Jump to content

Talk:Carmel-by-the-Sea, California/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Forest Theater image

REally - at the top of the arts section, do we want to look at WPA workers hammering on a deck? The original image was/is much better for sooo many reasons. I'm trying to see where you are coming from on so many issues, but this really boils down to your personal preference doesn't it? It's like the argument at the Forest Theater page, where I ultimately relented because the point was made - do we want an actual production shot - or to see WPA workers hammering away? I think the same sentiment applies here. And I continue to assume good faith in what you are doing - in spite of your recent unfounded personal attacks on 3 different pages. Are you going to stop with this, or do I need to appeal to Wiki administrators? You appear to be bullying and harassing me. Smatprt (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You are free to report your perceptions of harrassment, however be aware this is an open source encyclopedia. There are also guidelines and hard set policies that you seem to be unaware of. For one, images used in the article must have a reasoon to be used and illustrate a point being made. A low resolution image of an empty stage without a date of refernce is not illustrative of anything in the section envovled. The image I uploaded does exactly that. This is an encyclopedia not an art gallery.
What you percieve as harrassment, I happen to see as discovering a problem with information, peacock terms, weasel words etc and a possible POV and OR situation steeming from an editor that may be too personaly envolved in the subjects they are editing. Are you Stephen Moorer? If so be aware that editing your own page would violate wiki standard policy against autobiography. If you are just a very dedicated thespian, then I commend you, but warn that much of what I am replacing I do within policy and guidelines. Consensus is important but it cannot take the place of, or over rule policy. Articles should progress to a B rating before stability should be a concern. Right now the article lacks much context for many items and several rendundancies. The Jack London piece is a good example. Assuming the sentence was referenced without an inline citation and then defending it with more information that should have been in the article with references to begin with just seem confrontational. Do some actual work instead of complaining to those that are. I am as civil as I can be with all your reverts and what I see as boosterism....but hey I have been accused of the same thing on theatre articls I have started as well. It is natural not to see what your passions run high with.
I would only ask that you have more patience with other editors.
Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You might read the section - which clearly does mention the Carmel Shake-speare Festival, so the photo is appropriate. Moreover, a production shot, at night, under theatrical lighting, is (I imagine) what readers would be more interested in seeing. And adding a date is easy.Smatprt (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me restate my feelings on this - the color production shot has been a long-standing image on this page with no complaints until your new involvement as a regular editor here. Without any discussion, you simply replaced it, saying the production shot was "too brochure-like", which I have never heard of as being a justification for removal before. You have yet to really explain what you meant by that. I could say the same thing about the photo you took and placed as the lead image for the entire article. It too is "brochure like" if you mean clean and striking and representative of the subject at hand. But those are all qualities I like in a photo. You then stated that it was not representative of the article or the section. But the article is about Carmel, the photo is from the Carmel Shake-speare Festival, and the festival is mentioned prominently in the section where the photo is placed. So I just don't think you have been accurate about the objections you have listed.Smatprt (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The section is about Arts & Culture, not about the WPA or about theatre construction. I truly believe our readers would want to see the Forest Theater the way it was meant to be seen - at night, with a set, under dramatic lighting. The fact that the pic was taken under a Carmel sunset only adds to the beauty of the location, as well as representative of the Carmel climate that you have been so vigorous to defend. Your WPA shot is now on the Forest Theater page, in the section under the Great Depression and the resulting WPA project at the site. It fits perfectly in that article and that section. But to use it as the lead photo for the entire Arts & Culture section seems like a poor choice. You're only remaining objection seems to be that it is a low-res shot. To my eye, it certainly does not appear low res, and if that is the only objection, I am sure a high-res version is available. But considering the size, I am not sure that that would actually make any difference. I have met you more than half way on many other issues, in spite of your personal attacks on several other pages. Is this really about our on-going dispute? If so, I would ask you to let the past go and begin anew. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument for keeping a purely decorative image with no people, just a Preset for a production has absolutely no visual context to show what you state. Again, this is an encyclopedia. Images illustrate the section take precedent over images that are purely decorative in nature. What you believe about readers is irrelvant. Brochure like means that the image is one that would be usd in a brochure, that has no redeeming quality othr than being a nice picture. It is a nice picture, but less illustartive than the WPA image which illustrates two seperate parts of the prose in the arts and culture section.

