Talk:Bushfire

message: This statement has been in the article for some time: In the south, bushfires are most often started by lightning. However, near populated areas, accidents and arson cause many fires. In the north, most fires are deliberately lit.  Can anyone provide a reference? Sounds like nonsense to me. -- Ian ≡ talk 08:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North/south? 

message: Fires in northern Australia are almost non-existent in winter. Winter storms are extremely rare so natural fires obviously don't occur then.  Human set fires are ignited when there is sufficient moisture to ensure the grass can respond with new growth. Traditional wisdom dictates that fires not be set until at least two inches of rain have fallen AFTER October. This is definitely not winter, nor is it the dry season. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.68.206 (talk • contribs) .
*Do you have any sources? and also please sign your comments on the talk pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bidgee (talk • contribs) .
Sign my comments says an anonymous poster.
And yeah, I have references, how many would you like?
Anderson, E.R., Pressland, A.J., McLennan, S.R., Clem, R.L., & Rickert, K.G. (1988). The role of fire in native pasture management. In Native pastures in Queensland their resources and management (eds W.H. Burrows, J.C. Scanlan & M.T. Rutherford). Queensland Government Press, Queensland.
Bowman, D.M.J.S. & Prior, L.D. (2004) Impact of Aboriginal landscape burning on woody vegetation in Eucalyptus tetrodonta savanna in Arnhem Land, northern Australia. Journal of Biogeography, 31, 807-817.
Roberts, B. (ed) (1990) Fire Research in Rural Queensland. Queensland Govrnment Publishers, Brisbane.
Williams, R.J., Congdon, R.A., Grice, A.C., & Clarke, P.J. (2003) Effect of fire regime on plant abundance in a tropical eucalypt savanna of north-eastern Australia. Austral Ecology, 28, 327-338.
At this a point a better question would be where you are getting your information from? I can't even imagine why any grazier would light a fire in the middle of the dry season as you suggest. Such an action would destroy all standing feed. What would stock eat for the next 4-6 months? In Northern Australia fires in winter are seen as a disaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.68.194 (talk • contribs) .
**Do you have any Online sources? Yes I forgot to sign my comment but please sign your comments with ~~~~. -- Bidgee 22:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing of fires in the north 

message: The photo with the description 'Long term damage of the Bogong Bush Complex in 2003' What does this mean? What do you mean by long term damage? What is 'Bogong Bush Complex? Please explain?  I intend radically change this description. Lentisco 04:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo description

message: This article is biassed towards Australia, but bushfires (similar in some ways, different in other) occur in other parts of the world and the term 'bushfire' is used extensively in Africa. Either material from other regions of the world like Africa should be added or the title should be changed to "Bushfires in Australasia" to reflect the geographic coverage. Rexparry sydney 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that neither this article nor Wildfire really cover much on African fires.  Perhaps this article could be divided into sections: African and Australasia.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an article called Bushfires in Australia which appears to duplicate much of this material. Is there any way in which a bushfire differs from a wildfire? If not, perhaps "Bushfire" should redirect there and a bunch of geographically specific articles be spun-off.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why then should we use the term 'wildfire' over 'bushfire'? Bushfires, as per the term, occur in many different countries in which that term is in widespread use, not just Australia. The article should not be deleted and the scope of the article Bushfires in Australia is limited to Australia and is not appropriate to merge or take the place of the 'Bushfire' article. Furthermore, the article 'Bushfires in Australia', does not replicate much of the information in this article, it's content pertains to Australia in particular. Nick carson (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical bias 

message: through horticultural, forest, phytosynthetic, agricultural, gene technologies or environmental engineering ???--165.228.147.130 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we add a section of bushfire-prevention methodology... 

message: Fires can be ignited by short circuits caused by wind or fallen branches causing non-insulated aerial power wires to touch.  These shorts can be prevented by changing to insulated Aerial Bundled Conductors where the three phase wires and the earth wire are grouped in a bundle.
Tabletop (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short circuits 

