Talk:2017 California wildfires

California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wildfire Mid‑importance

	2017 California wildfires is part of WikiProject Wildfire, which collaborates on wildfire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.WildfireWikipedia:WikiProject WildfireTemplate:WikiProject WildfireWildfire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Cost[edit]

I know it is impossible to compute exactly the cost of these fires, especially because some of them are still raging. But is not the difference beteeen "at least $180 billion dollars (2017 USD)." and ">$13,028 a little bit too big? And is "$180 billion dollars (2017 USD)" a pleonasm?
Pål Jensen (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of this article's content is misplaced[edit]

This article is titled "2017 California wildfires", but more than half of the article is about other years, both past and future. If there are no objections, I will be paring down that content significantly, unless there is a more appropriate article it should be moved to. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken/wrong links[edit]

CalFire appears to have changed the way they store their fire information. The event numbers are the same, but the new links should be formatted like this: http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_details_info?incident_id=1503 rather than the old way, which was this: http://www.fire.ca.gov/current_incidents/incidentdetails/Index/1503 -Angmar09 10:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angmar09 (talk • contribs)

Unrelated content[edit]

Sections 1.1 to 1.4 cover a lot of generalized material that isn't specific to the 2017 California wildfires, the ostensible subject of this article. It reads vaguely like virtue signaling about how bad pollution is - which is obviously true, but not specific to the 2017 California wildfires. Most of it could be trimmed from the article with no impact on the actual intended content of the article. Thoughts? Anastrophe (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this is most striking/obvious by simply comparing this article to the previous years articles on California Wildfires, which stick to the point, and provide data and details of the subject matter, not highly digressive commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material per BRD. It actually went on into further sections talking about speculations of potential future fire scenarios. Again - not relevant to 2017 California wildfires specifically. There are other articles better suited to it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]