Talk:SCU Lightning Complex fires

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Start Date[edit]

The Cal Fire website does list the "start date" for this fire as being 9:25 AM August 18. However, I have some suspicions that that was when the individual fires caused by the lightning storm, which occurred in the overnight hours of Aug. 15–16, were designated into a single unit for tracking purposes. The incident update at https://twitter.com/calfireSCU/status/1298262176730210306/photo/1 shows a start date of August 16 and a time of 4:00 AM, which also aligns with other reporting on the incidents. For example, the Mercury News lists several incidents in the area already burning on August 16: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/16/map-10-lightning-sparked-fires-in-bay-area/, including the Deer Zone Complex, Arroyo Fire, and Marsh Fire. The "August 18" date seems misleading, but I'm loath to simply overturn it. —Dajagr (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with August 16 (and no time). The status you link to above shows an official Cal Fire status that declares an August 16 start date; and looking to the body itself of the Cal Fire incident page, though it says "Date Started 08/18/20 9:25 AM", the body of the report says "The SCU Lightning Complex started on August 16th with multiple fires ..."
Relying on the SJMN article seems kind of WP:SYNTH, but I'm happy to look to the text of the incident report itself and the other Cal Fire status you point to. TJRC (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I suggest merging this article into the 2020 California wildfires article, since this article is vert stubby and can be counted as a violation of WP:CFORK and WP:RECENTISM.~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. As the article notes, this is the second-largest wildfire in California history. It's short, but contains all the needed info. (It should probably be marked as Start rather than Stub now.) Folding it into a larger article will inhibit additional coverage. TJRC (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TJRC: OK, we can keep this article here, though it needs expansion. I added some information (heavily trimmed down, NOT merging) to the season article. That way, the season article can be easier for readers to gain information and navigate, without going to every single fire's article.~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted that. I think it's a bad idea, but you may want to raise it on the talk page there to see if others disagree with me. You're basically duplicating efforts, and especially with a current wild fire they're bound to get out of sync. It's much better to leave that tabular article fairly sparse, with readers coming to the specific articles for specific information. That's why we have specific articles. 23:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@TJRC: I started a discussion on the season article talk page. The articles about the SCU and August Complex are both missing vital information about the fatalities, impact, aftermath, timeline, etc. It only has a lead section. Though I do believe that this has the notability to have an article to itself, the current state of the article is rather similar to the section I did on the season article.~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to be mindful of the text in {{Current wildfire}}. The impact and aftermath, and for the most part the timeline, are not yet known. There have been no fatalities in the SCU fire yet, so none are noted; and usually the articles for a current wildfire typically do not report zero, because it's changeable; non-deaths are generally not reported for a reason. Cal Fire estimates full containment by this weekend; after that it would probably be safe to add zero to the infobox.
CZU Lightning Complex fires, in contrast, has unfortunately had a reliably reported fatality, and that has been included in that article.
There is no need to puff an article solely to increase its size. A short article that provides the information that is still a good article. TJRC (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Rush Fire was one of the largest wildfires in California history at the time (it still remains in the state's top 20 list of largest wildfires), and its article is a lot shorter than this one. I'd say there's no rush right now to get rid of this, especially since this is the third-largest wildfire in the state's history and could be on its way to becoming the second-largest. Love of Corey (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This is a clear example of WP:RECENTISM in action. If this particular fire does become genuinely independently notable in its own right for whatever reason, the article can always be re-created. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This group of fires is independently notable. It also meets our WikiProject Wildfires for coverage. It just needs to be expanded. Stub size doesn't mean merge. We just need to expand and improve. If you merge it now, it'll just be re-created by a member of WP Wildfires (like me) and expanded using appropriate sourcing. See LNU Lightning Complex fires and CZU Lightning Complex fires, etc. There are only a few people who write about wildfires on Wikipedia (I am one of them) and we've got a lot going on right now here in California, so I'm working on expansions, just haven't had the time to tackle them all, yet. Missvain (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire for guidance on developing wildfire articles. We've created a simple template for the process and we hope you'll consider joining us! Missvain (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Major fires and major fire complexes still should get their own articles. Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE merge. This fire is notable since it is greater than 1000 acre and has many structure damage.SWP13 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other move[edit]

@TJRC: My mistake on moving based on WP:ARTICLENAME. At first, I thought it was a blatant violation of the aforementioned policy, since Lightning Complex aren't proper nouns, and I didn't believe that it was the official name. My mistake, I apologize. Just please don't warn me of making "test edits", it wasn't a violation of WP:BRD or test editing.~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a violation of naming conventions and consensus. And if you don't want notes telling you when you do something wrong, stop doing them. TJRC (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you be more patient working with other users. Also, to move a page when a user believes the title blatantly violates a policy without telling the others is acceptable. Look, I made a mistake, @TJRC:. I am not a newbie, a vandal, or a disruptive editor. I have around 3000 edits, probably less than you, and if you think I want to disrupt Wikipedia, talk to some tropical cyclone editors. Have a nice day. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up people. We have WP:BRD for a reason. It was an OK bold move, but not right, and got reverted. I had previously lowercased fire in the title, but I knew to check sources, and I found that "SCU Lightning Complex" always used caps, but "fire" didn't, so that's what fits the title and style guidance best. Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Thanks for explaining it. This is why I am spending this time with @TJRC:, a person I do not want to lecture me like a newbie and I want to leave me alone. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But since you are a relative newbie, listen and learn. You both over-reacted to each other. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: Look, I have Pending Changes Reviewer rights, I work on ITN candidates, and I do not consider myself a newbie, though you might say so based on my limited editing in this part of Wikipedia (I mainly work on Tropical cyclone articles, I usually dislike working on Recent news article because many of the topics are controversial). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I don't know why we are discussing my position on WP on an article's talk page...~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I chose my words "relative newbie" to indicate relative to the issue under discussion. Thanks for all your good work. Discussions happen where they happen. As I said at the start, lighten up. Dicklyon (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct, I am a newbie to the naming of all the fires and whatnot. @Dicklyon: Thank you, and stay safe. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SCU_Lightning_Complex_fires&oldid=1210285535"