message: Perhaps we should consider merging some of the information from Wildfire, Wildfire suppression, and List of wildfires with Bushfire, or vice versa. I don't think it really matters one way or another, there just needs to be a single source of general fire info. However, there can exist separate articles on The history of fire in Austrailia or Fire suppression techniques in Austrailia (or elsewhere). Thoughts? MrBell (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a list of fires in this article. Also I do not support merging Bushfire with Wildfire vice versa. We could have a section about suppression of bushfires but both articles should be left separate. Bidgee (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bushfires in Australia have a strong cultural context, and because of the way in which population is distributed in Australia, affects it quite differently to the US and Europe, so there is a good case to have a separate article. Orderinchaos 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I feel that it would be best to keep the articles separate as each has a reasonably sized article and bushfires are specifically Australian. Cgoodwin (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Obviously wildfire/bushfires occur around the world, but I agree with the sentiment here that bushfires have a very central historical and cultural (for want of a better word) position in australia, and that the "wildfire" article is US-focussed at the expense of specific Australian context. Keep them separate, but perhaps more work needs to be done to more strongly define the Australian context of bushfires. --Merbabu (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Consensus was no; I will remove the tag. What about incorporating the science of fire? How might combustion, crawling fires, crown fires, detection, etc., be better presented in this article without copying verbatim from the Wildfire article (or is verbatim copying permissible)? MrBell (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I strongly feel that this tag is inappropriate and should be removed. My reasoning follows on from the above discussion about the colloquial nature of the terminology. The tag should be removed on the basis that the merger proposal has been rejected, as the grounds for this were based on a bushfire being different from a wildfire.
Consider the following articles: Freeway and Motorway. Here we have quite distinct articles around a similar subject, with the freeway article focusing on the countries where the term freeway is used, and the Motorway article focusing on the UK and Ireland where the term is used. As the 'not worldview' tag is not justified for the colloquial article on Motorways, then so it is also not justified for the colloquial article on Bushfires.  --Savlonn (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If Bushfire were to incorporate a discussion of other countries and continents, then I would agree the tag could be removed (e.g. see Motorway#History - discussion of Pakistan). Perhaps more information could be gathered about fires in New Caledonia or elsewhere where the term bushfire is used (African continent?). MrBell (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we need people to contribute such information rather than just talk about it. Also, since when has the same view been collectively held by the entire world, ever? "Not worldview" is a rubbish term. Nick carson (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not worldview tag 

message: come on all you smart people out there (not me)
put the impacts of bushfires here...i need it fo my assignment!!
wait i could always go to assignment.com   hmmmmm.... 
♥love kenzie  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.13.89 (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impacts of Bushfires 

message: Great article, lots of good info, and I think it would be more comprehensive if merged into wildfire. The differentiations between the two (if any) can be handled here, but otherwise both articles could stand to gain a lot by merging relevant information and techniques into one article, while avoiding confusion at the same time.Apothecia (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bushfire article appears to be a typical example of a sub-topic content fork as per the Summary style guideline.  As such, I am not sure a merger would be appropriate, especially considering that a combined Wildfire/Bushfire article would be about 100k in size, which is well over size where the splitting of articles is recommended.  — Kralizec! (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't seem to be very long, (~17000kb) compared with wildfire (~83000 kb). 
Also, I am not proposing a complete merge, as there are differences between wildfires and bushfires, (if indeed the term is applied mainly or solely to AUS), but, there is some overlap which is not only redundant, but could potentially be confusing to a casual browser of WP. 
As I said before, I think that this article can drop some weight through a partial merge with wildfire, this article would remain, but I think in a more specific manner to AUS/SouthAfrica.Apothecia (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm amazed this merge hasn't happened yet. Actually no I'm not amazed, because it's typical of Wikipedia. There is no difference between a bushfire and a wildfire. Zero. Zilch. None. They are just different words. There are regional differences in bush/wildfires, and these should be handled using regional articles, "Bushfires in Australia", etc. Actually this article as it stands contains almost zero non-Australian content and should be merged into to Bushfires in Australia. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support a merge. Half the article already deals explicitly with non-australian content for goodness' sake. The wildfire article is much more comprehensive, and is very much applicable to Australian conditions in most cases - hardly anything would need to be changed in the master article. Suggest editing Wildfire to explain regional names for "Bushfires", and redirecting the Australian specific content to Bushfires in Australia. Perhaps add a DAB to Wildfire along the lines of . Willing to help perform the merge and argue for the necessary changes in Wildfire.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose, as per the above comment.Cgoodwin (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The current proposal under discussion at Talk:Wildfire is to merge Bushfire to Bushfires in Australia, which keeps the cultural context but doesn't require duplicating a huge amount of the Wildfire article.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to wildfire?

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bushfires in Australia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress