Talk:North Complex Fire
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Title? edit
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)
- 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)
Political response section edit
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)
Better? Crescent77 (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
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)