Delete the main image. I have told you I am going to do so in the future anyway. Long standing images are not protected unless they are of a high quality and then there are steps to doing even that. I am not a new editor here and you know that. My holding back is directly linked to difficulties of editing an article with an editor with ownership issues. There was already a discussion about the image. City articles require a skyline image. That does not qualify, but is pretty. I know. I took it. I have better more illustrative images I am now willing to release to Wikicommons, but that does not mean they have to be on any article at Wiki.

Please attempt to be more nuetral, this is not an edit war. You are simply behaving badly and ignoring guidelines and policy becuase you want to keep the page as it is. Article must be allowed to grow and this article is too important to be made into a brochure for the forest theatre and the Golden Bough placehouse. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the photo of the empty stage. It's the section on performing arts, so a set stage is surely more illustrative than the WPA photo (which definitely should be kept in its current place on the Forest Theater article). A stage with actors would probably be even more illustrative of the performing arts in Carmel, but better a stage than a construction site. Huon (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your objection is a construction site? I have stated exactly what is wrong with the image. There is nothing on the stage to signify that is is a shkespear festival and the WPA image that I uploaded and placed illustartes two different sections of the prose. Sorry, but this is not about what editors think looks better. It is about the proper use of images. The fact that the other editor had to violate the 3 r rule to replce the image as well as fighting to keep another low resolution image of another theatre tells me there is an improper agenda at play here, but that in itself is not wrong or the problem. Decrotive images are just not encyclopedic. If another image can better illustrate the section it does not matter how pretty it is. I happen to think that the history behinf the image is very artistic, but so what. This is not an art gallery. Consensus is not required to adhere to guidelines and policy, but consensus is required to vary from MOS. If I change every image size against MOS and someone objects.....consensus must be formed. Defending the revert with "I see nothing wrong with it" is not adding to consensus.

