Talk:Esperanza Fire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Esperanza Fire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Esperanza Fire was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 22, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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

	Esperanza Fire 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 Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Spelling correction:

severe respiratory damage --unsigned comment by User:207.200.116.69 on 16:05, 29 October 2006

Article Name[edit]

Does anyone know why the article title was changed from Esperanza Fire to Esperanza Fires of October 2006? It refers to one fire, not several and there has never been another Esperanza Fire to the best of my knowledge so I am unsure why they added the date qualifier. Thanks, Daysleeper47 16:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. All the local news outlets are referring to it as the "Esperanza Fire." I may switch it back. I typed in "esperanza fire" to get here. I wouldn't have typed in "Esperanza Fires of October 2006" in a lifetime of trying. It's one big fire complex. - Lucky 6.9 23:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Suspect[edit]

I recently added the news about the Riverside Sheriff Department arrest of a suspect with a citation link to the article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found his name in another article and have added it here. for the record the article is Raymond Lee Oyler--Acebrock 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks good work.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also recently added the information about the two people who were questioned and released previously on Monday.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olyer has now been officially charged. I have updated with the recent news.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Opinion[edit]

I recently noticed Acebrock's merge box for the Raymond Lee Oyler page. Considering how short the article is I support a merge of the article to this one.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge away! No need for two seperate articles here...--Daysleeper47 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Discussion from the Raymond Lee Oyler Article:

Mr. Oyler is hardly deserving of his own article but, in regards to the Esperanza Fire he is extremely notable and I feel it's worth merging his article into that one. after a week, whichever way the consensus goes, I'll take the appropriate action.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Acebrock (talk • contribs)

Edward4321 - No don't merge this article. This guy is certainly important enough to have his article. He is suspected of murdering 5 firefighters and destroying millions of dollars of homes. And his trial and even possible execution will make news again outside of the fire. This guy is certainly far more important than Scott Peterson who has his own article.

- (originally posted on Talk:Raymond Lee Oyler) I'm going to have to change my vote to no. He's been named a suspect in the Old Fire and this article will do no good as a redirect to Esperanza Fire, especially if he's charged--Acebrock 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update:After a week, the general concensus is that the articles NOT be merged. I am okay with that, especially after Oyler's possible involvement in the Old Fire. I have removed the merge request. If someone would like additional comments, please feel free to put it back but I don't feel it is necessary.--Daysleeper47 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the arsonist's name redirect here then if the consensus was NOT to merge ? 72.220.87.32 (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here; that was a very old (and very limited) discussion. Also see Natalee Holloway for FAR wider known perps. Further, the Oyler article was a complete duplicate of this one, redundant. Also, there was not consensus above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has become a very notable situation due to the fact he received the death penalty. He is all over the news here in Los Angeles and most of california to the point where most people are unfamiliar with the Esperanza fire but are familiar with Oyler receiving the death penalty for starting a wildfire.--Cyclopaedia (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, pls don't revert again until consensus is established. (Sure, he's all over the news in LA; the Holloway perps were all over the news worldwide, too.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with Sandy, as one of the lead editors on the Holloway article. If what makes the person notable is the alleged involvement with the crime (though it is uncertain if there was a crime in the Holloway case), then there is no real need to have separate articles. Just have the name be a redirect to the article where the events of the alleged crime are covered. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to be more clear on this... He has gained notoriety for starting a grass fire and then receiving the death penalty for it. This has nothing to do with the Esperanza fire directly and has to do with legal precedence of handing out a death penalty for what some people consider an accidental death. I find it rather amusing that Oyler had his own article for a couple of years and now that he has gained notoriety for something other than the Esperanza fire, the article is now merge into the Esperanza fire article. But so it goes...--Cyclopaedia (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, consensus wasn't established to merge the article but you did anyway. What am I missing here? And again, he is all over the news because of the legal precedence (death penalty for an accidental death) and not because of the Esperanza fire. In regards to the Holloway article, we are talking apple and oranges here.--Cyclopaedia (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NASA UAV Fire Mapping[edit]

68.233.140.65 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Adding a single line about it, and links to two sources. 12/4/06. The section definitly needs work.[reply]

5 Firefighters Killed or 6?[edit]

The article says that 5 firefighters were killed in the opening and then when providing details of the incident lists the names of 6 firefighters that were killed. Which one is it? Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were five; could you please point me to the exact sentence of concern, where six are mentioned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, uncontroversial statements in the lead, which are cited in the body of the article, don't need to be also cited in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Esperanza Fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail. This has had multiple valid [citation needed] tags since 2013, and many whole paragraphs are unsourced. Despite the August nomination date the article has not even been edited since March. Also the Effects section violates WP:USEPROSE. It is not ready for GA review. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esperanza Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717193852/http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/news/story.php?id=388 to http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/story.php?id=388&sec=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]