein so what an animal would do with ash needs to be discussed.  Might be a source of minerals.  RJFJR 01:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ash 

message: An editor thinks that arson of cars is misleading or superfluous: it is not. See this page as an example. "The initiative targets car dumping "hot spots" and removes  vehicles that are abandoned, have no value, are not taxed or have no registered owner. The aim is to remove the vehicles as quickly as possible to avoid them being set alight." Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, the uploader knows the street culture where this occurred. If you follow the above link, you find that over 55% of car fires are due to arson of abandoned vehicles for this purpose. Most people don't, but most car fires are self-arsons. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car arson 

message: This article has LOTS of pictures of fire.  But it has no animated pictures of them.  Why none?  It could be real fire or a cartoon fake of fire.And the mythology reference is too little.  At least do better with links.  And could acid be considered a at least metophorical version of fire in water?  DyslexicEditor 06:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Acid is not related to fire.  Fire is combustion which is the rapid oxidation of a material.  An acid has hydrogen ions and work off of that (sorry, its been a few years since I've had a chemistry class).  We, as humans, experience both as burning, but they aren't the same.65.65.230.53 13:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fellow said 'metaphorical.'  However, I agree...no, acid should not be included. Really, there's no point, and it's not like there's some sort of international meme connecting them. Jachra 07:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. While acid is in no way similar to fire, I support an animation in the article.  As a matter of fact, I request we have more animations in good ol' Wiki.Dark Fennec 06:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated Gif? 

message: An anonymous editor just added:
:Additionally, a fire is used in the Roman Catholic Mass during the Easter Vigil.
Is there any truth to this (beyond the altar candle that is kept burning continuously throughout the year)?
(I vaguely remember something about burning last year's palms. Is this what this refers to?)
Atlant 12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, they do burn the palms, and this is where the Ash Wednesday ashes come from. However, on the Easter Vigil, during the "service of Light" there will usually be a large bonfire which is the centre of attention while the priest goes through a short ritual, then everyone receives candles and lights them from the fire. This is explained in more detail on the Easter Vigil page. Nsmith 84 05:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter fire? 

message: Where do the European fire classes E and F mentioned in the article come from?
European Standard EN 2:1992 "defines classes of fires according to the material undergoing combustion. In consequence it does not define a particular class of fire involving an electrical risk."
It "classifies in four categories the different kinds of fires which can be defined in terms of the nature of the fuel. Such a classification is particularly useful in the context of fire fighting by means of an extinguisher.
[...] The following designations are for the purpose of classifying fires of different natures and of simplifying spoken and written reference to them:
* Class A: fires involving solid materials, usually of an organic nature, in which combustion normally takes places with the formation of glowing embers.
* Class B: fires involving liquids or liquefiable solids.
* Class C: fires involving gases.
* Class D: fires involving metals."
Could anyone provide a reference for the other classes listed in the article? Markus Kuhn 14:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European fire classes (EN 2) 

message: The standard SI notation for "degrees Celcius" is a degree symbol immediately followed by a capital C. The temperatures need to have this minor editing, but I don't know how to produce the degree symbol, a raised, small o.
David B. Benson 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire/Flame Temperature 

message: Many common substances either contain or have a light coating of sodium. The sodium D emission lines produce the yellow color seen in wood fires, bunsen burners(?), etc. The sodium D lines are far from black body radiators.
I believe what I have written is correct, but I am not a physicist, so I am not going to attempt to add to this (quite good) essay on fire.
David B. Benson 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flame Color 

message: Alot of this article contradicts itself.
  
