Jump to content

Talk:Las Conchas Fire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

naming correct?

[edit]

I think following Wikipedia's preferred article naming schemes for events like this, the article should be renamed 2011 Las Conchas Fire? WTF? (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other major fires in the same region (Jemez Mountains) are also referred to without a date--the Cerro Grande Fire and the Dome Fire being the ones that stand out in most recent memory. Klarno (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of how this normally pans out is that a unique event or a multi-year event need not have a year in it. For example List of events named massacres only has a couple titled with the year. If there is more than one fire in this area that might be notable, then it makes sense to re-title with the year, otherwise there seems no need. (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Las Conchas is the "official" name for this fire, so it's not a matter of other fires in the area. Current practice in fire naming will pretty well guarantee that this name is unique, at least as regards wildfires in the Jemez Mountains; future fires originating near Las Conchas Campground, as this one did, will bear distinctive names. The usage "(foo) Fire" appears unique to wildfires and should cover issues associated with other sites called Las Conchas in Mexico, El Salvador, etc. If there are other sites in the United States or Canada called "Las Conchas," duplication is possible, but the only other Las Conchas in the United States, at least that I've seen referenced, is a lake in Texas. Eventual disambiguation might call for a rename to "Las Conchas Fire (New Mexico)" if that lake somehow manages to catch fire, but I'm not holding my breath ... -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

I also uploaded two rather similar pictures, File:Las Conchas Fire0.jpg and File:Las Conchas Fire2.jpg. If anyone thinks one of them is better or less bad, feel free to swap it in. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a nit

[edit]

But isn't "recorded history" redundant? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose! I don't feel strongly about it, so feel free to change it. My reasoning is that 'history' is not necessarily synonymous with what we have records of—there may have been fires before reliable Western written records began, and there are oral and other kinds of history. I'm sort of borrowing the idea from Cal Fire statistics, which include a disclaimer that there were probably large fires in the past that can't be measured accurately like ones today. https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4jandlhh/top20_acres.pdf (example)
Gdoehne (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 October 2023 and 16 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Helcionix (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DiscoverWiki1110 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]