The image was moved from this article to the other and frankly.....this discussion pertains to only this article. Images can be used on multiple pages so there is no relevence to the other article here. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears smatprt is responsible for the edits here and is the founder of the theatre. I have a great deal of respect for anyone that can achieve the things the gentleman has in life, but ask that he refrain from further self serving edits to this page, the Forest Theatre, the Bough Placehouse and his own article. Further edits could be seen as autobiographical and are against the strict policy of Wikipedia. (Edit note: It is important to mention that the information discussed here is directly in the article itself as is my name, in the form of credit to the photographer of images uploaded by user.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain how precisely the WPA construction site illustrates the performing arts in Carmel? Of course it does illustrate the 1930s construction work, but does that even need to be illustrated here? As I said, an image of the stage during a performance would be better than the empty stage, but unless one is available, this seems to me a good illustration of the theater's setting and atmosphere. I also seem to miss your point about the MOS. Was that just an example on consensus and its limits, or was there really some disagreement about this image's size? Huon (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The section header is not being illustrated. The Forest Theatre is. The WPA image illustrates not only the theatre itself, but the WPA refurbishing mentioned in the article and the Historic context the theatre holds within the community and this article. It is a more appropriate image for the city article where the site is of historic importance. The empty preset stage is good for illustrating only that it is a preset stage for a production, but contains nothing to actually illustrate the Shakespeare aspect of the image caption or mention in the article. This is far more suitable for the Theatre article.
I think that ideally we would want an exterior shot of basic locations of interest, however even the arts and culture sections of older cities are filled with history and can and should be mentioned. No decent exterior shot exist in the public domain and none exist to my knowledge on Commons, however the shot I did choose was done so specifically because it illustrated history, the structure and the specific prose within the article which is much more preferred than beauty shots. If the image used was a historic image or illustrated the prose more I could see using it even if it was a blank stage.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. While I agree that history is important, I still believe that the stage image is preferable. The WPA image doesn't really add much information over what is already written; I couldn't recognize the construction site for a theater if the caption didn't say so. I hate to complicate matters by adding another alternative, but how about File:Forest Theatre 1916.jpg? Historical, and shows an actual performance. Huon (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Sunset over Forest Theater setting for Julius Caesar, 1994
The problem with the 1916 photo is that it's pretty low quality (washed out, long shot with too much detail for a small version). It is on the Forest Theater page, though, where it fits well to represent the history. Smatprt (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have improved the image quality; --Amadscientist (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The cool thing about the 1916 image is that it shows Carmel just as much as it shows the Forest Theatre. Trees, people, the setting... Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
But this is how small it actually is! The problem with this photo is that it contains far too much detail to use as a small picture and does not do justice to the theatre as it exists today. Most of those trees are not even there anymore. This isn't the history section, after all. It's hard to even tell that a play is actually going on. By the way, there was never any consensus to change this originally, which is what caused the original edit war and the ensuing escalation, the third party opinion, the administrator report, as well as the wiki-stalking that several editors commented on. Smatprt (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There's no requirement for this image to "do justice to the theatre as it exists today". The point of the article text is to set the Forest Theatre within a framework of the city's history and culture. How can the 1916 image fail at this task? It doesn't—it's quite suitable. And anybody wishing to see more detail can simply click on the image.
The way you bring up the concept of "consensus" makes it seem that having the more modern, dusky, color image of an empty stage was somehow set in stone. It wasn't. What we're doing now is forming a new, temporary consensus that will last until the next time an image is changed. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry - did I say there was some requirement? Really, as this talk page has made clear, when it comes to images, it all really boils down to the personal tastes of the editors. By the way, I bring up consensus, because MadScientist talks about it so much, even though a consensus of one or two is hardly definitive. Hopefully someone will come along and post a better one that isn't do darn busy. But we also know that anything I post, MadScientist is going to have a problem with - because he's made it personal. Ah well. Smatprt (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
But I will add that I do like the 1916 pic better than the WPA shot. I still think it's way too busy, but that is just personal taste. Smatprt (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just wondering how you define consensus - we have two editors who prefer the color image, and 2 editors who prefer the 1916 image? Yes, we all agree that the 1916 image is better than the WPA shot, but that isn't the argument, is it? Doesn't it now comes down to the grainy b&w 1916 image vs. the clear 1994 color shot? Smatprt (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I count three who prefer the 1916 image to the color image - Amadscientist, Binksternet and myself. "Grainy" is not much of a problem after Amadscientist's improvement of image quality, and b&w is to be expected for that era. I especialy agree with Binksternet that the audience is a nice touch that adds historical context hard to convey otherwise. Huon (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I've been taking a look at various city articles on Wikipedia, and in all the cases I looked, images from a century ago are not used unless they depict a natural disaster like an earthquake or a tsunami. In the case of my own town, there is a tsunami photo included. There is also a color painting from 1852 that shows the area was uninhabited then. In all of the city articles I have seen on Wikipedia, extant structures are shown in color photos, in their current condition. If the article/section is very long, sometimes there will be an additional B&W photo for historical purposes, but not at the expense of accurate current color photos. Just looking at the two photos right now on this page, the color one is much more accurate, easily grasped, and representational. The black and white one (which in itself is problematic; color is preferable) is not only a century outdated, but also quite hard to grasp -- even at 1800 pix, the people are only a centimeter high. I definitely prefer the current, accurate, color one, in keeping with other Wikipedia city articles. Accuracy is strived for. You might possibly want to consider removing the words "Sunset over"; if so, perhaps either delete those words or put that at the end of the caption, "at sunset." Softlavender (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Black and white is not problematic—where'd you get that idea? Try Oakland, California, where you'll see a monochrome image of City Hall in the article, taken in 1917. Oakland's City Hall is still standing, and there are any number of chances to take a color photo, so why put in the old b&w photo? For context, just like here. Besides which, the 1916 Forest Theatre image shows an event, not a structure. Ask your friend, the guy whose article you've done a lot of work on and who needed a little support here, to dig up the original photo if you don't like the version of it printed so long ago in Overland Monthly in that article by Helen Stocking. There's probably one in his company archives.
More b&w photos in city articles: San Francisco has Mission Dolores, Golden Gate Bridge, and Palace of Fine Arts in monochrome. Seattle has Pioneer Square in monochrome. All these places are still standing, and a color shot could have been used. Black and white is used to frame a chronology. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Those shots (with the exception of the "cloudy day" in the Climate section in the Seattle article) are all in the History section of the articles. As someone mentioned above, a B&W Forest Theater photo would be fine for a History section in this article; however, a current color photo should be used for the Theater Arts section. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Oakland's City Hall isn't in a history section. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
True, but the image is specifically used to impart a complex 58-word history, including the entire city's history, plus links to two articles unrelated to the photo. The City Hall is a government site and not an arts site. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I find this discussion of history interesting. I had once proposed that the arts stuff should be under the town history section, since the arts in Carmel sort of go hand in hand with its development from a settlement into a city. Maybe we should look at that again. Just a thought. (In a history section, these b & w historical photos would make more sense IMO. With this in mind, and looking at Binksternets comments about b & w photos, I replaced the modern color image of Serra tomb with a historical photo of the actual mission, circa 1910.Smatprt (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW - the reason I asked for the definition of "consensus" was that we seem to be focussed on vote counting, which is not the way the consensus building is to be achieved. With so much controversy on this page, perhaps we need to request some administrator involvement, either thru an RFC or something. Don't you all think this back and forth over images is going to far?Smatprt (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have followed this discussion and couldn't decide what I thought. The 1916 photo isn't much more informative in what it depicts than the WPA photo, but on the other hand, the section where the photo was placed does discuss the history of the theater, so there's merit in that. However, the photo itself is ambiguous - it isn't clear in any way what is going on in it without an explanation, and even then, it isn't that obvious WITH the explanation. I think the modern photo is much more visually appealing, but that isn't particularly a basis for use either. I'm not sure my comments add anything definitive to the discussion, however it seems clear to me that there are persons on both sides of the question and thus, there is no consensus. Three people vs. 1 or 2 does not a consensus make, it's a vote tally that basically has little merit. I think you would perhaps best benefit from opening a request for comments (WP:RfC) on this and perhaps get some outside opinions. That may help garner wider opinions and define the focus here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on Images