"Fire is simply glowing gas and other combustion materials such as carbon particles. It is not plasma, as it is not hot enough to reach such high ionization as is required of plasma (an 'electrically neutral, highly ionized gas composed of ions, electrons, and neutral particles')."
"Fire is extinguished when any of the elements of the so-called fire triangle—heat, oxygen, or fuel— are removed. The unburnable solid remains of a combustible material left after a fire are called ash."
Now when we use logic and common sense:
If fire is not plasma then it cannot be plasmatic in nature.
So one of those statements is inccorect.
Since in highschools around the country, fire is being refered to as plasma, I suggest you change it.
:Please sign your comments. Don't believe everything (anything) you're taught in school. Fire can be veiwed as behaving with plasmatic properties, but it definitly isn't plasma (ionised gas). Also how do these statements contradict each other? --Rehnn83 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do some research on fire. 

message: Removed the image of the Power Ranger from the 'See also' section as it lowered the overall excellent tone of the article. MiAnRo 05:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POWER RANGER 

message: I saw several instances of 'Sneaky Vandalism' by User:Saunders9000.  It seems someone reverted the article faster than I could.    Watch for continuing instances and please correct them lest this page become another popular article that falls prey to individuals that are too bored to make use of their time. --FK65 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: A minor point somebody with more in-depth knowledge might want to add, perhaps as a trivia item or something else. Although it is not talked about often, in a general sense, life creates fire. The reality is that when the earth was first formed there was very little in the way of self-sustaining fires since there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Fires as we mostly know them today only really became possible when there were enough plants to fill the atmosphere with oxygen. In some sense, therefore, the very thing the plants give us to exist (oxygen) also creates the constant danger (and benefit) of fire.
--Mcorazao 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor point: Life 

message: The "physics" and introductory sections of this article repeatedly refer to fire as a liquid.  This appears to be a change from when it was said to be a plasma in earlier editions.  A flame is a region of chemically reacting gases, hot enough to emit light.  It's true that it's not a plasma, but it also is definitly not a liquid.  The contributor who used the word "liquid" may have meant "fluid" instead. If thrue, that would be correct, but unnecessarily vague.  I will change the instances of the word liquid in the article to make sure that flames are properly characterized as gas. Aerodave 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Flame Is Not Liquid 

message: There appears to be a contradiction in the "Chemistry of fire" section:
Typical flames are just incandescent gas, and are not plasmas, as they are not hot enough to be sufficiently ionized.
then a paragraph or two later:
A flame is an exothermic, self-sustaining, oxidizing chemical reaction producing energy and glowing hot flame, of which a very small portion is plasma. 
I can see that there has been debate about this, perhaps consultation with other encyclopedias may be the go? BenC7 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is any degree of measurable ionization (even trace) the material can be called a plasma. The fact that flame is a plasma (which reportedly can conduct electricity) should be added back into this article. --Bk0 (Talk) 13:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plasma or no? 

message: Does anyone know the average number of fires a year in a school?
Uptonogood 12:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire stats 

message: Just wanted to make everyone aware that I have now standardised the spellings on this page. There was a bit of a strange mix between British (ex: smoulder) and US (ex: color) spellings, so per Wikipedia Style Guidelines I have standardised as much as possible to British English standards. Also fixed an obvious spelling error. Please feel free to improve if you believe necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.106.37 (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardised Spellings 

message: I see no reason for there to be a section on the history of fire in human society as a subsection of the lead. Therefore I propose it be made its own section in the body of the article. Objections? GoodnightmushTalk 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone went ahead and did so. That said, shouldn't the chemistry section of the article come first as this is an article about a chemical process. How it affects human should be after actually talking about what the subject of the article is. GoodnightmushTalk 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fire in human history" 

message: I think we nead anouther image. Maby a torch or somthing. Bluefire princess 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It's a good photograph, but it doesn't really show fire very well.  I think the problem with it is the long exposure.  I've got an image that could be better.  I'll leave some time for discussion here and if consensus for a change is met I'll put it up.  I'll take silence as tacit consent :) Alun 16:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I think the term "N-alarm fire" should be explained in this article. It is a common measurement used in the news. --208.120.169.109 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common in the US, not anywhere else, no no, not a good idea in my opinion. Owain.davies 06:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  N-alarm fire 

message: This opening paragraph to the fire entry makes absolutely no sense. It states, "fire is an oxidation process that releases protein in varying intensities in the form of dark (with wavelengths also outside the visual spectrum) and cool and often creates steam."
My reaction is...HUH???
Protein has nothing to do with the combustion process. And "dark" and "cool" have nothing to do with fire. Further, fire can only create steam if there is water present during the combustion process. Beyond that, fire is not a prerequisit for creating steam.
Someone please rework this nonsensical entry. PLEASE!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.201 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: I read somewhere that it was supposedly discovered that the hottest flames are beyond white and are actually black or at least very dark. Is there some sort of source for this?
24.247.207.18 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black fire? 

