The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear support in favor of the move. The few opposers mainly were concerned about WP:RECENTISM, but I find the supporters' argument that this fire already has larger long-term significance convincing, and I certainly don't see enough strength from the outnumbered opposers' arguments to prevent a move here. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It doesn't take a WP:CRYSTAL ball to tell that this is one of the top 20 destructive fires. Even from the early preliminary estimates and aerial photos when this discussion began, it was obvious that this was going to affect thousands of structures. Early estimates are not crystal balls or predictions, they are just rough estimates from experts using currently available information.

But we are now going through the official count, which has been done by going structure to structure and assessing them, and while it's not complete, it is already enough to confirm that this is in the top 10 most destructive fires at least.

Per Cal Fire (archive link for posterity as it's changing rapidly) there are confirmed 2,114 structures destroyed, 382 structures damaged, and 8 fatalities, and they have only counted a fraction of the structures in the affected area. That would put it at #6 on the list of most destructive fires on the list that you cited, which is ranked by number of structures destroyed, and that's just using the current count, there are many more structures yet to be counted. At current estimates based on aerial imagery (also on the Cal Fire page), there are around 5,000 structures destroyed in total, which would put it around #3 on that list, possibly #2.

With 8 fatalities, it is also in the top 20 deadliest fires on that list.

There are only two fires we're disambiguating here; the 2021 fire, and the 2025 fire. This is far more notable than the 2021 fire. Now that this fire exists, there is no chance, outside of an existing discussion about the 2021 fire, that referring to "Palisades Fire" alone would be thought to refer to the 2021 fire or ambiguous, the only fire that you would refer to unqualified would be this one that has destroyed thousands of structures and taken several lives.

This is extremely clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it really should have been renamed days ago. — λ (talk | contribs) 05:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

"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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

  According to the 10 year or 20 year criteria in WP:RECENTISM, this would still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there's no chance whatsoever that anyone discussing a "Palisades Fire" without qualification would be referring to the older one.

  And the history of the Katrina page is easy to see; it was a disambig page up until the 2005 storm when it was changed to the 2005 storm because that was clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — λ (talk | contribs) 03:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

• 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)[reply]
• Support as the primary topic. Penitentes (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• Support, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC RedactedHumanoid (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  Support. I was looking up the Palisades Fire on Wikipedia, but when I hit enter it redirected me to a Disambiguation Page, where it gave me a choice between the 2021 and 2025 Fires, despite me not even knowing that the 2021 fire existedl 136.36.162.103 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This makes sense accually... Sr. Blud (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per textbook WP:RECENTISM. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply. If you follow the ten years or twenty years test, people who are looking up the Palisades Fire are much more likely to be interested in this than any other. The only other one that has ever had that name was much smaller and less significant, barely notable. The only way in which it wouldn't be the one people generally mean when they talk about it is if a larger, more destructive fire comes along, but that's something that can be dealt with in the future if it happens. Until that happens, this is what people mean when they say "Palisades Fire", there is no chance that there will be ambiguity with the previous one. — λ (talk | contribs) 03:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, for now. per RECENTISM. Delectopierre (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That 1916 fire was never called "Palisades Fire," the name "Palisades" comes after that fire, which burned down Inceville, a film studio and set. The 2021 fire was called "Palisades Fire", but it's clearly far smaller and less notable, leading to the 2025 fire being the one that should have the plain name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — λ (talk | contribs) 03:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Oppose There is another fire occured in 2021.

Sr. Blud (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We know, but you have no specific reason of why you oppose it. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because people may not understand which one you are talking about. Sr. Blud (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to our guideline on disambiguation, Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. An example of this would be Paris. That title belongs to the article on the capital of France because that's the most important topic with that name. There are a whole bunch of other things that "Paris" could refer to. For example, it could refer to a prince in Greek mythology. However, these other meanings of "Paris" are less important than the capital of France, which is why the title Paris takes you directly to the article about the capital of France rather than to Paris (disambiguation). PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Sr. Blud (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Xx78900 (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose too Sr. Blud (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously support seeing as this is one of the worst fires in Californian history, while the 2021 one was just a minor fire. Norbillian (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - at least for the moment. Because this relates to an ongoing incident, it may be wise to at least wait until the event itself has concluded. Also, removing "2025" from the title will be largely irrelevant; as of this writing, it's happening right now, so we know it's in 2025, but frankly, I see no harm in leaving it there until the official figures are revealed as to the scale and cost of the damage. Morogth (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per primaryname. Wqwt (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it’s really the only Palisades Fire that would receive any attention as the previous one happened 4 years ago and had no fatalities. It’s likely been long forgotten. Carlo2026 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it is stated that it is the most destructive fire in Los Angeles history. Carlo2026 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• Support moving to Palisades fire (lower case "f") for consistency with other articles per WP:LOWERCASE. jamacfarlane (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

• Support as proposed (and withdraw previous suggestion re capitalisation per discussion on RM on Palisades Fire (2021). jamacfarlane (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  @SpectralIon: Just so you know, the technical term for that is a hatnote. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @QuicoleJR Alright, thank you, I will try to remember that. SpectralIon (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support WereWolf (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong Support very notable and people will not think of any other fires named like this without the year so yea Joseph Ca98 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Primary topic Heart ^(talk) 04:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Definitely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; like other natural disasters, the largest and most destructive one with the same name should generally be considered the primary, this certainly meets that criterion. — λ (talk | contribs) 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]