Talk:2019–20 Australian bushfire season/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Intro

Why do yas have (Year) Australian bushfire season in the intros of your other Australian bushfire articles, but not in this one? GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we did, see the second sentence, but then someone added a little bit of text before it. Good day to you sir. 😉 --220 of ^Borg 08:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed and restored to create some compromise of what was there before; and what is there now. Added bold that was removed for some silly reason. Rangasyd (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bolding in lead

Hi all below. May I ask you to sort this out in talk here before someone changes it again. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Took it out Surtsicna
• Put it back Zroota
• Took it out Surtsicna
• Put it back Rangasyd
• Took it out Surtsicna
• Put it back Tsukide
• Took it out Rangasyd accidently
• Put it back Rangasyd
• Took it out WWGB

Thanks, User:Aoziwe: MOS:BOLDLEAD is pretty clear in my mind. Bolding in lead will continue to be restored; unless there is consensus to remove, following discussion on this page. Rangasyd (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Put it back Rangasyd

Rangasyd, MOS:BOLDLEAD does not apply because there is no "formal or widely accepted name for the subject". The current title was concocted by Wikipedians according to Wikipedia's standards for naming such events. Instead, MOS:AVOIDBOLD applies here: "the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include [the bolded title]". The original lead sentence did not include bolded article title, so please stop inserting it without consensus. It is wrong (per Wikipedia's guideline) and it reads awful (defining 2019–20 Australian bushfire season as a bushfire season in Australia). See also WP:REDUNDANCY: "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence ... The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead." Surtsicna (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I am note sure that the title was "concocted". See for example this and this. Aoziwe (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. MOS:AVOIDBOLD specifies 2011 Mississippi River floods as a title not to be bolded, remarkably similar to this article title. WWGB (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This really is one of the things that should be obvious without guidelines. "The 2019–20 Australian bushfire season are a series of bushfires ... that are currently burning across Australia..." The redundancy is cringeworthy. Surtsicna (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm content with @Surtsicna:'s proposed changes, if they're adopted for all the Australian bushfire season articles. After all, these articles are not about sports team seasons. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not proposing any changes. The lead sentence originally complied with the guidelines. I am opposing changes which make it sound silly and which contravene the said guidelines. You are, of course, welcome to improve the other articles. Surtsicna (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input. It appears that I'm the odd one out. Having said that, the selection of 2011 Mississippi River floods appears to be an arbitrary selection of all articles in WikiProject Disaster Management. There are three featured articles; and of these three, two have MOS:BOLDLEAD:

• American Airlines Flight 11
• Nevado del Ruiz
• Sinking of the RMS Titanic (not bold)

In the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire there are two featured articles. Both have MOS:BOLDLEAD:

• Blackwater Fire of 1937
• Yellowstone fires of 1988

I acknowledge that the article title is about the season and not about specific fires; or about a specific disaster. The season has been a disaster. The current lead of "A series of bushfires, also known as wildfires, are currently burning across Australia, predominantly in the south-east...." does NOT accurately reflect the article title, being about the season that, in Australia, runs from June 2019 to May 2020. The edits to change the lead to reflect the current fires does not address the season. @Mitch Ames, ScottDavis, and ToQ100gou: You may be interested in this discussion. Rangasyd (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I am interested, but feel a little like I have been WP:CANVASSed, I guess because I happen to agree with the person who pinged me. I have looked back at the articles for the last few seasons, and see nothing wrong with the construction of the first sentence which includes the article title in bold. In contrast, for the current article, I see no reason to explicitly link wildfire as an alternative to bushfire, I dispute that the fires have occurred in series, and think the closure of the Eyre Highway puts lie to the assertion that the fires have mostly been in the southeast. A clearer introduction could simply be "The 2019–20 Australian bushfire season has burned an estimated 18.6 million hectares (46 million acres; 186,000 square kilometres; 72,000 square miles), destroyed over 5,900 buildings (including approximately 2,683 homes) and killed at least 29 people." (footnotes removed for clarity). I'm not sure the date of the statistics needs to be in prose as well as the date of the reference, but even if it does, it could be a note footnote just as easily. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking The 2019–20 Australian bushfire season has burned... is not correct, because the season is not burning (the fire, and/or the land, is). However in principal ScottDavis is correct; "The 2019–20 Australian bushfire season has included a significant number of large fires ..." or similar would work. (According to MOS:FIRST the sentence should define the topic ("The 2019–20 ... season is a ...") but that's probably unnecessary and redundant in this context. Saying "... has included" or similar is not distorting the wording in an effort to include it (MOS:AVOIDBOLD). Mitch Ames (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