message: I removed the following from the article as a possible hoax.
:Certain types of fire (the rare Malchesian fire) can cause other objects to burn without even being anywhere near them. This can, and has, resulted in serious spread-fires in Japan and Afganistan.
At the very least something should be cited for such a claim.  Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rare" fire 

message: Talk page was getting a bit long so I've archived it. Link provided in archive box below the infoboxes above. PeterSymonds 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived the talk page 

message: Choice of temperature unit changes during the article. As an encyclopidia should prefer the metric system, I believe that Celsius should be prefered over Fahrenheit. Scientifically, however, the Kelvin is the primary unit of temperature in the metric system which makes me doubt if the Celsius is better than the Fahrenheit. Either way, the choice of primary unit should be consistent. DVanDyck (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Fireproeng (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fahrenheit vs. Celsius 

message: Does anyone know about this, there is a website here http://www.publicaddress.net/default,4467.sm#post4467 that says that humans up until only 10,000 BC were only able to control fire not make it (i.e until then human tribes had to keep embers going from forest fires or lightning strikes). I came to wikipedia to see if I could confirm this but there is no mention in either this article or the 'Making Fire' article. Would be a really interesting tidbit of info to add if anyone knows. (125.237.20.170 (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds iffy and likley difficult to prove, either way.Rusober (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard this too. Sounds plausible enough to me, and disprovable. Need an expert. —76.22.141.17 (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making Fire vs Controlling Fire 

message: I substituted United States with developed countries because the US is certainly not the only country that engages in fire testing, as you can see by the time/temperature curves shown in the fire-resistance rating article. The rest of the changes are but subject-related wiki-internal hyperlinks. --Achim (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  § on Fire protection and prevention 

message: I remember reading somehwere that for every time a fire doubles in size, the tempurature raises 100 degrees. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks, Javascap (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds unlikely, i may be wrong but with a wood fire dosent the heat depend on what type of wood you are using in the fire, rather then the size, although i imagine the size would some what effect it, and besides surely this would only work on a fire of a certain size, after all if you doubled a 2 degrees fire it would be a bit strange to end up with a 102 degrees one. Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Always doubt any rule of thumb. Especially ones with even numbers, like 10, 100, 1%, and 10%. This is just another rumor. Twilight Realm (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double size, +100 degrees? 

message: could someone change this to the fire triange?  Nobody talks about the fire tetrahedron, because the forth bit(chain reaction) is the fire, its what happens when the three parts of a fire combine.  Who ever added the forth bit, obviously thought they were being smart, but its a mistake.  Come someone fix this.  Also the picture is a bit hard to understand at a glance, try making it simplier  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.129.92 (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire tetrahedron 

message: This article is severely biased towards mainstream science; it doesn't even mention other ideas except in the see also section. It should at least say what other beliefs there are, even if it treats the science as hard fact. Munci (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations besides Science 

message: In the greek myths, Prometheus is the god who bought fire down to mankind, so I was wondering if we should mention him in the article. Javascap (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it sounds good, but I don't know what the policies are for mythology in primarily scientific articles. Maybe this article could use a history/mythology section. Judging by the state of this talk page, there's a lot of superstition about fire even today. And I'd like to know when our first guess is of humans controlling fire. Twilight Realm (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article mention Prometheus? 

