Talk:Thomas Fire

Maps

Are the maps/photos that replaced the uploaded ones appropriate for this particular fire as they're calling out the other ongoing fires which currently have their own wiki pages? FriarTuck1981 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It's completely okay to include other ongoing/nearby wildfires in the maps. The maps only have to be as detailed and accurate as possible. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the answer. 👍 FriarTuck1981 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Old Zaca burn may help

10 year old Zaca burn scar is in the path west this. 64.183.200.94 (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Fettlemap (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Name

Where does the name come from? Thomas Aquinas? 111.107.187.175 (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The fires are named after the locations from which they originated from. In this case, yes, that would be Thomas Aquinas College. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Containment progress

Can someone please explain why these bars are all different lengths? The numbers make absolutely no sense... If they are percents they should all have the same exact length of 100... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone explained to me a week ago that the total bar length is proportional to the total area involved. Which, I pointed out, also makes no sense, since containment is about perimeter, not area. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This is because the plot is a superposition of plots of those two physically-distinct quantities in one compact form.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Even so, the "legend" makes no sense. Contained fire doesn't mean it is no longer burning and non contained fire doesn't mean it's burning. Beyond the legend, the graph is still unnecessarily misleading. I think there should be separate bars for area and containment. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok well this chart makes zero sense and violates WP:WILDFIRE-NOT. This fire is going to be burning for weeks. We are not going to have a row in the table for every day the fire is burning. No other fire article on Wikipedia has this sort of table. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple other (recent) fire articles have this table, including the infamous Tubbs Fire. The chart is meant to track the wildfire's growth and containment progress, not repeat the fire's daily growth verbatim, so it doesn't actually violate WP:WILDFIRE-NOT. If the table gets too long, I can summarize it a bit. BTW, when the fire's growth finally stops, the table's updates will be slowed significantly, and this table won't be covering every single day that this fire is active, only the periods of this fire's growth and notable changes in containment progress. Additionally, graphics and charts follow a completely separate set of rules, which are outlined at MOS:TABLES. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Redundancy

@LightandDark2000: Yes it is significant that it's the largest in December, but any fire at the top of the records list automatically earns the title of "largest in <month>" where <month> is the month it occurred in. So that is entirely redundant, especially for the lead. If it's not already, it still should be mentioned in the fire progression section, as it is still a notable milestone in its history. However, it is no longer appropriate for the lead.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You didn't have to take out everything else. You removed a number of other useful/critical statistics that were irrelevant to the fire's size. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't intentional. All's well that ends well though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Out-of-state mutual aid - graphic design

Thomas Fire:
Out of State Mutual Aid

Hello,
This graphic was deleted from the article prior to this writing. I edited the article and returned the graphic. The reason I made the graphic is for:

• Awareness of "mutual aid" existence in the United States, I learned about mutual aid from the Thomas Fire

• Imaging helps the reader retain information

• Remembrance and respect of other states helping California

Can you please comment on this graphic design being kept in the article or deleted.
Thank you,
Vwanweb (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - From my experience, this is the first time that such a graphic has been created for "aid flow" in a wildfire article. The graphical image isn't really necessary; however, I'm fine with keeping it in the article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the fire out? Should this article specify an end date?

As of January 9, the news is reporting 4 inches of rain in the area and mudslides. HowardMorland (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I hear the fire was contained by Christmas, and it was out before the end of December. I can't find documentation online, but surely somebody in the area has some news clippings. HowardMorland (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Post-fire effects and Fire History

I opened these sections to express a simple theme: Chaparral fires, intense rain and debris flows have been occurring forever and will occur again. Public domain satellite imagery provides a unique, important tool for visualizing the fires and debris flows. Without getting involved in the mechanics of debris flow and the meteorological circumstances that drive them, the images display the extent of fire and the path of catastrophic destruction. The images speak volumes of text. The images display specific, local information, which may be extended to other areas subject to fire and intense rainfall. My goal is concise expression of the processes, because the value is measurable in lives and millions of dollars.

I have noticed that User:Jasper_Deng has been following and editing my work, even as I am composing. So far he has added a line under the heading, directing readers to a "main" article at 2018 Southern California mudflows, a page based on dozens of "news" articles at commercial sites, of poor quality, overly dramatic information, layered in copious advertising. I had moved that to the end of the paragraph, where the reader might read on. User:Jasper_Deng also deleted some "excessive see also's", good Wikipedia articles including one to Alluvial fans which describes the setting in which the Montecito debris flow deposited. In describing the map of debris flow deposits, I apparently violated the "no original research" rule, in the space of a sentence. In an effort to properly attribute the satellite imagery, I am guilty of repetition and inappropriate links.

I would greatly appreciate collaboration towards achieving the important theme of this section. Alas, User:Jasper_Deng's editing has been entirely distracting and destructive. Being an editor since early this month, I am disappointed to be involved in dueling keyboards. I need constructive collaboration or I shall not contribute. Erthygy (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Erthygy, it takes awhile to get use to the various editing styles on Wikipedia. Some excellent, experienced editors fly around deleting huge portions of editing when they find something not consistent with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. After reading the edit summary, you can often add back some of the edits that don't seem to have been what they were aiming for. Also sometimes they will engage on the article talk page (especially if you address them) and sometimes not. Never get too attached to your edits. Hope you continue to improve Wikipedia. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I read through the pillars and related pages prior to committing edits. I expect gang editing, but not material disappearing as I worked to compose it. I spent a couple of hours massaging a few short paragraphs, which seemed to shrink the harder I worked. Thanked by some editors, vandalized by another. In the end my rule is hang with constructive folks, stay away from the others. Erthygy (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Fire Fatality Numbers

Hi. I got a notification that you reverted my edits to the articles, Thomas Fire and List of California wildfires. I do not consider the deaths caused by the Montecito mudslides as fatalities under the Thomas Fire. Even though the mudslides and the fire have a connection, the mudslides is a different event and the deaths caused by the mudslides weren't caused by the fire itself. In total, the fatalities for the fire is 2, not 23.

I am not saying that there should not be a section that is about the mudslides in the Thomas Fire article; I actually do think that it's important. But, I wouldn't include the fatalities caused by the mudslides into the fatalities section of the template at the beginning of the Thomas Fire article and the templates in the “List of California Wildfires” article.

Thanks for your understanding.

Have a good day. CountyCountry (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@CountyCountry: I have moved your comments from my talk page because this is not a personal discussion between us. The article's talk page is the place to discuss improvements to an article. Thank you for beginning a discussion of your deletion of the mudslide fatalities with this edit wherein your edit summary said, "Deaths caused by the mudslides don't count. They weren't directly caused by the fire." The deleted information that I restored in the infobox specifically notes that the fatalities are indirect due to the mud/debris flows so I don't understand how this information is inappropriate. A January 9th edit] put the information in. The article was actively being edited at the time and in over 200 edits meant to improve the article, it has not been deleted but was improved. This appears to show a consensus among several editors who are active on fire articles and/or experienced. Other editors watching this article may have additional comments. Cheers Fettlemap (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)