In retrospect, I'm actually inclined to agree with Surtsicna, in particular this edit, citing MOS:REDUNDANCY, and in particular that guideline's sentence "if the article title is merely descriptive [which it is in this case] the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason to explicitly link wildfire as an alternative to bushfire — It's a compromise, to avoid text like "the current wildfire season, also known locally as bushfires". Mitch Ames (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I am happy with Mitch Ames grammar corrections. I still see no reason to link to or mention wildfire in the lead since the article is in Australian English and bushfire is a wikilink that should show an explanation in the popup (for readers that have it enabled). --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I think link wildfire needs to removed in favour of Bushfire since this article written in Australian English not General English. But I note, Wildfires and Bushfires all generally different despite can interchangeably used because wildfire is information can be seen around the world but Bushfires in English is more specific to Australia although other languages adopt Australian English term such in French which known as Feux de brousse but the term in French also mentioned more broadly to wildfires in Central and Southern part of Africa and Buschbrände in German but the term in German was more specific to Australia only. it must more carefully to use term that are specific to Australia. many East Asian languages use the term that are specific to Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

But there is something wrong with distorting the lead sentence into a circular definition (Australian bushfires being defined as bushfires in Australia), Scott Davis. There are at least two guidelines saying that is wrong and explaining why: MOS:BOLDAVOID and WP:REDUNDANCY. The lead sentence was well-worded initially and I see no reason to distort it just to include the bold words. Surtsicna (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Rangasyd, thank you for finding these articles for comparison. The articles you mentioned above have well-worded lead sentences. The Yellowstone fires of 1988 are not defined as fires in Yellowstone in 1988, for example; the sentences were not distorted for the sake of some boldface. I do not particularly care if there are bolded words in the lead sentence. I only care that there is no absurd redundancy. It just so happens that, in this case, the easiest way to avoid redundancy is to abide by MOS:BOLDAVOID. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

TBH, it's quite annoying seeing this article's intro being different from the intros of the other Australian bushfire season articles' intros. May we need an Rfc to settle this. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Thanks. I've sat back from this discussion for 24 hours to observe the dialogue and its appears that my efforts to restore MOS:BOLDLEAD were distorting your efforts to avoid WP:REDUNDANCY. That isn't and never was my intention – we should avoid redundancy at all costs. Sorry for the confusion. In fact, this section is called Bold in lead and not called Redundancy in lead; so perhaps you can understand the confusion.  :-)

@ScottDavis: There was no attempt on my part to WP:CANVASS you or others. I looked the article log spanning September to January and you've made some significant contributions to this article over a sustained period. Mitch Ames created the stub some many many months ago; and ToQ100gou provided some significant input into the content structure of the lead and how it reads now (the article was with a lead for over three months!). There was and is no agenda on my part. I'll wait until a WP:RfC is called and provide input at that time. Happy editing everyone. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rangasyd: I realised that you didn't intend to invite only people who would support you, as you had no clear way of knowing what I would say anyway. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Thanks for confirming that the people you pinged deserved it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Still

• Took it out Surtsicna
• Put it back Mitch Ames
• Took it out Surtsicna

Please, no more until there is concensus that concensus has been reached! Aoziwe (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Odd seeing this article's intro out-of-sync with the intros of the other Australian bushfire season articles. Hopefully, a decision/consensus can be achieved here, so that I can bring all them in-line. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please be patient GoodDay. The timing of correcting the other Australian bushfire season articles is not urgent. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll wait & see how this dispute ends, before I make (or don't make) any changes on the other articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