message: There is absolutely no explanation how does the "fire" transfer from particle to particle - e.g. I put some few carbon atoms in an oxygen environment and lit one fire? The "fire" is transferred to other atoms. But how is it made? Is "fire" spread by some sort of radiation of the particles?
The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer is pretty good, but still not very clear.
Perhaps both should be merged somehow, or summarized at least.
Agameofchess (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be merged with "heat transfer" 

message: How are invisible flames possible?  Shouldn't there always be gases that are hot enough to be incandescent?  --Doradus (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible flame 

message: I just recently had an incident in my apartment building where water from a plugged air conditioning drain leaked down into the access panel of my electric water heater, where it short-cirtuited the wiring and caught the wire insulation on fire.  Luckily, this happened almost the same time I discovered the smell, so I was able to cut the power, and the fire went out -- although it could have been much worse.  I'm on the 4th floor of a 16 floor apartment building.
My point is that this is commonly (although maybe not correctly) called an "electrical fire", and I was curious to look deeper into how this reaction starts.  It doesn't seem to have all three elements, although the electricity must be hot enough to generate the heat.  There is no mention about this topic on the "fire" page, and "electric fire" just redirects you to electric burners/heaters.  This is common enough of an issue in this modern world that I would think there could be a section or an entire page with extra information about wiring and the many ways it can start a household fire where you wouldn't even think about it (i.e., my water heater basically caught fire).  Just a suggestion for the discussion page...
:It definitely has all three elements, as the fuel is supplied in the form of the insulation, the oxygen is atmospheric, and the heat is from the electricity as a result of the resistance of the wires...Lance Tyrell82.6.1.85 (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well perhaps strictly speaking, in a technical sense, it is a "misnomer", but practically speaking, it helps A LOT to distinguish electrical (or "electrical-related") fires from non-electrical ones (see my additional comments below on the "Let's Get This Party Started" section of this talk page). Shanoman (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrical Fire 

message: as of 6/6/2008; reference #2 & 3 hyperlinks result in 404 (Not Found) errors.
^ CFM-1 experiment results, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, April 2005.
^ LSP-1 experiment results, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, April 2005.
66.74.15.239 (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken "Reference" Links 

message: I think we need different articles for fire as disaster and for fire as chemical reaction manifested in light and heat: 
* Most other languages (except English) have different words for these phenomena.
* Most non-English wikipedias have two different articles for them.
* Both meanings are of big value. 
* Both articles will be big in future.
* In English Wikipedia there are different articles for water and for flood. 
I named the other article "Conflagration". It is possible that "Fire (disaster)" is the better name. But not "firestorm"! Firestorm is "violent convection caused by a continuous area of intense fire and characterized by destructively violent surface indrafts" (Britannica). 
Of course, the parts "Fire protection and prevention" and "Fire classifications" should be moved into this article from "Fire". 
What do you think about this? Ufim (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we divide this article into two? 

message: Since this is an article that is primarily scientific in nature, I thought someone here might be able to answer it. What is it that causes fire and heat to burn other things. And I mean this on a molecular level. I really have no clue myself, yet it's the only question I've ever had about anything that I couldn't find on the internet. Does it have something to do with the speed that molecules of fire/heat are moving and when this hits say the molecules of something like wood or flesh it separates them or something? Another example would be lasers. Some lasers are fine to hit other objects, they have no visible effect. However a more intense/powerful laser will burn through very hard substances. What is the intense laser actually doing to the substance at a molecular level that the weaker laser isn't. Livingston 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What causes heat to burn things? 

message: Sounds like bogus; can anyone confirm this? (The 'fire during sex' part of the article.) --67.164.222.223 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible Fire? 

