Talk:Palisades Fire (2025)

Rename to Palisades Fire?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

i feel like this one is gonna be the most known palisades wildfire. For this reason. Can we change it to just Palisades Fire? i didn't even know about the 2021 one til now. Hunterman546 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

regardless, it will be useful to have the 2021 and 2025 distinctions on each article. Delectopierre (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wildfireupdateman: Now that it's been a couple of days it's no longer in question that this is by far the more notable Palisades Fire. Also, it is frowned upon to point to a policy shortcut without explaining how it applies to the exact situation at hand.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

What benefit is there to removing the year from either of the palisades fires? Delectopierre (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move?

There is a new fire in LACO(Eaton fire) that may also have significant effects. Should we move this to something like "2025 Los Angeles County wildfires?" Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes or even “2025 Southern California wildfires.” There are now 6 separate named fires. Jusdafax (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I would support an overview article but think there will be enough content on this fire alone per WP:SPLIT, just like the Tubbs Fire has its own article. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this fire is notable enough for its own article; the other fires can go in the broader 2025 California wildfires article. harrz ^talk 08:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep it as its own, and add a second article for January 2025 Southern California Wildfires.

This will be a VERY bad fire season in southern California. This fire is already significant enough for its own article. AND the six fires are a notable event. Delectopierre (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Source says:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Swain noted that parts of Southern California are experiencing the driest start to the season on record, as well as the driest 9-month period ever observed." " Portions of San Diego County have seen their driest start to the season (and 9-month period overall)"

WP says " It quickly spread due to a combination of severe drought, which was the driest 9-month period on record, in Southern California"

It's not even SYNTH, it is hyperbolic exaggeration. 2601:46:C47F:5A0:214C:8A0A:A756:D282 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Severe drought leading to extremely dry fuel loads is most definitely a cause as directly stated by other news sources so this objection is not sustained.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Good irrelevant point.

Palisades is not in San Diego County.

The source clearly says and even includes a picture that county is the one experiencing the driest 9 month period on record.

Why does WP say Palisades in LA County is experiencing the driest 9 month period on record? 2601:46:C47F:5A0:214C:8A0A:A756:D282 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Because that is literally what the source/KTLA says? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Deaths to Impact?

ABC News reporting five confirmed deaths from the fire:

https://abc7.com/live-updates/socal-braces-possibly-destructive-windstorm-amid-dangerous-fire-weather/15771235/entry/15779338/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/live/los-angeles-wildfires-live-updates-5-killed-palisades-and-eaton-fires-spread-across-26000-acres-with-0-containment-141555849.html 71.202.227.142 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

These deaths are from the concurrent Eaton Fire. harrz ^talk 15:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

fire hydrants ran out of water

I'm on mobile right now so dropping this here instead of writing it myself. We should surely work this into the article. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/08/g-s1-41690/california-wildfire-water-hydrants-pacific-palisades –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

i added a section in the background about pre-pumping. i can try to add something later about the demand outpacing supply, however feel free to as well. here's another good article: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-wildfires/palisades-fire-firefighters-water-pressure/3597877/

it may be useful (esp given misinformation going around) to mention that this is a common occurrence with firefighting at elevation and that the tanks were there to try to prevent loss of pressure. see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_firestorm_of_1991 Delectopierre (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I added a sentence just now as well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the information in this video could be useful?

https://www.wsj.com/video/what-we-know-about-why-la-fire-hydrants-ran-dry-during-wildfires/ED9921E6-5DD7-4FC9-8A38-6F18478D7FB1.html Arnoschtek (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Videos don't make great citations. We prefer text citations when possible. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Pictures

Any free photo requests? I can take some and PD them for use here. DarmaniLink (talk) DarmaniLink (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Steve Guttenberg quote

The extensive quote from Steve Guttenberg seems unnecessary. A single summary sentence will suffice, as readers can go to the source to see his full statement. Fences&Windows 08:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't read it closely so I'm not sure if a single sentence captures it or not, but I completely agree. It takes up a grossly disproportionate amount of the article. Delectopierre (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed as WP:UNDUE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2025

Palisades Fire (2025) → Palisades Fire – This fire is now orders of magnitude larger and more destructive than Palisades Fire (2021). It is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I made the dab page originally when it was not yet certain what the extent of impacts were, but now it is clear this one blows the previous one out of the water.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no benefit to removing the year from either article title. Make the case. Delectopierre (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Delectopierre: Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which requires that when a title refers to one particular entity overwhelmingly in reliable sources, as is the case is here (and will remain, in view of how this may be the single most damaging wildfire ever worldwide), the disambiguator must not be used on the article for that entity. For example, gold refers overwhelmingly to the element and not gold (color) or gold medal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see size as equal to primary. That seems to be WP:RECENTISM. It would also cause tremendous confusion, and would violate 2 of the 3 disambiguation principles:

"Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title. For example, three of the articles dealing with topics ordinarily called "Mercury" are titled Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), and Mercury (mythology)."

"Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be" (emphasis mine)

I can maybe see a case for a disambiguation page. Delectopierre (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Keep the year in the title as it quickly leads readers to the right article. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No. People are going to look for "Palisades Fire", not "Palisades Fire (2025)". This is the fire that destroyed celebrity houses and will go on to be the most destructive ever. It's not recentism because these lasting impacts are permanent and will forever cement this fire in readers' memories.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that when people look for "Palisades Fire", they'll identify "Palisades Fire (2025)" as being the correct article to look at. It is true, though, that this is very likely the fire people will be searching for when looking for "Palisades Fire." Yes, now that it's occurring, but also because of the massive scale of destruction as you stated.

I don't see an issue either way; but I would lean on keeping the date for the sake of consistency and because, while this is by far the more significant event, this is one of two Palisade Fires. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

+1. SdHb (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not in the top 20 most destructive California fires by any metric. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2022/ph240/chunduru1/docs/calfire-24oct22.pdf Delectopierre (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

...because this one's damage has not been computed, and the preliminary JPMorgan Chase estimate of $10 billion is likely a gross underestimate? Let's do just a little bit of math. Conservatively a thousand structures destroyed. Conservatively ten million per structure (remember, the outliers will skew it above the mode and median). That's ten billion right there. That slide conflates size with destructiveness, the latter of which is always measured by monetary damage and not size. The final destroyed structure count will likely be an order of magnitude greater. Even if we go by number of structures destroyed, this fire still grossly beats the 2021 one and, again, most importantly, no reader today will be looking for the 2021 fire, and hardly anyone will be in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Irrespective of the name change:

- Your assumptions about the cost are, once again WP:CRYSTAL as we don't have those figures yet. where did you get the house cost figure?

- "That slide conflates size with destructiveness" it does not. That is how wildfires are measured in California. That may change going forward. Either way, feel free to provide a list of largest fires that ranks them by cost.

- "hardly anyone will be in the future" is not a policy argument for a name change.

Lastly you have yet to address my point that this change would violate 2 of 3 disambiguation principles.

Delectopierre (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Daniel Swain, a respected expert in California wildfires, is on the record as saying he expects this to be the most costly California wildfire. Your second point was debunked by the IP below as is your point about disambiguation. Ultimately no one is required to personally satisfy you of the decision's merits when there is consensus for it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed 2pacgoodlife (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

ten million per structure how? isn't that the land value, primarily? 82.19.160.128 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The labor and material costs to rebuild in this area are truly astronomical.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"Palisades Fire" and "Palisades Fire (2021)" are unique article titles. Reaching "Palisades Fire (2021)" through a hatnote in "Palisades Fire" is exactly as easy as going through a hatnote in "Palisades Fire (2025)". So I don't see any conflict with the disambiguation principles here.

Further, "hardly anyone will be [looking for the 2021 fire] in the future" is exactly the criterion for 2025 as the primary usage, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 24.20.19.177 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I was thinking the same thing. This has become the new WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For an example of this on another page, see Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Katrina (1981). Put a WP:HATNOTE on this page to Palisades Fire (2021). –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Re: Katrina - I wonder what the history of the name of that page is. Ie was it created originally as Hurricane Katrina (2001) and later changed to primary? Or was it immediately that way?

  Also there's a 20 year gap between those two storms, vs a 4 year gap now.

  Delectopierre (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand the relevance of either of those considerations. 24.20.19.177 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  See WP:RECENTISM Delectopierre (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Without the year, I nor anyone would not be aware of any previous Palisades fire. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 17:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  @KyuuA4: That is what the hatnote is for. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support as primary topic, other Palisades fires can be linked via hatnote. jengod (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support per PRIMARYTOPIC. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support This is a clear primary topic. A hatnote will suffice for the other, much less impactful fire. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as the primary topic. Penitentes (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as this is clearly the primary topic most people are looking for, and use a hatnote for the other fire. Minikiwigeek2 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC RedactedHumanoid (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Without a doubt, this is the primary topic and will remain so for years to come. The 2021 fire was trivial in comparison. Cullen328 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support This will go down as the most destructive natural disaster in Los Angeles history to date. Fully support the primacy of this topic without the year. Soongtype (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support. This is the equivalent of comparing a major, high-end landfalling hurricane with a category 1 that doesn't make landfall or barely does. Clearly the primary topic. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Adding to the WP:AVALANCHE of support: This fire is at 19,978 acres (and counting) versus the previous fire's 1,202. This is and will remain the primary topic. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support. As others have said, this is undoubtedly the primary topic and is sure to remain as such. As CrazyC83 said, this would be like having 'Hurricane Katrina (2005)' just because 'Hurricane Katrina (1981)' exists. harrz ^talk 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This is looking to be a WP:SNOW situation in favor. If it remains that way for another day or two, I think it should be moved to ease our readers looking for information on the fire.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support. I think that 99% of people looking for a Palisades fire will be looking for the 2025 one, be it now or 10 years in the future. I undoubtedly think it's the primary topic. Chorchapu (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I agree with many other users that practically everyone who searches for the Palisades Fire will be looking for the 2025 one. Additionally, over 1200 structures have been destroyed and there have been 2 deaths, very significant compared to the 2021 fire. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. This fire is being discussed nationally as one of the costliest natural disasters to date. The fires have been much more devastating compared to the ones in 2021. As a Los Angeles resident myself, I can't even recall hearing or remembering much about the 2021 fires. This is undoubtedly the primary topic. Tumford14 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I didn't even know anything about the 2021 Palisades fire until a few days ago when the fire of this year started marking the headlines. People will want to come over and look at this specific fire from 2025, as it's more known than the 2021 fire. It's honestly so much easier. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 02:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per textbook WP:RECENTISM. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now. per RECENTISM. Delectopierre (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong support because at this point anything trying to take this fire's primary-topic status would be more than historic, considering the Palisades this year has been historic itself. Departure– (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - There was a big fire in the Pacific Palisades in 1916. There are also 9 other communities around the United States and Canada called the Palisades. This is the only Pacific Palisades, why was "Pacific" removed in the first place? It is also way too soon to make a decision about this. Kire1975 (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Pacific was removed because that's the name of the fire used by RSs/governmental agencies such as CAL FIRE. 1916 doesn't have an article yet. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Question: What is your source for the claim that there was a notable wildfire in the Palisades in 1916? (The Pacific Palisades was not founded and formally named until 1921–22 when the land was purchased.) I can create a stub if you can point to some references. jengod (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Pacific_Palisades,_Los_Angeles#1911–1922 - sorry about the broken link. I've fixed it. Hope it worked. Kire1975 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

From that article and its citation, I see that it was one of a series of multiple fires that destroyed all of Inceville, a subdivision of Palisades Highlands, Los Angeles. Definitely qualifies as the first "large" fire (even though there were many) in the Palisades region. Departure– (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

As a stand-alone article, this fire would be covered as the Inceville Fire, as there is no mention of "Palisades" anywhere in contemporaneous coverage--because "the Palisades" was a development that wouldn't exist for another 10+ years. For the time being it is covered at Thomas Ince, as is an earlier smaller studio fire that destroyed a number of sets. Neither fire would be called a Palisades Fire. There was an outbreak of multiple destructive Santa Ana-driven fires in Los Angeles County in 1978 that did some damage in Mandeville Canyon but again, the term Palisades Fire would be a redirect candidate but would not be a correct article title. jengod (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose That title is used as disambiguation. I strongly believe both incidents should be distinguished.

AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong support Simple hatnote to the other fire will be sufficient (3OpenEyes' communication receptacle) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 18:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support - as a Los Angeles native myself, it should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 01:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Support- One of the most destructive wildfires in LA and maybe even California's history AsaQuathern (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support It's becoming clearer by the day that since this fire began, that it is orders of magnitude more destructive than the one that happened in 2021. I guess a somewhat similar analogy would be Hurricane Helene. Even though there have been multiple Hurricane Helenes in history, by the time the reports of widespread damages in Appalachia came in, associated with the one that happened in 2024, that page got renamed to Hurricane Helene without "(2024)". I still think it would be ok to link this page with a disambiguation with the 2025 fires and the 2021 fires, but ultimately, I do think that the title should be renamed to Palisades Fire without "(2025)." JURASSICPARK9265 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong support- As a Californian I know for certain 99% when talking about the Palisades Fire will not be talking about the 2021 which only burnt 1,000 acres and wasn't talked about much in the media. Its clearly the primary topic. Timetorockknowlege (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this was more than necessary after taking a second look.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Delectopierre and Alex 21: RECENTISM is not going to apply when the distinctions of this fire are going to be permanent, especially with regard to PRIMARYTOPIC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) You've made your perspective clear. For the second time, please do not WP:BLUDGEON by replying to every comment I make on the matter. Delectopierre (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Your argument is objectively weak and highlighting it by replying to it will help the closer discount it as a result. Also, it shows that you've been moving the goalposts. First it was "not unique", then "readers can't find it easily", then "hardly anyone will look for the 2021 fire is not a policy argument even though PRIMARYTOPIC directly says otherwise", and now it's back to RECENTISM. Although you're not the only proponent of your view, your arguments for it are becoming tiring. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I agree with the above by Delectopierre. Do not BLUDGEON opposing comments. Do not ping me again, ta. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) If my position were without merit, then why is an overwhelming majority of editors making a much stronger argument in favor of my position? Jasper Deng (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Never said it was without merit. Good on you for having the support. Do not BLUDGEON opposing comments. Pretty simple. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Nope. I pointed out that Delectopierre's argument is very weak and goalpost-shifting. That's a valid argument that wasn't presented before, and if they don't like that then they need to present a better argument. You too. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) So you continue. Very collaborative of you. "Vote my vote, or be harassed." -- Alex_21 TALK 03:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) WP:NOTAVOTE. If they had made a better argument that's more than just pointing to a policy without explaining how it applies, then you might have a point. But neither you nor them did it. Some of the supporters are too, and KyuuA4's oppose is a better argument. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) You don't get to determine how and why people !vote. You do not own this RM. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) And you don't even have to reply here. My original comment that pinged both of you was mostly for the closer's benefit and to see whether you in particular had anything new to add. But it seems that you don't. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) And you don't even have to reply to any !votes - again, you do not own this RM. I do not have anything else to add, as I have explained my !vote. Move on. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Even considering recentism, this topic will clearly have more long term significance due to the size, damage, and casualties. Xenryjake (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Support It is not necessary to use poor misreadings of WP:RECENTISM essay in place of WP:PRIMARY policy. Kenneth Kho (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kenneth Kho You appear to have linked to the policy of primary sources. What you meant to refer to is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, an editing guideline, not a policy. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. Kenneth Kho (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment The concerns about WP:RECENTISM are without merit, and people mentioning that should read that page from beginning to end. What Wikipedia is not is policy and it says quite clearly that In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. "Recentism" applies to blowing trivial recent events out of proportion and over-inflating their importance. The problem with that argument in this particular case is that there is literally no doubt whatsover that this fire is an exceptionally important historical event that will be studied and remembered and mourned and commemorated for many, many years to come. This is in complete opposition to the 2021 Palisades Fire that burned quite a bit of underbrush and quite a few trees but otherwise had negligible long term impact. The notion that readers 5, 10 or 15 or 20 years from now will have an equal interest in the 2021 fire and the 2025 fire is so utterly bizarre that it calls into judgment the analytical powers of the editors putting forward "recentism" arguments in this case. I have lived in California for 53 years and have been impacted repeatedly to a greater or lesser extent by gigantic wildfires. One fire a third of a century ago had a devastating impact on the heart of the San Francisco Bay Area and I had absolutely no doubt that the event sometimes called the Oakland Hills fire was of enormous historical significance within 24 hours after it began, and it is still widely remembered and discussed decades later. Other fires in Sonoma and Napa and Butte counties have had similar devastating impacts and anyone who lived through the brutal fire seasons of 2017 and 2018 will still remember them vividly and people still discuss them and ask questions about them. Hundreds killed. Many thousands of homes and businesses burned to the ground. The 2018 destruction of Paradise, California, a town roughly the size of Pacific Palisades, is still remembered intensely and that community is still a long way away from complete recovery. Any pedantic "recentism" argument that interferes in the slightest with reaching the article that 99.9999% of our readers want to read is an argument that should be dismissed. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support moving to Palisades fire (lower case "f") for consistency with other articles per WP:LOWERCASE. jamacfarlane (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:LOWERCASE, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text. I'm seeing most sources capitalize the "F" in running text, so I think a capital "F" is the right way to go. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 08:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the suggestion then to change the running text? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) states Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. This fire isn't a proper noun. jamacfarlane (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Fires like this one are proper nouns. Thomas Fire for example. Jasper Deng (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that these are proper nouns and that policy requires capitalization. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unless I'm mistaken, don't the first notable fires with that name get the name without the year (in this case it'd be Palisades Fire (2021)) and the second/third/etc. ones after that always have the year? E_F⁵ 17:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, from what I can tell. Mountain Fire is a disambiguation page, and Mountain Fire (2013), the first wildfire with that name, has a disambiguator in the title. Departure– (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Seems that people don't like PRIMARYTOPIC in the wildfire wiki community as Creek 2020 is the obvious primarytopic but still has the year. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: and @Wildfireupdateman: Check out Lake Fire, Lake Fire (2020) and Lake Fire (2024). The most recent is obviously the PTOP, but because of this convention that's not the case. E_F⁵ 18:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Conventions aren't rules. It appears we've come upon an area of unclear judgement. But per all the above there's nothing wrong with voting for a move against the consensus of first-gets-primary status. Departure– (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I would say that that specific example is borderline, since 2015 and 2024 were roughly the same size. Besides, there is no formal rule, and consensus can change. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Both 2015 and 2020 burned within the 31,000-acre range, and the 2024 one burned within the 38,000-acre range and produced the most casualties (7). I guess I just have a minority viewpoint on this. :) E_F⁵ 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I have started an RM on Creek 2020. Will see how it does. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If you started an RM for the Lake Fires, I would likely support making 2024 the primary, or at least giving the un-disambiguated title to a disambiguation page. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I started a requested move discussion at Talk:Lake Fire. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a classic example of WP:OSE. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC cannot be overridden just because you saw it not being complied with elsewhere. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. This fire is definitely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC due to its historically extreme destructiveness. The 2021 fire can be linked to in a hatnote. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. This Palisades Fire will forever be known as the Palisades Fire because of the sheer impact it's having on LA County. People who search for the Palisades Fire will most likely be looking for the 2025 one. The 2021 fire can be linked with a hatnote as others have said. A homo sapien sapien (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support – I wanted to note that the article for the 2021 fire had about four page views per day from December 21, 2024 to January 6, 2025. That article is completely irrelevant without the context of the 2025 fire, which is why this renaming is necessary. Having the "Palisades fire" page as a disambiguation is only slowing down the 99% of people looking for the 2025 fire for no good reason. Sewageboy (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Support I do think this makes sense, in terms of helping provide our essential service of getting accurate information to a large group of people. As Sewageboy noted, Palisades Fire (2021) is largely insignificant by comparison, and it can retain a paranthetical or similar to distinguish it. In the context that we are in right now, I support this, especially because it is the fire that has pretty much wiped out the neighborhood. However, making a hasty change in a moment of crisis isn't always a great idea. PickleG13 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as this is now absolutely the primary topic; this fire is already orders of magnitude more important than 2021. 3df (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Recentism aside, this fire is magnitudes more destructive than the 2021 one, and is what would immediately come to mind as the primary topic. Unnamed anon (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support I agree with others that this is definitely the primary topic. It would make sense to rename this and add a "were you looking for" link (I don't know what the technical term is) to the 2021 fire at the beginning of the page. --SpectralIon (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Since when?