My personal view on the matter is biased towards writing an article that English speakers from across the world would be able to understand. "The 2019-2020 Australian bushfire season is an ongoing natural disaster caused by an abnormally high number of wildfires burning across Australia, especially in the south east where a state of emergency has been declared for New South Wales."... in retrospect it could be written as "The 2019-20 Australian bushfire season produced numerous large wildfires across Australia and was one of the worst natural disasters in the country's history.". I think the inclusion of "wildfires" is necessary for international speakers who may not understand the casual link between wildfires and bushfires. Tsukide (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Intro overhaul, for them all

If there's no objections from others? Over the following hours, I will (if given a consensus) commence with changing the intros of the other related articles, to conform with the current version in this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the difference in time zones, may I suggest you give it 24 hours before determining if there have been any objections or not. Aoziwe (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change the article intro, i suggest to convert all value in Australian Dollar to US Dollars in order to understand non-Australian readers around the globe, for example the economic loss from 1974-75 bushfire must to add value in US dollars in addition to value of Australian Dollar at the time. In its not Original Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this could be very lisleading. How do you convert to another currency. Do you convert at the time of the event, and what exchange rate do you use if the event goes for an extended period, do you convert at this time, do you convert based on inflation in the target currency, and what does at this time mean, the exchange rate changes by the minute. I would think leaving it in the host country's currency is safer, and let readers do their own conversions. Aoziwe (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I object. The leads of the last four season articles reads much more naturally than this one presently does. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

They do read naturally. That is because there is no redundancy in them, unlike in any boldface version of the lead sentence of this article. Surtsicna (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The version I proposed above ("The 2019–20 Australian bushfire season has burned an estimated 18.6 million hectares (46 million acres; 186,000 square kilometres; 72,000 square miles), destroyed over 5,900 buildings (including approximately 2,683 homes) and killed at least 29 people.") doesn't link to bushfire (or wildfire) and is not redundant that I can see, unless you consider that burned is redundant to bushfire. The grammatical correction changed "has burned" to something like "has included a large number of fires" which you might argue is redundant, but could be fixed. The point is that the lead should define the subject, not assume readers know what it is before they read it (else why bother reading?). --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That version sounds good. I do think a link to bushfire would help readers much more than bold font but I guess they can hold on until the second sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as the dispute over the intro hasn't been settled. I'll wait. What's most important here, is that this Australian bushfire season group of articles have the same intro style, regardless of what that style is. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not what's most important. What's most important is that the intros are accurate and well-worded. The formula proposed by Scott Davis would obviously not work in every article - and it does not have to. Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The intros must all have Year–Year Australian bushfire season or not. Thus I'm awaiting for what's agreed on here. A hardcover encyclopedia would never have a series of articles out-of-sync in this manner. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

"Must" is far too strong a word. I'm a big fan of consistency, but I don't think all of the articles necessarily have to have the same template wording. One primary difference between this article and the previous articles is that this is the current season so we necessarily write in the present tense, whereas the others are in the past tense. (A hardcover encyclopedia would not include the current season, being updated on a daily basis.) Possibly when the season is over, we might reword the lead sentence to have the same structure as the other/previous seasons. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Just pointing out, if we're leaving 2019–20 Australian bushfire season out of this article's intro? Then I'll be deleting the other Year Australian bushfire season, out of those other intros. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think an RFC might be in order, explicitly covering both current and previous seasons (because I don't think that current and previous need to be the same, per my previous comment). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The major dispute appears to be - Have a bold copy of the article title in the lead -vs- not have it. Yes, an RFC seems to be an inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2020

I agree with Mitch Ames that the current season can be different to past seasons. MOS:TENSE is relevant, but so is consistency across the suite of bushfire season articles, as stated by GoodDay (but desirable, not mandatory). The construct I proposed above recognises the season is ongoing, but reflects the structure of past articles so that only a minor grammatical change will be required when the season is over, rather than another complete rewrite. Surtsicna statement What's most important is that the intros are accurate and well-worded is also true, so ideally, we find something that is enduring, but also works now. I cringe almost every time I read "currently" or "now" on Wikipedia - why not write something that endures, rather than deliberately write something that will soon break, then hope someone comes back to fix it later? Yes, I prefer the article title to be bolded near the beginning, but only if the introductory sentence supports it. This discussion is only about the current season, and should not be extended part-way to include changing previous season articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Start of season