message: the main picture in the article is not so good  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good stuff timmy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I would suggest using :Image:Large bonfire.jpg instead. --83.226.64.212 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: From Karki, page 4-5:
"Many human activities trigger forest fires directly or indirectly. Fires are often used to clear forests for agricultural lands, settlements and paths (e.g. in Myanmar). They are also used to maintain grasslands by inhibiting succession.
People also rely on fire as a land clearing and preparation tool in swidden agriculture, and to:
* burn over-mature plantations to re-establish new plantations, such as rubber plantations in Indonesia;
* improve access to facilitate the collection of honey, rattan and burnt fallen wood;
* hide evidence of illegal logging (e.g. in Thailand) or to divert attention from such sites (e.g. in Indonesia);
* increase production of resin (e.g. in Cambodia) and mushrooms (e.g. in Cambodia). Burning of undergrowth apparently improves certain mushroom production. Fire can also remove dried resin in dipterocaps and ensure better flow of resin;
* flush animals from their hideouts or encourage growth of new shoots so that wild animals can be lured to the area and be hunted;
* clear vegetation to increase visibility of snakes or other wild animals, and bandits; and
* suppress weeds and pests (e.g. in Myanmar)."
MrBell (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the uses of fire section really necessary?  I mean, that list could be enormous: fire is also used in some types of mass spectrometry, in pottery production, internal combustion engines, jet engines, furnaces, burn-off towers, as a means of removing ticks from the body, as a light source on 19th century roads, etc.  I am going to boldy remove it, but won't revert without more discussion if somebody wants it back.  Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some uses of fire 

message: I just removed the following bit:
The development of lighters accelerated during World War I. Soldiers used matches to find their way in the dark, but the intense initial flare of matches revealed their position. From this need for fire without a large initial flare fostered the lighter industry. By War's end lighters were being mass produced. Lighters are now commonly used by smokers. as warfare has moved on.
Uncited here, but it does have a citation on Lighter.  I removed it for the reasons discussed on Talk:Lighter.  Probably best to centralize discussions there. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lighters and match flares 

message: I do feel a protection for this article might be useful, considering the massive amount of vandalism it has seen recently. NyuCloud (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked, you did it correctly. All of the information was restored. Thank you. —Stephen (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I removed a bit about fire's first use technologically for metals. In the anthropological sense technology also includes deliberate cooking of food, drying materials (or fire-hardening wood tools), and of course firing of pottery, all of which preceded metals technology almost certainly. (I will posit deliberate naïve addition of native ores to fires for silvery baubles that might be produced - but find evidence of it!)
Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of man's technological use of fire 

