Talk:North Complex Fire

California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wildfire Mid‑importance

	North Complex 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Title?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Note that in most casse the article title is the WP:COMMONNAME, not the WP:OFFICIALNAME of a subject: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". If most media call it the Bear Fire, then that is the common name and Wikipedia follows suit. (t · c) buidhe 10:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

But there are other fires involved in the complex, so the change would suffer from the issue of inaccuracy. Sure, the Bear Fire ended up absorbing the others and became the most recognizable name, but that doesn't mean that we should follow suit with the media and rename the article like that. At the end of the day, it's still a complex fire, even if it has become just one fire at this point. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Political response section

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This diff looks like original research and seems to give undue weight to criticism of Newsom based on one representative's comments. Would it make sense to rework or remove this section? Lunar Jesters _(talk) 05:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Better? Crescent77 (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

This still seems like WP:UNDUE weight on one representative's comments, and not much on the actual response or legislation; the sources don't support the undue weight on the criticism of Newsom. "He used the opportunity for social media," while nominally correct, creates the impression that his visit was trivial and self-serving to the average reader. See sources like this and this that do not focus exclusively on the criticism of Newsom's response. The critical comments can and should be included, they just shouldn't be the entirety of the section. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 22:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response. I think the issue was there wasn't a response or legislative activity, it was just a staged signing. Perhaps including this section at all gives WP:Undue to these politicians activities, who had little involvement with the topic of the article itself. Should the section be removed completely? Crescent77 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic