Talk:Conflagration

Firefighting High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Disaster management High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Language issues

It appears that an editor has used the word "VICTIM" to describe "FATALITY(ies)". You dont need to be dead to be a victim. This is confusing when it says X Hundred "Victims" ... and X Thousand Wounded ... This is how some of the entries appear ... however as i can not confirm that this is what the original editor intended ... i am heasitant to change it. Eja2k (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect changed to unsourced unfocused article

The recent change in scope of this article replaced a redirect with unsourced text which discusses fires in general, and is not specific to conflagurations, which are characterized by fires which involve several buildings or large areas. I have reverted back to the redirect. Kilmer-san (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several buildings or large areas are not necessary for conflagurations.

a destructive fire, usually an extensive one (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.)
a very intense and uncontrolled fire (WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.)

The main text was taken from the Great Soviet Encyclopedy (modified to avoid copyright violation).Ufim (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page lists many hisorically significant uncontrollable fires created by military bombardment, but is missing the WWII Tokyo firestorms, which caused massive distruction and civilian casualties.

I think we need different articles for fire as disaster and for fire as chemical reaction manifested in light and heat: 1) Most other languages (except English) have different words for these meanings. 2) Most non-English wikipedias have two different articles for these phenomena. 3) Both meanings are of big value. 4) Both articles will be big in future. 5) In English Wikipedia there are different articles for water and for flood. I named this 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). Ufim (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the parts "Fire protection and prevention" and "Fire classifications" should be moved into this article from "Fire". Ufim (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflagration is a noun. Would this page perhaps be better served by pointing to Wiktionary?

Agreed. This page serves little more than a placeholder for a term whose nuances can be summarized in other articles. Shiggity (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24.39.5.18 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do like this idea and feel the two articles seem justified, but just thought I'd add- what about wildfire; doesn't that seem to fit into "fire as a natural disaster"? And then, "flood" is the term used when occurring in both nature as well as among human civilization, when caused by too much rain as well as water-main breaks, etc. So, I guess I would vote for Fire (disaster) to be, perhaps, a sort of overarching page to include both...but if this sounds overcomplicated, just forget it, it's not too big a deal Alex8541 (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made Fire (disaster) a Redirect to Conflagration. H Padleckas (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose redirection to Wiktionary

This page really has no encyclopedic content that isn't already covered at arson, wildfire, fire, and deflagration. "Conflagration" just means "fire." It has connotations of "large and destructive," (and also a second definition that doesn't mean "fire" at all), which makes it a great candidate for a permanent Wiktionary redirect. Shiggity (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and the "notable conflagrations" is also covered at list of fires. Shiggity (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This topic of fire is a broad topic about which much can be written. Not only could much be written about fire in general (combustion), but much can also be written about fire as a disaster, called conflagration in Wikipedia. The fact that this Conflagration article has not been expanded to its full potential yet does not that it cannot be or never will be. The way that very broad topics are commonly handled in Wikipedia is that they are often divided into two or more articles which discuss different, although related, aspects of the major topic, and are appropriately so titled. The same is being done here with the Fire, Conflagration, and related articles in Wikipedia, such as those mentioned above. If you look throughout Wikipedia, you can find other similar examples where broad general topics have been divided into two more articles covering different aspects of the topic, with links to each other. I propose that we keep this Conflagration article covering fire as a disaster, as a separate article instead of merely a Redirect, and when an opportunity arises, expand it further. It could serve as a central tie-together article, linking together the subtopic articles Arson, Wildfire, Deflagration, Firefighting, and Fire prevention, and possibly any others.

The Table of Notable Fires in this article and the List of fires page do overlap, and are intended to overlap. The List of fires article is intended to be more complete and comprehensive, whereas the conflagrations in this article's table is intended for truly major fires. I think it would be a good idea to develop a set of limiting criteria that should be met to include a conflagration in this table; maybe a major city fire or a minimum of 100 fatalities or very historical noteworthiness or significance. H Padleckas (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have pruned a couple of apparently less significant conflagrations with less than 50 fatalities each from the Table of Notable Fires in this article. Those fires not already on the List of fires page were moved to it. H Padleckas (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "causes and types of conflagration" section can be expanded to cover causes of conflagration more comprehensively. H Padleckas (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conflagration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305010450/http://www.doncio.navy.mil/chips/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=2487 to http://www.doncio.navy.mil/chips/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=2487

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]