message: This article's definition isn't really a definition of fire, but a definition of burning. There should be some explanation as to what a flame actually is. Serendipodous 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a difference between fire and burning, at least as far as the meaning that this article is about (except "fire" is a noun and "burn" is a verb).  I see a difference between fire and flame.  (And there's a separate article for flame, as well as a section within this article).  I think one might even have fire without flame.  I would agree, though, that flame could be mentioned a little more prominently in the lead, since it's such a well-known characteristic of fire.  I've taken the liberty of inserting a sentence, "Visibly glowing hot gases, known as flame, are a feature of many fires."  That sentence could probably stand to be improved. -- Why Not A Duck 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. Thanks :) Serendipodous 11:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: For performance reasons Wildfire and  have switched to the  citation template family, which uses Vancouver system format, and for consistency this page should switch to this citation format too. I'll volunteer to do it if nobody else wants to. Eubulides (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask why, when this already has an established citation style, using the citation template, and the WP:CITE guidelines clearly state that "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected.".  We shouldn't be converting styles between templates, except where there is clear reason and logic to do so.  OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the switch from  to the  citation family was due to the long load time of Wildfire, as discussed here. The switch greatly improved the article.  MrBell (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've read the discussion on that, and have to say that the arguments don't seem to quite stack up for me.  I would object to changing from the most recognised citation style to Vancouver.  I also wonder if this argument is effectively self defeating - is the long load time on the citation tempalte simply because it is the most widely used?  If we switched everything to vancite would that not experience the same time lag?  I would like to find out more about that, but in either case, i would like to keep the citation style the same, but if there is another template doing the same job i would consider? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the argument is not self-defeating: the  etc. templates will be faster no matter how many articles use them. No other template does the same job. The Fire article uses a mixture of styles in its citations, and as far as I know has never been particularly consistent about citation style; if the preference is to continue to use eclectic styles then of course we'll just leave things be. Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, i've done some background reading on this and can see the reasons given in the vcite and vancite templates, but to be honest some of this just looks like back reasoning by people who prefer the Vancouver style.  The Harvard style citation template is clearly the main one in use here and I would suggest keeping it that way for consistency, although if you wish to use a different template to achieve the same referencing style i would be happy with that. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the person who wrote the  and  templates I can assure you that I don't particularly like the Vancouver system style. I chose that style partly because it's the only one that's freely documented, partly because it's commonly used in science in medicine (areas where I edit), and partly because other Wikipedia editors like the style. I don't really care which style an article uses as long as it's consistent and contains the information readers need and it's reasonably easy to edit. The  and  templates have terrible performance, so bad that they make large articles hard to edit, but nobody wants to maintain those templates any more (this is a classic symptom of software rot). Anyway, as I said, I'll leave this article alone if there's no consensus to change its citation format. Eubulides (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: Come one, come all! Time to edit this article and at least make it GA-class. Over the next few weeks I'll try to do some research for this article.  Please feel free to contribute and/or correct me if I'm wrong.  As long as we can move the project forward, I'm game.  Any thoughts?
IMO, there should be some sections regarding (not in any particular order):
* World history of fire
* Current use of fire
* Ecology of Fire
* Physical characteristics/properties of fire, including  sub-sections to combustion, flame, heat transfer (intensity), light, and reaction products
* Suppression
Also, I'm not sure this article should be limited to wood burning.  Maybe an additional section regarding some hard-core chemistry of burning in different atmospheres (e.g. sodium metal in chlorine gas).
So, what does everyone think? MrBell (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Best definition yet: "A rapid, persistent chemical change that releases heat and light and is accompanied by flame, especially the exothermic oxidation of a combustible substance." MrBell (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is, June of 2010, and the English Wikipedia STILL does not have a decent article on such a basic, elementary word/concept as "fire"! It is one of the four ancient elements for crying out loud, this is really sad, people! I think what the gist of the problem is that nearly everyone who edits/controls this page wants it to be as eloquent (austere/minimalist) as possible, with strict pure science and speculative philosophical definitions, but very little that is of practical use to the average person. Now I love philosophy and science---and I believe that both should be included---but on something like fire, the main thrust of the article should be on the practical and technical aspects of it, say from the perspective of a firefighter, welder, or someone who really deals with it on a frequent, "hands-on" (excuse the analogy) basis.  I remember learning in my junior high school industrial arts ("shop") class about different kinds of fire from a practical perspective, such as electrical, chemical, fires that burn underwater, etc., and I see none of that here. The average reader most likely does not need (or want) to know that "technically, there is no such thing as an electrical or chemical fire; all fires are chemical"; or if this fact needs to be mentioned, it should be done so in a better way so as to include the other, more practical aspects of how to understand and deal with all the different arrays (ways?) of fire. Shanoman (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article is a vital article, but the challenge is that the information must be verifiable.  If you're willing to add some stuff, I'm willing to help.  However, no one seemed to be interested in editing this article when I first called for help. MrBell (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get this party started 

message: Reference 13 does nothing.  It might if you have a account, but should every wiki user have a account on that site reference?--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: doi and PMID are standard document identifiers. See WP:V#Access to sources for more on validity.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 13 does nothing. 

message: Don't we refer to any exothermic reaction that produces visable heat and light a flame? What about halogenation such as a this bromination of aluminium:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uryb9-TFJMM  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.89.79 (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other exothermic reactions 

message: The definition of catalyst in the article appears to be inaccurate. It states that the catalyst is not involved in the reaction. It should probably read that the catalyst remains unaltered instead. Could a chemist look at this? 199.89.175.5 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalyst 

message: I heard once that the light from the flame is some of the energy being released from the fuel. Is this true?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.87 (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The light and the heat are the energy being released. Pyrotec (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes thats true but the purple ones do burn just like the original and orange flames do. It is this which Ganondorf used his Warlock Punch and does set anything on fire on this link:
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyLogolover2011 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flame as energy release 