I made a number of changes today that I wanted to explain. First, I expanded the literary section and the section on Arts Colony history. After looking at the discussion on historical photographs, and the expanded history section, I changed the image from the modern color shot of Serra's tomb to the historical b & w shot of the Mission. I also moved the disputed FT shot to the appropriate section of the history. It seems to fit nicely there. I added back the equally disputed shot of the FT to the Theatre Arts section. Now we have both shots which various editors like represented in the article in the most appropriate places. I also added a shot of Mary Austin to the literary section. I have made these changes in an attempt to compromise, and to get past all this hoohah over the photos. If this seems reasonable, then we can all get back to editing and expanding this article. I truly think it's heading in a great direction, despite some of my initial reluctance. Having said that, I am attempting to clear the air, make all sides happy (or at least accepted and represented) in a true spirit of good faith. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a positive movement for the page. It would help if there was more content in the Arts Colony section to tie in to the history of the theatre in that section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a compromise and I don't agree with the change at all. It just gives one editor exactly what he wants against consensus and calls it something else. I object to the bold editing and returning that stage image which has been in dispute for sometime by several other editors. I support the reverting of those changes.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with the Father Serra image? It was color? It was modern or it was FATHER SERRA. You have already posted your objections to his "Controversial" mention and worried that he would be presented as a "Saint". I really think your just messing around again. You added back the same low resolutuin image of the mission when you could have used a larger image on commons of nearly the same thing. Oh, wait...I uploaded that. I get it. I do not see your actions as good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify - I have nothing against Father Serra. Please don't continue to misquote me. I did not say the mention of him was controversial. I said that there was controversy about him and wondered if we would be mentioning that. To be specific, I was referring to the treatment of the indians under his watch - hard labor, exposing them to diseases, etc. This is mentioned in the article already (not my addition) so I don't see it as an issue. It was not meant to hit a nerve with you (how could I know?) and I already apologized if you felt hurt in some way.
But this is really off subject. Regarding the image of the Carmel Mission - it's an historical shot and certainly has more clarity than the historical shot of the Forest Theater, which I have kept in the present version, in spite of valid comments from several editors about its own specific problems. The fact that 2 or 3 editors like one shot and 2 or 3 editors don't, that really does not matter in the grand scheme of things. True consensus has not been achieved on any of these pictures. Perhaps it never will be. Our only choice is to look for a reasonable compromise that makes the article better, in spite of our own personal feelings. In a compromise, no one gets everything they want. For example, I still very, very much dislike the historical Forest Theater image for the numerous reasons expressed by several editors now. But in the spirit of compromise I actually moved it up into the historical section where it is seen first. Please understand that I am trying here, in spite of your personal dispute with me. Yes, I added in the color Forest Theater shot which you don't like, but - again - that's what compromise is all about. Several editors do like it and, equally important, there was no clear consensus to ever remove it in the first place. Regarding the 1910 Mission image, it provides context within the history section and the fact that it may be too low res for your personal tastes is not the point - it's not like it's being used for a large poster or anything even approaching a size where its res truly matters. (And for the record, I did actually look at the Commons and there is no historical image of the mission at all.) Smatprt (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have discussed this issue about that photo. I am not the first. But the issue is strictly consensus. You seem to be under the impression that there is some kind of consensus about including the empty color stage. Or that I am supposed to stay off the page. I volunteered to step back for two weeks. The same was asked of you but you chose not to step back.