@Surtsicna: IMO, the description should like this "Since June 2019, there have been many large bushfires burning across Australia, especially in the south east where a state of emergency was declared in New South Wales." Added text like this description without explain about when the month begin the bushfire for example (there is a high number of large bushfires burning across Australia, especially in the south east where a state of emergency was declared in New South Wales.) will lead the uncertainty and confusion since the subject is controversial in this article and it's unknown when bushfire begin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk • contribs)

But the article does not report any bushfires in June, so saying "Since June 2019, there have been many large bushfires ..." is untrue. Yes, the season started then, but apparently not the bushfires. WWGB (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Some source stats that Australian bushfire began in September 2019, not June which is actually wildfire in Southeast Asia. Many Wikipedia in other languages thought that Bushfires began in June but it is false statement because June is winter season in Australia. In French article, the bushfire began in August 2019, it is also false because it still winter season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Bushfires in winter are not unheard of. In the 2018–19 Australian bushfire season "Large bushfires had already burned through southern New South Wales during winter." Mitch Ames (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I was going to hold off on this until much later, ie, several weeks time, but the above means we might need to deal with it now.

I have not checked other states yet, but I assume at this point there will be something very similar.

In New South Wales the 2019-20 bushfire season formally started on 1 August 2019. See this, for some local government areas (LGA).

Further LGAs were announced as of 1 September 2019. See this.

The default start of the bushfire season is defined in law as 1 October of each year. See this.

Bushfires, however, cannot read announcements so can start at any time, and can start in winter.

Aoziwe (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There seems that are no consensus when bushfire begin because many source stats that this bushfire begans vary whether in August, September, October. Can someone edited description in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is after 1:00 AM in the morning where I am on the east coast of Australia, and 10:00 PM in the evening on the west coast of Australia, so any local input into this will probably not be for several hours now. While the above is referenced against official Government information, I would like to have some local concensus on the best way of putting it into the article before we do. For the time being "the season officially started in the Australian state of New South Wales on 1 August 2019", but this might be different for other states in Australia, and there might have been significant fires before that date, which will need checking. Aoziwe (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

What I have found so far: Aoziwe (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• New South Wales declared the earliest fire danger period to commence on 1 August 2019. See this.
• Victoria declared the earliest fire danger period to commence on 28 October 2019. See this.
• South Australia declared the earliest fire danger season to commence 21 October 2019. See this.
• Tasmania declared a fire permit period commencing 31 October 2019. See this. Fires were already burning.
• In Western Australia, restricted burning times and prohibited burning times are declared shire by shire by each shire. So need to check each shire's announcements.
• Northern Territory has two broad fire seasons. The northern season from April to November and the central season from October to March. See this. Also see this.

And Queensland would have a mix of what NSW and NT have. The NT Top End dates of April to November actually make a bit of a mockery of the concept of these articles, which is clearly one built around the idea that fires happen in summer. There is nothing like a uniform fire season across the whole country. In fact, the opposite is the case. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Have a look at the notes in what I am proposing here. Aoziwe (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Planning on RFC

The whole intro discussion has become too difficult to read or follow & has apparently divided into different sub-topics. Concerning using or not using Year Australian bushfire season in this article's intro (and other Australian bushfire season), there doesn't seem to be a consensus. If no consensus is reached on this matter by 00:00 January 21, 2020? I'll be opening an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Make sure your question is clear and precise, and don't respond to every answer you disagree with, or the RFC thread will become even longer than the discussion you are trying to circumvent - I've seen a few others go that way lately. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Rfc question will be quite basic :) GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I think any need for an RFC may have been taken away by the entirely restructured appoach at The introduction doesn't convey article information efficiently and clearly. This could be used as a model for all seasons. Aoziwe (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aoziwe: Then I'll remove the X Australian bushfire season from the other Australian bushire season articles' intros. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: No. It stays, but it is not bolded as per User:Aoziwe/sandbox/201920bfslead. Aoziwe (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha now. Re-add '2019-20 Australian bushfire season' but in unbolded form. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If people still object, I would much rather everyone contribute their time, energy, and effort to the much broader issue and discussion I am trying to encourage at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Fires, redux rather than run an RFC which in essence would be debating only four words. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll hold off from starting one & wait to see if an agreement can be reached in the meantime. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Canberra fires

Two out of control fires are burning in the ACT. Emergency warning has been issued for some Canberra suburbs and west Queanbeyan. Hectares burnt: 90+

The Piallago fire was also upgraded to emergency level.

