Template talk:Wildland Firefighting

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles

Forestry (inactive)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles

Delete all agencies from template

I propose the removal of all agencies from this template. Otherwise, what is the limitation on which agency is included or excluded? MrBell ^(talk) 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is no way a list like this could ever be exhaustive with a worldwide article with agencies/departments that have varying amounts of wildfire suppression interaction. Maybe a list of coordination groups like NIFC in different countries might be a replacement but then you might run into the same problem. Beantwo (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics & equipment

Hotshots should be removed before agencies. It is not a tactic or equipment. Beantwo (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could a new section titled "personnel" be formed with Hotshot and Smokejumper? MrBell ^(talk) 19:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Do it. It's just that those make up an incomplete list. I've been thinking about doing a "handcrew" page but I can't think of much that would extend it past a stub in length. Also, helitack and rappellers would fall under two categories in the infobox after this change. Beantwo (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

navbox conversion

I reverted the edit that converted this template to a bottom-of-page Navbox because it had taken place without any discussion. Such a large change in form of template presentation should at least allow for interested parties to weigh with opinions. Per WP:BRD, therefore, I reverted so that pros and cons can be hashed out. Thank you --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that this would be an improvement that would be welcome, I already moved it to the bottom of every page it is used on. I am more than happy to discuss it though. Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Want to reopen this discussion. Does anyone have any thoughts on changing this to a bottom-of-page Navbox as well as doing a general clean up/revamp of the template? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: did you have any particular objection to this when it was done, or did you just not like the fact that it was done without a discussion. To be clear, I'm not saying the latter isn't a valid reason... But seeing as no one has commented on this in over a year and a half, doesn't seem like anyone else really cares. :-p So without objection, I'd like to move forward. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this once again... Anyone have comments? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]