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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
Marshall Fire is part of WikiProject Wildfire, which collaborates on
wildfire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.WildfireWikipedia:WikiProject WildfireTemplate:WikiProject WildfireWildfire articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
result: Not moved without prejudice. See below that the nom decided to oppose this request and suggest a different title, which effectively withdraws this proposal. So a new request can be made at any time if there might be a better name for this article. Thanks and
kudos to all editors for your input, and
Happy, Healthy Editing! (
nac by
page mover) P.I. Ellsworth -
ed.put'r there 10:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Support - Marshall Fire is the name assigned by the Boulder County Office of Emergency Management[1] and is seeing widespread usage in the media. Additionally, based on a review of article titles linked in
List_of_Colorado_wildfires, common practice appears to be to use the official fire name and not dates/location.
Tristantech (
talk) 20:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Waddles🗩🖉 07:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Against A second fire called the Middle Fork Fire broke out north of Boulder on the same day. This fire got considerably less media coverage than the Marshall Fire
because it didn't burn any structures. The current name allows for the inclusion of the Middle Fork fire, which by itself might not be notable enough for its own article. Additionally, the
Disaster Management WikiProject has proposed a standard naming convention of disaster-related articles as <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. I support this proposed naming convention because fires can be given the same name by the media (ironically, there another "
Middle Fork Fire" already occurred in 2020), whereas the proposed naming convention would guarantee a unique page title for all current and future fires that may receive an article. The proposed naming convention is also more friendly to international readers who may not be familiar with the local colloquial name given to a fire, the proposed naming convention is clear to international readers what the article is about.
Codered999 (
talk) 11:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's a bit early to make a definitive
common name argument when the event was only two days ago, so I'd advise holding off on any rename in the early days, as we observe what develops more broadly and beyond the local wall-to-wall media coverage. The official name by the local fire authorities, given by the initial fire dept. commander who shows up to any wildfire, is not necessarily the name that will meet the Wikipedia
common name standard for article titles. Also, there were two Boulder County Fires during this high wind time: the Middle Fork Fire and the Marshall Fire, both are good names for a wildfire being addressed by a local fire agencies, but are not nearly as good when an initial wildfire has spread to take out 600+ homes in two cities and cause multi-day evacuations of those cities. This event has a while to run, and we'll see what it is called after the local media aren't just listening into to the emergency briefings and emergency management radio channels. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
N2e (
talk •
contribs) 12:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Was unaware of
Disaster Management WikiProject naming convention. Proposed instead to pluralize the title to 2021 Boulder County fires.
Evvekk (
talk) 15:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Have changed to opposing change to Marshall Fire, and instead agree that it should be Boulder County Fires, subdivided into Marshall Fire and Middle Fork Fire. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Leavit2stever (
talk •
contribs) 18:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Against: There is more than one fire happening, not just in Marshall.
Dunutubble (
talk) 18:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose, readers will be confused by the very-non-specific name. They may look for (and expect) Colorado, or Superior, or Boulder, or Boulder County, but never Marshall. Abductive (
reasoning) 19:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Support The notable event is properly named the Marshall Fire. Any other fires in Boulder County in the two (!) years covered by the title are not nearly as notable as the seminal urban firestorm that was the Marshall Fire, and shouldn't even be significantly covered in this article, which will grow as we learn more of the causes, context and consequences. If we use a different broad title like 2021–2022 Boulder County fires, then every referring article that wants to talk about the notable event will have to add more text or a redirect name to be specific.
★NealMcB★ (
talk) 04:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Support — Media is overwhelmingly referring to this as the Marshall Fire. —
D. Wo. 22:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2022 in name
2022 should not be in the title unless the fires are still ongoing today.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 18:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Concur. I don't see any clear sources indicating that the wildfires or structure fires are still ongoing.
N2e (
talk) 05:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The ibox says they ended on 1 Jan, so they continued into 2022 for part of a day.
Jim Michael (
talk) 14:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I added that while I waited for replies here.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 14:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The ibox now only says Dec 30. Was the fire restricted to that day?
Jim Michael (
talk) 15:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
It was only 62% contained as of Jan 1, with firefighting operations still ongoing, according to the Incident Management Team in charge of the fire[2]Tristantech (
talk) 21:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Lots of data is available (smoke, satellite before/after, windgust strenght and direction), it should be possible to add some maps to illustrate the development and incredible speed of this fire.
2601:285:8180:1A10:0:0:0:3059 (
talk) 00:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Underground coal fire being investigated as possible ignition source for Marshal Fire
According to the below article, a local underground coal fire that has been burning for years in the Marshall No. 1 and 2 coal mine is being investigated as a possible ignition source. It was the ignition source for a "...2005 brush fire that was sparked by a “hot vent” from the mine."
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved as requested
Mike Cline (
talk) 11:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support The Marshall Fire was the most destructive fire in Colorado history. Cleanup and investigation are still underway. It is worthy of its own article. The only reason for the old title was that another small fire occurred on the same day. This second fire would not have been remotely newsworthy except that it was carried up in the news coverage about the Marshall Fire. All the significant facts in the article to be moved related to the Marshall Fire, because there was really nothing to say about the other fire. I would have just done the move myself, but there is a redirect from
Marshall Fire to this article, which prevents the move for technical reasons.
Palpable (
talk) 20:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Agreed. The current title just does not match the contents.
73.229.59.142 (
talk) 11:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article is unencyclopedic
For " the most destructive fire in Colorado history." (as stated in the lede), this article is remarkably full of newspaper info from the early days when it was a big clickbait story, and remarkably short of thoughtful encyclopedic contact from the weeks and months after the fire occurred. By months later, their should be published reports on actual insurance losses (the state regulator, or others); results of the "pending investigation" (mentioned in the article) as to the source of the fire; final tallies of injured/deaths/displaced person; post-disaster effect on the Denver residential housing quantity (adequate or not... price effect on rents); etc.
For such a major local disaster, the article is remarkably short of being a decent encyclopedic take on the event.
N2e (
talk) 16:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, the investigation is still dragging on. I check on it occasionally, the most recent news articles still say they will be done "soon". There will be lots of coverage when the report is released, I think it's better to wait than to point fingers prematurely.
I've been meaning to add a couple other sources relating to the weather that enabled the fire.
Haven't seen anything about price effects, the effect on supply is probably not that significant. You can probably find some sources about the wrangling over rebuilding, and I think there was the usual post-disaster argument over whether more strict building codes are too onerous. -
Palpable (
talk) 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your solid response,
Palpable. Agree that is prob best to wait until more info available. Seems like you are monitoring the matter and the article will be improved when better sources are in.
N2e (
talk) 14:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Facilitated Learning Analysis report
There is a lengthy new report about the fire from the Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control:
Marshall Fire Facilitated Learning Analysis. Note that this does not address the cause of the fire - that's still waiting on a report from the Boulder County Sheriff's Office. -
Palpable (
talk) 21:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)reply
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
Marshall Fire is part of WikiProject Wildfire, which collaborates on
wildfire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.WildfireWikipedia:WikiProject WildfireTemplate:WikiProject WildfireWildfire articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
result: Not moved without prejudice. See below that the nom decided to oppose this request and suggest a different title, which effectively withdraws this proposal. So a new request can be made at any time if there might be a better name for this article. Thanks and
kudos to all editors for your input, and
Happy, Healthy Editing! (
nac by
page mover) P.I. Ellsworth -
ed.put'r there 10:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Support - Marshall Fire is the name assigned by the Boulder County Office of Emergency Management[1] and is seeing widespread usage in the media. Additionally, based on a review of article titles linked in
List_of_Colorado_wildfires, common practice appears to be to use the official fire name and not dates/location.
Tristantech (
talk) 20:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Waddles🗩🖉 07:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Against A second fire called the Middle Fork Fire broke out north of Boulder on the same day. This fire got considerably less media coverage than the Marshall Fire
because it didn't burn any structures. The current name allows for the inclusion of the Middle Fork fire, which by itself might not be notable enough for its own article. Additionally, the
Disaster Management WikiProject has proposed a standard naming convention of disaster-related articles as <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. I support this proposed naming convention because fires can be given the same name by the media (ironically, there another "
Middle Fork Fire" already occurred in 2020), whereas the proposed naming convention would guarantee a unique page title for all current and future fires that may receive an article. The proposed naming convention is also more friendly to international readers who may not be familiar with the local colloquial name given to a fire, the proposed naming convention is clear to international readers what the article is about.
Codered999 (
talk) 11:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's a bit early to make a definitive
common name argument when the event was only two days ago, so I'd advise holding off on any rename in the early days, as we observe what develops more broadly and beyond the local wall-to-wall media coverage. The official name by the local fire authorities, given by the initial fire dept. commander who shows up to any wildfire, is not necessarily the name that will meet the Wikipedia
common name standard for article titles. Also, there were two Boulder County Fires during this high wind time: the Middle Fork Fire and the Marshall Fire, both are good names for a wildfire being addressed by a local fire agencies, but are not nearly as good when an initial wildfire has spread to take out 600+ homes in two cities and cause multi-day evacuations of those cities. This event has a while to run, and we'll see what it is called after the local media aren't just listening into to the emergency briefings and emergency management radio channels. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
N2e (
talk •
contribs) 12:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Was unaware of
Disaster Management WikiProject naming convention. Proposed instead to pluralize the title to 2021 Boulder County fires.