I could care less about the 1916 image. I thought it was a compromise offered by a third party you requested, and attempted to improve the image to meet some of the specific issues you had with it because two other editors liked it. I cropped it to be closer, I improved contrast and brightness and even made sure to despeckle noise and smooth out by hand many gariny portions, just to work in good faith towards a consensus you just buried under more conflict of interest. Maybe that is what the consensus should decide? Whether or not your reverting the stage constitutes a conflict of interest and whether you should be a part of deciding if it should be included. Working together sometimes means meeting rquirements that may not be comfortable with some, but discomfort with an issue should not keep the page back. I added the 1916 image at the suggestion of someone you requested to weigh in. You reverted that effort and placed the image that has been an issue with you and more than just me and the history on the page bears that out.

I will not edit on the page further for now. What edits I made I told the admin. I will make no further for now. --Amadscientist (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has been stable for 3 weeks now. Now, out of nowhere, you come back and start again? Let's be clear - there was never any consensus to remove the image in the first place. You have not been able to build a consensus for its removal. Can you not just get over it and move on? Smatprt (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand why in the month since the last discussion post was made on this page, that no one else has objected to this image, why no one else has spoken up with concerns about it, why no one else has made substantial changes to the article... why it is suddenly an issue again, and only to one person? I cannot see that there was any sort of "cooling down period" when the first edit to the page after that is to once again start removing the same image. How cool could it have become? If you want to try and garner consensus to remove the image, then try and do so. But don't come in after an entire month, flatly remove an image citing "no consensus", and start in again. That no one else removed the image lends support that there was at the least, tacit consensus to let it remain, so at this point, to remove it, new consensus would need to be obtained. Otherwise, it is just the same old argument. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I see it the same way. While everyone simply stepped back one editor decided to come back and add it again, even after several parties objected to it and not just from that situation. It's an open source medium and obviousely someone else thought the discussion didn't merit his adding it back. I removed it because of all the reason I have already stated plus...now with the other image added back and then just moving the other image.....the Forest Theatre is now recieving undo attention. That is way I object to the editor continuing to make decisions for everyone even with C.O.I. Issues. So while there was a cool down period........were you expecting everyone that didn't agree with the addition of another image of the Forest Theatre to not edit here any further?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the other thing to acknowledge is that there was never a consensus to remove the photo in the first place. I think we can all agree that 2 editors objecting to a long-standing image is no where close to a new "consensus". Of course, now that you've removed the 1916 image, one of your key objections is no longer valid. I didn't agree with the reasoning (too much weight given to Forest Theater -especially since one was in the context of the town's history and national reputation at the time), but it matters little now.Smatprt (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Section Order