Filer p-blocked from article and talkpage for a week, and this proposal is a total non-starter. Daniel (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Why all of this effort to leave off a quotation. It is not too long. Look at articles with block quotations. Here is the entire quotation. I can provide reasons for why all of it could / should be posted. As mentioned before look at how many famous people lost their homes. Guttenberg's home was or is in danger, it is unknown if his was affected. Regardless if editors want to find other examples either of residents including celebrities being interviewed or helping first responders then that would be a good addition to the article. What is not acceptable is removing the entire quotation. At 9am everything was fine. then at quarter till 10 (in the morning) there was a plume of smoke as large as anything you've ever seen... I got on Sunset Blvd and it was packed. I was trying to get back to my house and I couldn't get there. Before I knew it there was a 2 mile line of cars and the fires were raging on both sides of Palisades Drive... They were like small... dots of fire that because of the winds... the hardest winds that I have ever seen since I was in South Africa... They had these winds called devil winds... They (the winds in California) were screaming...they were hot winds... The flames started growing... because of the winds. Before I knew it all of the hills were on fire... The hills behind the Calvary (Christian) School (on Palisades Drive) were on fire... The police told everybody to abandon their cars and that's when I started moving cars out of the way... Fire is the most frightening thing you've ever seen... I'm trying to get back to my house... It's horrible. yesterday I was able to commandeer a vehicle... All of these vehicles are just left in the street and I drove halfway up Palisades Drive... Then the police didn't let me go any further so I got out and hiked... Then somebody gave me a ride... My (next door neighbors)... their dogs and cats were there and they (are) in Japan... I held them tight and I fed them... I was able to help them a little bit. It was like zombie land, a ghost town. Nobody was up there... Finally I got back down to the bottom of the hill. I tried to get my car and it was dark... I saw a little dog in the street and tried to (catch) that but it ran away from me... Sunset Boulevard had (palm) trees down and they were on fire... Gelson's Markets and Ralphs (our grocery stores) were on fire... The Palisades theater (Theatre Palisades) was on fire. everything on Temescal Canyon (Temescal Canyon Road) was on fire. Houses were on fire. Trees were on fire, it was unbelievable... I've tried several different ways to get up there (to my house). I am hoping that it's ok... Prepare for a crisis... (hurricanes, tornados, ice storms) Always prepare... and if you never use it, ok. There were 20 or 30 Teslas and I don't know how to start a Tesla... I suggested and so did other people to the fire department (that they) get a bulldozer and they actually did. They (the fire department) got a bulldozer and bulldozed all these cars. Engage01 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) That quote is way too long, and we shouldn't just include a transcript of every celebrity interview about the fires. I support removal. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) The quote is exceptionally long and in my opinion, a single person's account being given that much weight and being pasted in its entirety into the article is a copyright issue that also breaks WP:UNDUE. I don't know who Guttenberg is but they're not an expert or public official managing this fire. Departure– (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) You're both wrong. Engage01 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Clarify please. Departure– (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Please explain why this quote should be included in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) It's not difficult to go to Guttenberg's article. If you can't take the time to do that, it seriously calls into question your ability to understand these topics. Engage01 (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Engage01, with all due respect, you are an inexperienced editor without the developed policy knowledge to properly assess this matter. We are not journalists trying to tug on people's heartstrings. We are encyclopedia editors writing a neutral article that will endure for decades. Wikipedia policy is very strict when it comes to copyright infringement and quotations of this extreme length are very rarely appropriate for this encyclopedia. WP:Quotations has some good advice: quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words and Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC) In general, quotes are an anti-pattern and should be avoided, especially big ones. User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Problems with quotes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) NL, are you saying you don't support the use of block quotations? They're all over Wikipedia. Engage01 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) This quote, at this length — and potentially at any length — is 100% WP:UNDUE. First, I see no evidence that he is a wildfire expert. Second, if the article quotes someone's experience, it ought to be as close to the typical experience as we can quote. I can see the case to include a quote from someone who had a typical experience within the cohort of people-who-experienced-the-most-destruction. However a wealthy celebrity most likely did not have a typical experience on account of their wealth / access to resources, and two on account of their fame / special treatment. Yes a large portion of the homes of the wealthy in the palisades may have burned. But that does not mean that those were a large percentage of the homes destroyed in this fire. Strongly oppose inclusion. Delectopierre (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Have you had an opinion changed before while editing? I probably could change your mind with a response to this post. Engage01 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Good to know. Delectopierre (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Just want to add: you're always free to draft a new article. Perhaps something along the lines of 'celebrity experience in the palisades fire' or 'impact of the palisades fire on celebrities'. No clue if that's notable enough for inclusion, but you're always free to try. Delectopierre (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Poll I'll begin a poll although it appears that there's a lack of understanding. Here is why either the entire quotation belongs or half anyway. I have edited his interview. I did not include the entire interview only parts that were very applicable. Since it seems there could be ignorance here. 1. Guttenberg helped the fire department as did other celebrities apparently and citizens. They even got a bulldozer as he told them they should. He moved vehicles out of the way and even drove one trying to get to his home. That's not a normal situation and as such belongs in this article. 2. He mentions the devil winds in South Africa which also applies. 3. He talked about the neighbors who were overseas. 4. He fed their pets. 5. He tried to rescue a dog. 6. He described the fire (which isn't in any other part of the article. 7. He gives the sort of PSA (which is helpful). 8. Other celebrities aren't giving interviews or if they are -post some of what they said. It matters to the article. 9. I don't want to say most of you are deletionists but yah, seems so. Engage01 (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) A famous guy saying things is not a reason to add a verbatim quote into the article. I also do not see how a famous guy feeding people's pets is relevant to this article, nor why an article on a fire in Los Angeles should mention the wind conditions in South Africa. Please read the Wikipedia policy on undue weight. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) To be clear, I oppose including this quote in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Based on what? I suppose I could change your mind. Engage01 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I am going to respond to each of your nine points individually. A lot of people helped the fire department, we should not include quotes from all of them. The winds in South Africa are irrelevant. We don't need to mention every individual who lost a house, overseas or not. Him feeding people's pets is irrelevant. We don't need to mention every rescued dog, regardless of whether the rescuer is famous. A lot of people described the fire, we don't need a verbatim quote to tell readers what the fire is like. Wikipedia articles should not include PSAs unless they are about those PSAs. See the neutrality policy. I disagree that it matters to the article. That is an ad hominem attack. Again, please read the due weight policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Not even going to reply to this other than say read below. Engage01 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) The content of the quote is entirely description of events that are already present in better, more concise language in the article, and trivial information that does not merit inclusion, like feeding pets. Penitentes (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Not feeding pets. Do you understand how first responders function? Engage01 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Strong oppose far too long, and I don't appreciate the accusation of "ignorance" on our part. A lot of people helped the fire department, and we aren't going to include the rest. This isn't a normal situation as evidenced by the rest of the article, but I'm not sure what Guttenberg's quote contributes to that argument. This is California, not South Africa, and we have an article on Santa Ana Winds which is the formal term for the meteorological phenomenon behind this. His neighbors are irrelevant - we don't talk about every single resident who loses their house in a fire. Nor does "feeding pets" or a description of the fire add to the article's quality. Wikipedia is not a go-to source for assistance or emergency information besides our articles on fire safety, which should be an article about the concept of safety rather than a how-to guide. Departure– (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) It is ignorant. Are you learning while you edit? Engage01 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Just so you know, claiming an editor's positions are "ignorant" when they disagree with your positions and suggesting they lack competence comes off as a personal attack and I advise you cut it out. Departure– (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) How is changing your mind an attack. I am saying you don't understand first responders. Engage01 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I do understand that first responders don't feed pets. I'm arguing that it doesn't belong in the article. I ask that you please don't ask me if I'm "learning while you edit" and try not to redirect my argument. Departure– (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) This is not how to conduct a debate. I am saying I think I can change both of your minds. My argument (if you want to call it that). This is not a normal circumstance. All of that quotation belongs. At a minimum we could put 75 words of it in. When I say you don't understand fire department, police, first responders... here is what I mean. Guttenberg is functioning here as a first responder. Feeding pets is not that type of thing-but yes, they do feed animals. Moving cars, that qualifies. Trying to rescue a pet, same thing. Engage01 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Alright then. If that is your argument, I still oppose its addition as it still seems minor and 75 words is still a very large quote. Even minus copyright and relevancy to the article, it's given undue weight. Departure– (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Wrong again. Undue weight never applies to a small quotation. Please remove yourself as you don't understand anything presented. Engage01 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Please do not tell editors to "remove [themselves] from the conversation", as that is a violation of the civility policy and further violations may result in sanctions. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Do not accuse me. I asked them to remove themselves based on this: Not understanding "undue weight". Not comprehending that Guttenberg was either acting as a first responder or something equivalent. Engage01 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) WP:UNDUE applies to extremely small minorities' viewpoints, actions, etc., and giving a single person 75 words of quoted prose qualifies for that. Guttenberg is not an expert, nor a state/county official. From what I can tell, he's just some guy helping out first responders, so at the most he deserves one short sentence explaining anything new he brings to the article, such as how he described the fire, in a fashion such as "Guttenberg described the fire as XYZ" in the prose, rather than a long quotation saying very little we didn't already know or could infer, or anything that is straight-up irrelevant. Departure– (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Wrong. Engage01 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Engage01, I respectfully think you should drop the stick and back away from this argument if you're just going to say that we're wrong without clarifying why in a clearly WP:SNOW consensus environment, while making ad-hominem attacks towards established editors at the same time. Departure– (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC) He's not just some guy. Did you even look at his article? Engage01 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) If even Trump only has one sentence of quotes in the January 2025 wildfire article, then why does Guttenburg deserve a whole paragraph? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) This is not apples and oranges. Have you read block quotations on here? When are they used? Engage01 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) You have not explained why this specific quote should be in this specific article. Please do so. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Okay, you have described the content of the quote thoroughly. But why is it important or relevant that Guttenberg acted as a first responder? Penitentes (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Finally, someone who wants to learn or at least asks questions. Engage01 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Departure, look up katabatic winds. Engage01 (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Oppose Including quotations of such extreme length is a violation of copyright law and Wikipedia's long established policies and guidelines on quotes. Only brief quotations are acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) You are not right. Block quotations are often used. Are you going to take all of them off the site? Engage01 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) The block quote markup is just a way to display longer quotes. It does not justify excessively long quotes. If the source material is in the public domain or freely licensed, then longer quotes may be justified. If the source is book length, then a longer quote may be justified. In this case, you are proposing an exceptionally long quote from a short article, not a book, and it was published in recent days, not 95 or more years ago. Excessively long quotations are prohibited and use of this quote does not have consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Did you see why the circumstances were out of the ordinary? Engage01 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Engage01, countless things are "out of the ordinary" to individual Wikipedia editors. That does not justify violating well-established policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) SNOW Oppose - excessive length. We can also include the votes on the earlier topic discussing the use of this quote. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) No, you can't include something that isn't in the poll. Engage01 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Oppose - way too long and a massive copyvio which I'd say is blockable for including. EF5 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Engage01 has been blocked from editing this page for a week. Kire1975 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