message: Though I know wikipedia is NOT a link list, I suggest to add a virtual exhibition about the history of fire  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcheuk (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting link, but generally Wikipedia avoids links that require plugins like Flash Player.  See Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, specifically #8. MrBell (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link suggestion 

message: Currently it is article states as Step 3 in the part about extinguishing a fire: "application of water, which removes heat from the fire faster than the fire can produce it (similarly, blowing hard on a flame will displace the heat of the currently burning gas from its fuel source, to the same end), or"
I think it is important to mention here that there are some circumstances hin which one would never want to put water on a fire. This information can be found in any lab safety textbook, but it is not common knowledge. There are still people who are attempting to put out grease fires with water (never do that!), and it ends up making the fire worse. Since the example used in the article is of a fire caused by a gas flame (like a kitchen fire), it seems very important to clarify this.
There are some other circumstances in which one should never pour water on a flame, as that will only make the fire get worse and spread faster. I hope someone has time to look this up and add it to the article. (I think the part about fire extinguishing is well-written, by the way, it just needs this one part clarified.) Thanks. Fallendarling (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry section, fire extinguishing part 3 

message: fire is light
Thisisleonidas (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Thisisleonidas, 1 April 2011 

message: There is almost certainly a wide folklore surrounding fire, and this article's comprehensiveness would be increased if it referrred to that. At present, this article is biassed towards physics and chemistry and says little on humann issues,  e.g. on fire
safety. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Potentially, it's a very wide topic and a new daughter article, with little more than a linking  template here, might be better as "future proof". --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to increase this article's comprehensiveness 

message: Even though darkness is a fire type which is purple and not orange and red. I could believe there should be an image which contains a darkness fire on the article so may wanna put some fair use things on the description so that it can stay on the article.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: agree70.24.76.160 (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use for [[:File:Darkness Fire.jpg|Darkness Fire.jpg]] 

message: An image used in this article, File:Darkness Fire.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Darkness Fire.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion 

message: In the "Human control" part, I think the paragraph on the use of fire for torture (with sadistic details) doesn't belong. Perhaps use of fire in signalling was much more important and widespread. -- In the section on uses of fire in wars, the "scorched earth" tactics (by Scythians, by Russians) would deserve to be mentioned.Svato (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses of fire under human control. 

message: I find that every fire releases sound too.85.210.145.92 (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound 

message: I like this better than the current lede, which fails to mention that fire is a "body on incandescent gas" and is self-sustaining. 75.37.17.156 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxygen isn't necessary. Other gases such as chlorine will work instead. DOwenWilliams (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  If fire is defined as an oxidation-reduction reaction, involving the oxygen in ambient air and a "fuel", then that discounts chlorine. You could have added that fluorine will work as well, and that would also be true. Both of those processes would be oxidation-reduction reactions, involving chlorine (or fluorine) and a fuel; but neither of them are naturally occuring since we don't live in a world containing approximately 21% by volume of chlorine. Pyrotec (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire Defined at the Straight Dope 

message: Need to discuss seriously, the reactions of of fire. Those are irreversible. Man is the only species to use the fire in direct & indirect manner. The oxygen is consumed during fire and the carbon dioxide with other gases is produced. The carbon is temporarily utilized by trees,ocean. The important aspect to consider is : When the wood is used or decomposes when tree is dead, the carbon is released again in the atmosphere.
Thus the use of fire should minimized. Life can be more comfortable. As fire destroys the valuable properties of the given substance,the quality is reduced. 
Reducing the use of fire seems to be the chief remedy to all man made maladies responsible for the current & impending evils on the living & non living on our planet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkabra (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unclear what point you are trying to make. Please keep your discussion limited to specific thoughts on how to improve the article. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be intelligent information, only if we had more sources. OccultZone (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire : Only humans use it 

message: This has no place in this topic. Thoughts? Kortoso (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration? 

message: The second paragraph of this section, on torture and execution, is completely irrelevant to the paragraphs above and below it. If there's any point in retaining it, it should probably be moved below the paragraph on fire in warfare. 140.247.0.117 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would agree with you, on both points. Pyrotec (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Torture and execution

message: (The following text was posted on my Talk:User page in rssponse to an edit I made to the Fire page. I'm moving it here so everyone can see it, and comment if they wish. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that erosion should be included in the list, but if you want to add a comment that it is less harmful than the others, that would be useful. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Soil erosion and fire 

message: Under section 1.1 Chemistry, the 3rd paragraph contains a sentence that reads "Without gravity, a fire rapidly surrounds itself with its own combustion products and non-oxidizing gases from the air, which exclude oxygen and extinguish it."
The last word, "it", is sufficiently separated from what it refers to, "a fire", that its meaning is unclear. It could be interpreted, for example, to refer to the noun immediately preceding it, "oxygen", which does not make sense. I suggest replacing "extinguish it" with "extinguish the fire".
Adventurer61 (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Stickee (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014 

message: FIRE IS NOTHING,WE SEE IT BECAUSE ,THE FUEL THAT BURNS IS ACTUALLY CONVERTED INTO GAS,THEN THE GAS STARTS EMITTING HEAT AFTER IT ABSORBS ENOUGH HEAT AND THEN IF IT EMITS ENOUGH HEAT,WE SEE IT AS A FLAME.WE SEE HEAT COLORS AND FLAME OUTLINE CURVED AS THE GAS TRAVELS IN A CURVED PATH AND COLORS AS AT ALTITUDES,THERE IS LESS HEAT FOR MORE HEAT BEING EMITTED115.118.103.139 (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see your caps lock key works. Σούπερμαν (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIRE 

message: The third introductory paragraph is roughly four times as long as either of the preceding two, yet it primarily focuses on ecological issues. This seems like a severe misrepresentation of the topic at hand. Is nitrogen fixation really so central to the concept of fire that it deserves the better part of a paragraph that is four times longer than the definition of fire itself? If we want to talk about the exact details of ecology as it relates to fire, it seems that it would be better suited to a subsidiary section, and not the introduction itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toph620 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Introductory Paragraph 

message: It took me a while to figure out what the difference between the fire article and combustion article are supposed to be about because in normal usage they and burning are synonyms. The fire and combustion leads do not clearly define and the difference in scope of the two articles (burning redirects to combustion). Would anyone object to my editing this lead or adding a hatnote to say something like "fire and combustion are frequently used as synonyms but this article's scope is about fire as a phenomenon, an observation or experience, for technical aspects of the chemical reaction and physics see combustion. Jim Derby (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  fire vs combustion vs burning 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131022042411/http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/cfm/usml-1_results.htm to http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/cfm/usml-1_results.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131022092243/http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/lsp/lsp1_results.htm to http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/lsp/lsp1_results.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150113125900/http://www.iea.org/statlist/index.htm to http://www.iea.org/statlist/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206013312/http://www.firecomm.gov.mb.ca:80/safety_education_nero_and_ashcan.html to http://www.firecomm.gov.mb.ca/safety_education_nero_and_ashcan.html#6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi. I believe the fossil record section should be reworded because the way it is currently worded may give a defence for someone who has done something bad, that being, a gardener who cuts down trees and plants for a reason other than food purposes, by allowing them to claim that if they didn't cut down the trees and plants then a chance of wildfire might occur. Let me be quite clear, such a gardener is guilty of indirectly killing another human being. I suggest someone other than myself edit the section and the appropriate main article. Jondeanmack (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossil record section. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090225154641/http://www.asiaforests.org/doc/resources/fire/pffsea/Report_Community.pdf to http://www.asiaforests.org/doc/resources/fire/pffsea/Report_Community.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under section "Flame", second paragraph, the article states, "The photo of the forest fire in Canada is an excellent example of this variation." It then goes on to describe the color/heat variation in that photo.  There's no photo of a forest fire in Canada though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.117.13 (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing referenced picture of Canadian forest fire