The ACT section will need updating.

https://the-riotact.com/two-fires-at-watch-and-act-in-canberra-as-winds-batter-the-capital/352576

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/22/nsw-and-victoria-fires-soaring-temperatures-increase-bushfire-danger-once-again

https://esa.act.gov.au/update-state-alert-act-22-january-2020-0

120.18.32.206 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

More ACT fires

A second, out of control fire has ignited in Namadgi and has burnt nearly 2000 hectares. 120.17.152.29 (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Large Air Tanker crash

Some media outlets are referring to the crashed tanker as 'Thor' which is incorrect. Coulson's Tanker 132 'Thor' (N405LC) is not currently in Australia. The tanker that is reported as crashed is Tanker 134 'Zeus' (N134CG). 203.8.131.32 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Alas, three more deaths for NSW. WWGB (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a separate article/articles on the aviation incidents relating to the firefighting efforts? Globus Aerostaticus (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer a section about all operational incidents resulting in serious injury or death of fire fighting personnel. If this gets big enough it could be split into a separate article later. I think due weight and relevance should require us to not treat aircraft as special and separate in this context. Aoziwe (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The introduction doesn't convey article information efficiently and clearly

The current second and third paragraphs really don't need to be there. The fourth paragraph could be slimmed down to one sentence.

I also propose trying to expand the 'impact' sentence in the fist paragraph into a new paragraph which conveys more information...

As of mid-January, the fires have had a considerable humanitarian and ecological impact with an estimated 186,000 square kilometres having been burnt, killing twenty nine people and as many as one billion animals including agricultural livestock and endangered species, destroying over 5900 buildings (including 2683 homes) and lowering air quality to hazardous levels. The cost of dealing with the bushires are expected to exceed the $4.4bn of the 2009 Black Saturday fires and tourism sector revenues have fallen more than one billion dollars as many expected vistors cancel their bookings.

The second and third paragraphs can be moved into the main article, with them being replaced by information about the response to the fires instead (e.g. the fourth paragraph).

A paragraph may also be added about the effects of the bushfires overseas, or about the causes of the bushfires (though this can also be put in the opening paragraph).

Finally, my view on the use of Australian terminology is that the text should still be understandable to an international English speaker, as such I prefer putting in a phrase after the problematic word (once only), so it would be something similar to "bushfires, also commonly known as wildfires,".

Tsukide (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

I generally agree. I think the first few sentences should look like what I have written at User:Aoziwe/sandbox/201920bfslead. Comment anyone?

I have not had a chance to properly look through all your suggestions above. Hopefully I can get back to you late today. Also the comparison of the whole of Australia in 1974-75 to New South Wales in 2019-20 is just wrong. If 1974-75 is to be used for comparison to New South Wales then only the New South Wales component of 1974-75 should be used. I also think some of the New South Wales lead content should be moved to be a "lead" in the New South Wales section. Aoziwe (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

XavierItzm, Mitch Ames, ScottDavis, Tsukide, and anyone else.

I have included ideas suggested by XavierItzm. Any concerns before I move the new lead and overview into main space. There are a couple of stats I still need to fix. And, I will check for any other edits to the current. It will still need a lot more work, but I think is significantly better. Others can then work on it in main space for the time being. Aoziwe (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Tsukide's comment about the second and third paragraphs is valid, they don't add a lot to the lead. In addition, they have some enormous run-on sentences which make them hard to read. I don't think "bushfire" needs to be explained (beyond a wikilink) any more than I would expect an article about California wildfires to explain that they would be called bushfires if they happened in Australia. Anyone reading the article will have a rough idea what the term "bushfire" means, or will work it out fairly quickly. Aoziwe's new first paragraph uses a footnote to explain what a bushfire is, but does not explain a "megafire" which is far less common term (and I hadn't worked out if it's about contiguous burnt areas, or about long firefronts or fronts burning in different directions, or ...). Wiktionary says a megafire is a fire with a burnt area over 100,000 acres, but doesn't bother to convert that to 40,000 hectares. We seem to be getting bogged in details without remembering the high-level aspects of MOS:LEAD. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added a wiktionary link for megefire. There is an article for megafire but it just links to wiktionary. (There is scope there for a whole article on megefires.) Aoziwe (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I really like Aoziwe's proposed new lead and overview and recommend it be moved to main space. He neatly divides a proper lead which concentrates on the immediate issues from an overview section which expands on the leads and serves as a useful preface to main text. XavierItzm (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added one more short paragraph to the lead, to lead into the political and social response content later in the main article. Aoziwe (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

So... you saying begin the article's intro with an unbolded "2019-20 Australian bushfire season". GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes think that is the best compromise at this point in time. Especially, as you will have seen, the title itself needs to be explained, to both non Australian readers, and, actually, many Australian readers. If it was a standard correctly well understood self defining title, then I would have left it bolded like vast numbers of other articles. Aoziwe (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

... begin the article's intro with an unbolded "2019-20 Australian bushfire season" ...

... think that is the best compromise at this point in time.

Keeping the exact title in the sentence but not bolding it is the worst compromise - it's almost as if we've decided to ignore two MOS guidelines instead of one. If the exact title appears in the lead sentence - and assuming that we consider it a "widely accepted name for the subject" - then MOS:BOLDLEAD clearly says it should be in bold text. If the exact title isn't suitable to use in the first sentence (and there's a reasonable case for not including it exactly) then that exact phrase ought not appear, and there will be no bold text. I suggest that we should first agree whether the exact phrase "2019–20 Australian bushfire season" should appear in the lead, then make the decision about bolding based only on whether that exact phrase is used, per MOS. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, technically I agree completely. My main objective was to get a new rationalised lead which had essentially not been reviewed since the beginning and had just grown without direction. I was also trying to as smoothly as possible address a number of non Australian confusions and questions that have appeared in the talk page. I have rejigged the first sentence. I would like to move the material over to main space. Whether or not we and up in an RFC for bolding (not my preference) or not I am quite happy to leave to others. Are you sufficiently okay with that? Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Having decided what words to use in the lede and whether to put them in bold formatting, if we use bold text we ought not include links in the bold text (MOS:BOLDAVOID), as this edit by Potatron (who appears to be new to this article/discussion) does. (I'm not fixing it either way, because I don't know what if any consensus we've reached on the wording of the lede sentence.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

PS similar explanations will need to the added to all the ABFS articles. I might set up a template to enable this to be done efficiently. Aoziwe (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of a footnote to explain what a "bushfire" is. It add unnecessary clutter. That's what wikilinks (to Wildfire in this case) are for. MOS:TIES allows us to use Australian English, and does not suggest that we need to add footnotes to any word that is specific to Australian English. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aoziwe: Bushfires in Australia#Seasonality has now been expanded to include the content in this article's note about seasonality. An alternative to having such a long note in this and the other seasons' articles could be to redirect to this section/article. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rangasyd: No problem at all. Yes I was planning to do something very similar. I dumped it into the 2019-20 because international readers were asking questions about the start and of the "season". Aoziwe (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

So, have ya'll come to an agreement on the intro? GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's been over 35 hours now & there's been no more responses on this topic. Therefore, I've made changes to the other Australian bushfire season articles, using this article's current intro as a rough guide. My changes are (of course) open to improvements or reverts. The apparent decreasing interest in this topic, has been taken by me as a consensus for said changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Far North Queensland excluded

There have been unusual fires in north Queensland in this period, why are they not included?

https://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/state-of-fire-emergency-declared-across-queensland-including-far-north-queensland/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.6.185 (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Any one can edit Wikipedia. Feel free to add relevant materlial. If you are not sure how to do this you can provide some deails here on this talk page, noting that the reference you provided above is no longer available, at least it was not when I tried to access it. Aoziwe (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Magpie siren fact check

I have some concerns about the implication / assumption that the reporting of an australian magpie mimicing the sounds of sirens is related to the 2019-20 bushfires.

The video and its posting, and subsequent mass media reporting seems to indicate that the bird is located in suburban Newcastle.

The video as far as I can tell was first uploaded, to facebook, on 26 December 2019.

As far as I can tell there was no bushfire activity anywhere near (the bird's potential range) suburban Newcastle up to this time in 2019.

With a territory of only 3 to 20 hectares, it would seem extremely unlikely that this bird would have been anywhere near the bushfires. And, I would be very surprised if emergency vehicles attending fires many kilometers away would have been near the bird with sirens activated.

Does anyone know how to get any coord metadata from the video? We do know the video was taken at a street address of 27 but I cannot find the street with that front fence. (IE If the bird's range includes a local fire or ambulance station, or an arterial road used by a nearby fire or ambulance station, then it would be exposed to sirens most days of the week, possibly multiple times each day, over its life time of many years.)

Territory size: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200908/r427417_2038313.pdf

Bushfire: 6 December 2019: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/06/australia-fires-five-bushfires-merge-north-of-sydney-as-conditions-forecast-to-worsen

Bushfire: 21 December 2019: https://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/6555646/gospers-mountain-fire-has-begun-impacting-lithgow/

Uploaded: 26 December 2019: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AustralianNativeBirds/permalink/3348428018563624/

Can anyone add anything further, or any comment at all? Or have I got something totally wrong? Aoziwe (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The claim certainly wouldn't survive rigid scientific analysis. We have a single (unauthenticated) video appearing to show a magpie making a sound that a lot of humans think sounds like a fire engine siren. Although the video shows the bird doing it perhaps three times, I would guess that we are only seeing one instance of it happening, with different takes on different cameras. The beginning makes it obvious that at least two cameras were in involved, since we can see a second one. The bird is obviously somewhat domesticated. While magpies do often interact readily with humans, very few will sit totally comfortably with a phone around thirty centimetres from their face. So, not exactly a wild bird.

Then there is the issue of what the bird is actually doing. Is it really mimicking a fire siren? (Has anyone asked the bird?) He could be making that noise for any number of reasons.

The location is a bit confusing. The two articles say "in Newcastle", while the one from The Independent later quotes "Copacabana Rural Fire Brigade". (Not great journalism. I didn't know a fire brigade could talk. Yet another miracle!) Copacabana is around 70 km as the crow magpie flies from Newcastle. Perhaps that's good enough for international news, but doesn't help with verifying this story. Where did this really happen? The video was allegedly made on Boxing Day, presumably 2019. I don't know if that can be verified. There were bushfires that involved the Copacabana Rural Fire Brigade in the period before Christmas, so there could well have been sirens.

At least one of the sources states that Copacabana Rural Fire Brigade reposted the original post, and that is when it went "viral", so that is where the location confusion comes from I think. As far as I can tell it seems the location is actually Newcastle, but there is nothing that I can find to validate that yet. Aoziwe (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The mention in the article does, of course, hint at something else possibly going on when it says "(or deliberately exposed during training)". Food for thought there. Is the bird mimicking a real siren, or a recording of one? So, lots of questions. It's worth noting that this claim has also been added to the Australian magpie article (without the preceding qualification), so if we decide to delete or modify the claim here we must also update the latter article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"(or deliberately exposed during training)" was added by this edit and was not removed by this edit but which did remove most of the earlier edit. Aoziwe (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Even if the the magpie was imitating a siren, it's hardly notable in the context of the bushfire season article. A single magpie doing what magpies are known to do - imitate other sounds - does not rate a mention. I propose that we simply delete it from the bushfire season article. (If it's verifiable, the current single sentence in the Australian magpie article is probably reasonable, in that context.) Mitch Ames (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted the paragraph, given the lack of any real notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)