What edit war?

According to this edit summary, User:Harrz says "add content lost in earlier edit war." He added material that I removed that no-one objected to and had nothing to do with the Engage01 sage or Steve Guttenberg. Neither the SofiStadium nor the TCL Chinese Theater are in the Pacific Palisades. The Unstoppable premier is in West Hollywood. The material simply does not belong on this page. It is in the impact section of January 2025 Southern California wildfires, to reproduce it here is redundant. Asking for WP:CONSENSUS to remove the content from this page and for retraction from Haarz calling this removal an edit war. See WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:FLEAS. I didn't invite Engage01 to start a war and the edit Haarz is referring to has nothing to with whatever that was. To remove it is justified. Kire1975 (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

So now this edit summber by Harrz claims that I reverted something? I don't believe I did that either. I took it to the talk page hoping for consensus. How do we search for edit number "1268612315"?

Harrz further says "even though they weren't to take place in pali, they were cancelled because of the fire and as such this is an impact of it". There are fires all over the city? How does Harrz know they were cancelled just because of the Palisades fire? Why is it necessary to have this redundant/duplicate information on two pages? Kire1975 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Figured it out, but the one word "their" that I changed in this edit was not changed by Harrz edit. So confusing. Kire1975 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

“Most destructive” claim

Camp fire, 2018, destroyed 18,000 structures; current claim is incorrect https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2018/11/8/camp-fire 2603:8000:6FF0:9A10:4892:8523:90D7:2330 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

These are early days, and the number of structures destroyed by fire is but one criterion. The Camp Fire resulted in $12.5B in covered losses ($16B total); FAIR has had from the get-go $6B in exposure just from the Palisades fire. True, Camp Fire was the most expensive disaster globally of 2018. True, the numbers haven't come in yet for the Palisades Fire. Which occurred, not in Butte County, but Los Angeles County, and turned some of the most expensive real estate on Earth into smoking ruins. So far... kencf0618 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with you so far, ken. Palisades Fire and/or Eaton Fire are both racing to take the claim of most destructive fires. So far, many news report are claiming over 5000 structures damaged/lost in their respective fires. 146.114.194.254 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Are Five Units Necessary?

E.g., 22,660 acres (9,170 ha; 91.7 km2; 35.41 sq mi). kencf0618 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

probably not, unless there is some sort of guideline that says so. perhaps someone more experienced can answer to that part. Delectopierre (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure about what the guidelines say, but I personally think its ok for the gross area burned measurement. I know how big an acre is, I can picture 50 or 100 acres in my head, but having the other measurements there (specifically sq.mi.) allows me to comprehend just how big 22 or 23 thousand acres are. I imagine the same would be true for a metric user. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a little awkward, but my reasoning is that:

- Acres are the primary reported unit for wildfires

- Hectares are the metric version, so feel necessary for non-imperial system users

- Square miles are the more relatable unit for imperial system users

- Square kilometers, see #2. Penitentes (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I hear you. Information density is another consideration, though. I don't feel strongly either way as I don't love either option. But such is life.

Delectopierre (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Timeline Revision

As anticipated newer information is contradicting older information, and it's a bit tricky revising whatever. I've leaving resources here. Have at it!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/interactive/2025/palisades-fire-timeline-images-la-wildfire/

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2025-01-09/inside-the-dash-to-save-the-getty-villa-from-the-palisades-fire

kencf0618 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!

From experience with these fires, there is certainly a fog of war aspect while they're ongoing. Then the cleanup occurs, and some months after we will start to see the CAL Fire, USFS, (possibly) FEMA etc reports start to come out. Those will be crucial in ensuring accuracy.

That said, we may get some answers sooner, as the governor has ordered reports about e.g. why there was no water pressure given the mis and disinformation that is swirling around/out of our future president.

In this specific instance, we may never know the exact answer as it is a private institution, and CAL Fire likely won't be commenting on what specifically happened there. Delectopierre (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a timeline template that displays only HH:MM but not the date? Right now, for example, the first few entries in the timeline look like this:

10:24, January 7, 2025

The smoke of the fire, at Temescal Ridge Trail in the Santa Monica Mountains...

10:50, January 7, 2025

The fire grows to...

In my opinion, it would be easier to read if it was formatted more like this:

January 7, 2025

10:24 — The smoke of the fire, at Temescal Ridge Trail in the Santa Monica Mountains...

10:50 — The fire grows to...

...

January 8, 2025

10:45 — ....

13:25 — ....

I looked around a bit and couldn't find a template of this nature, but I could very easily have overlooked something! KyaniteAl2SiO5 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Pictures

Lets not try to remove pics unless they are truly bad (like off topic, blurry or otherwise bad). A totally prose (meaning reading material) article is very boring to readers. JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This article has way too many images as they are. We don't need all of them. MOS:SANDWICH is being broken when we have this many images for so little prose. Departure– (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like for a wildfire article there can be more pics than a article for lets say a car as its constantly changing. I do think the images need to be diverse though, so like 1 image of a bank burning, 1 image of smoke at day, 1 at night. No need for 2 pics of smoke at day ect... JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You removed a perfectly clear illustration of the fire with (what I'm guessing) is your own photograph, which is horribly unclear, albeit with better artistic aspects. Wikipedia is not an art institute, though, it's an encyclopedia, and images should be added more on whether they illustrate aspects their subjects over anything else. I ask you stop trying to add your photo without consensus. Departure– (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain why its unclear? is it zoomed out too far? Its about the fire, and adds to their subject, so I don't see how its horribly unclear JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

And also I see there is no night pic while there was 2 morning pics so I wanted to add a night pic JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't need a photo of the fire at night when there's already arguably too many photos for the amount of prose we have, especially when the photo you're trying to add barely shows the fire at all. Departure– (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

i think we do, as we have 2 day images but no night images JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Images should be chosen based on what they illustrate in relation to the fire. It's the same fire at day as at night. Notably, you removed the first chronologically photo of the fire, which is very important and relevant to the article. If you want to have your image in the article, consider expanding the prose and adding a section to which your photo could be relevant (remember WP:DUE and WP:V while doing so). Alternatively, it could be a great illustration for your userpage. Departure– (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

What section could we add? JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)