Evvekk (
talk) 15:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Have changed to opposing change to Marshall Fire, and instead agree that it should be Boulder County Fires, subdivided into Marshall Fire and Middle Fork Fire. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Leavit2stever (
talk •
contribs) 18:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Against: There is more than one fire happening, not just in Marshall.
Dunutubble (
talk) 18:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose, readers will be confused by the very-non-specific name. They may look for (and expect) Colorado, or Superior, or Boulder, or Boulder County, but never Marshall. Abductive (
reasoning) 19:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Support The notable event is properly named the Marshall Fire. Any other fires in Boulder County in the two (!) years covered by the title are not nearly as notable as the seminal urban firestorm that was the Marshall Fire, and shouldn't even be significantly covered in this article, which will grow as we learn more of the causes, context and consequences. If we use a different broad title like 2021–2022 Boulder County fires, then every referring article that wants to talk about the notable event will have to add more text or a redirect name to be specific.
★NealMcB★ (
talk) 04:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Support — Media is overwhelmingly referring to this as the Marshall Fire. —
D. Wo. 22:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2022 in name
2022 should not be in the title unless the fires are still ongoing today.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 18:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Concur. I don't see any clear sources indicating that the wildfires or structure fires are still ongoing.
N2e (
talk) 05:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The ibox says they ended on 1 Jan, so they continued into 2022 for part of a day.
Jim Michael (
talk) 14:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I added that while I waited for replies here.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 14:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The ibox now only says Dec 30. Was the fire restricted to that day?
Jim Michael (
talk) 15:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
It was only 62% contained as of Jan 1, with firefighting operations still ongoing, according to the Incident Management Team in charge of the fire[2]Tristantech (
talk) 21:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Lots of data is available (smoke, satellite before/after, windgust strenght and direction), it should be possible to add some maps to illustrate the development and incredible speed of this fire.
2601:285:8180:1A10:0:0:0:3059 (
talk) 00:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Underground coal fire being investigated as possible ignition source for Marshal Fire
According to the below article, a local underground coal fire that has been burning for years in the Marshall No. 1 and 2 coal mine is being investigated as a possible ignition source. It was the ignition source for a "...2005 brush fire that was sparked by a “hot vent” from the mine."
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved as requested
Mike Cline (
talk) 11:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support The Marshall Fire was the most destructive fire in Colorado history. Cleanup and investigation are still underway. It is worthy of its own article. The only reason for the old title was that another small fire occurred on the same day. This second fire would not have been remotely newsworthy except that it was carried up in the news coverage about the Marshall Fire. All the significant facts in the article to be moved related to the Marshall Fire, because there was really nothing to say about the other fire. I would have just done the move myself, but there is a redirect from
Marshall Fire to this article, which prevents the move for technical reasons.
Palpable (
talk) 20:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Agreed. The current title just does not match the contents.
73.229.59.142 (
talk) 11:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article is unencyclopedic
For " the most destructive fire in Colorado history." (as stated in the lede), this article is remarkably full of newspaper info from the early days when it was a big clickbait story, and remarkably short of thoughtful encyclopedic contact from the weeks and months after the fire occurred. By months later, their should be published reports on actual insurance losses (the state regulator, or others); results of the "pending investigation" (mentioned in the article) as to the source of the fire; final tallies of injured/deaths/displaced person; post-disaster effect on the Denver residential housing quantity (adequate or not... price effect on rents); etc.
For such a major local disaster, the article is remarkably short of being a decent encyclopedic take on the event.
N2e (
talk) 16:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, the investigation is still dragging on. I check on it occasionally, the most recent news articles still say they will be done "soon". There will be lots of coverage when the report is released, I think it's better to wait than to point fingers prematurely.
I've been meaning to add a couple other sources relating to the weather that enabled the fire.
Haven't seen anything about price effects, the effect on supply is probably not that significant. You can probably find some sources about the wrangling over rebuilding, and I think there was the usual post-disaster argument over whether more strict building codes are too onerous. -
Palpable (
talk) 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your solid response,
Palpable. Agree that is prob best to wait until more info available. Seems like you are monitoring the matter and the article will be improved when better sources are in.
N2e (
talk) 14:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Facilitated Learning Analysis report
There is a lengthy new report about the fire from the Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control:
Marshall Fire Facilitated Learning Analysis. Note that this does not address the cause of the fire - that's still waiting on a report from the Boulder County Sheriff's Office. -
Palpable (
talk) 21:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)reply