I see that another editor attempted to move the climate chart down and was reverted because of the guidelines on cities. Here is what the guideline says: "The order of sections is also completely optional, and sections may be moved around to a different order based on the needs of their city. Editors are strongly encouraged, however, to at least begin with the lead/infobox, followed by history, geography, demographics, and economy, since these sections have some good basic information that might be sought after by readers first. " So while a certain order is encouraged, the opening line says very clearly that the order of sections is "completely optional" and then relates the ordering to the "needs of their city". I think that in towns like Carmel or Monterey, with moderate temperatures year round, that readers are going to be a lot more interested in arts and attractions, than climate charts or demographics! In regards to climate, it's not like we have a hurricane season that needs to be avoided. The climate chart was near the bottom of the article for years so obviously had a consensus to be that way. But two editors decided otherwise and simply changed it. This was done without consensus, merely referencing the guidelines, which actually say the section order is completely optional. I'd like to return to the previous consensus version and then have a real discussion about this to see if there is actual consensus to make this change or if there are other options worth exploring.Smatprt (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh Huh....well as the Talk Page shows, an editor did disuss his proposals about this issue and it's still up there so....that kind of puts some light on the accusation that two editors just did what they want.
I said that becasue it spite of objections and reverts to the long-standing (consensus) section order, the two of you kept reverting to your preferred version in spite of not creating a new consensus to do so. Smatprt (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
As it has been stated as defense for the placement of the climate in it's position is the very reason you have it up there. In California visul communication of tempature etc, adds to the encyclopedic nature of article about a city.....not the culture and arts of the city......but the city.
Now as both you and Ssilvers have suggested, moving the Geography section down so that it doesn't interrupt the whole history/arts discussion, is kind of irrelivent. Not about arts in general, but that the Geography section is "geting in the way" of any section. I appreciate the devotion to the arts that both of you have on Wikipedia, but I have a theatre background as well, here on wiki and in real life.....I still don't agree with the need to keep the arts setion so far up. But that is the basis of the discussion....to find out what to do for all parties to best accept a compromise or live with a desicion one way or the other.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The order of sections is completely optional if a consensus is arrived at which concurs that a different order is good for the article. Me, I don't think it is. I think the history of the city should be described, including of course the history of arts in Carmel, and then the geography should be presented. In the Arts section, the modern cultural offerings should be described. I'm not going to be one of those who opt to change the guideline in Carmel's case. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I understand that the article looks better in some ways when geography is moved down by leading directly into the arts from the last history section which was arts as well. So, I'll live with it.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Blinksternet's comment, I think it's important to remember that a long-standing consensus was achieved prior to the change. To form a new consensus is what is now required, and with both my and SSilvers objection to the change, and now AMadscientist no longer objecting to the prior placement, there is certainly no consensus to change the long-standing format. Also - please remember that a guideline is not a "rule" or a "policy" and that the guideline specifically states that section order is optional (in fact completely optional!). This seems to have gotten lost in the discussion. To quote again "The order of sections is also completely optional, and sections may be moved around to a different order based on the needs of their city." Also note the words "needs of the city" is part of the guideline. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I would just remind us all, that while guidelines are "Optional", they are not for specific article ratings. Now, this may or may not be important to every project so, while all or most projects require sticking to the format as presented by the Manuel of Style guidelines, some articles that vary from it have passed GA. Then, because it is a specific listed criteria for GA. if not changed after listing....it can be (and generaly is) delisted from GA due to MOS criteria.

