This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Thomas Fire was copied or moved into Ventura County, California with this edit on 10:59, 16 June 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
10 year old Zaca burn scar is in the path west this. 64.183.200.94 ( talk) 10:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Where does the name come from? Thomas Aquinas? 111.107.187.175 ( talk) 10:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Thomas Fire was copied or moved into Ventura County, California with this edit on 10:59, 16 June 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
10 year old Zaca burn scar is in the path west this. 64.183.200.94 ( talk) 10:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Where does the name come from? Thomas Aquinas? 111.107.187.175 ( talk) 10:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)