Blinksternet may, as I generally do, aim towards improving the article towards a goal of bettering the article rating towards GA and eventually FA. Not all editors have the same idea of what makes a GA article, but criteria for GA is not a guidline just for the editors writing the article, it's for those who are reviewing the article to move forward to GA. The reviewer is in no way obligated to agree with the consensus on the page in regards to MOS criteria. They may fail the article based on any criteria failing or place the article on hold while the changes are made.

Not everyone even wants an article to move to GA or FA. Sometimes editors dislike the restrictions that articles of GA or FA have and would prefer the article remain a B rating so the article can be altered drastically. GA and FA articles generally do not change much, especially FA, which is regarded as being as close to a finished article that wikipedia recognizes. Edits to FA articles are scrutinized by many editors who have not even contributed to the article as a task force to maintain FA article integrity.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use image

The image of the Arts & Craft clubhouse burning down is a really good addition in my opinion. It would be great if it stayed, but right now the upload is not complete and is in danger of clean up deletion from participating projects. This has happened to a few of my "Fair Use" images until I realised what I was doing wrong. A numbered list explaining the rational for the use of the image in the article must be provided or the image can be deleted. A minimum of 5 separate lines should be provided I believe. The author must be provided, but in a case like this I would just put. "This image was found in the files of the Golden Bough Playhouse, but it's copyright may be owned by the newspaper "------". (whatever paper existed in 1949 in Carmel) Also, in the future we may want to consider any additional fair use images as possibly endangering this use. It may be a grey area, but many editors will question more than one use of FU images. Sometimes not, I don't know how important that is now but Wiki has changed it's fair use policy to encourage the uploading of free content, but this pic is irreplaceable, and no free image can be found. (I can't find a copyright image of the clubhouse). It's easiest to find a fair use image already with it's proper rational and copy the format and number of lines (the more good explanations, the better). If you want it can be left as is and I can add the rational later today. Going to the state fair in bit.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the actual guideline: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article."
So according to the guideline, it's one- article minimum - not maximum. The other rule that applies to these is "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary". Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll defer to you on the images you upload for the most part. They are excellent. I would just warn that interpretation of the policy is a consensus that cannot be formed on the individual article. Non Free Use has "Official Policy", not just guidelines. There is a task force for it. Images are sometimes deleted by those who have the ability to do so if they feel wikipedia has been flooded with fair use images from a single source of basically the same subject. It kind of defeats the fair use policy and law. Wikipedia will allow a fair use image to be used and for more than a single article, but then you must add a rational explaining why you are using it for each article. ( would assume the single basic list would not have to be reproduced but each article must contain a rational as to why the image is being used on the page and how. Which is why with historic images we are supposed to only use the image when discussing the image, not the subject of the image. For example; a historic reconstruction made in 1957 is copyrighted by it's author so if we use the image as "fair use" in the article, it would be about the reconstruction and the resulting image, not about the subject the reconstruction and resulting image represents. There are just different requirements, depending on what fair use rational is being used. All fair use images are subject to deletion if it's determined to be inappropriate. I like the stuff you've uploaded. As long as you follow the policy, the images are safe. Just spread them out a bit or make sure they have the proper explanation for each article it's in and why. If you review Wikipedia:Non-free content, it explains everything in one basic section. But the images are too nice to see get deleted. I support your contributions and will help where I can to add additional rationals and where needed add to prose to meet guidelines I will try to defer to you in regards to deleting from an article though.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Village Pump complaint

I see that Amadscientist has made a complaint at the Village Pump regarding this article, and my editing in particular. One of the issues raised was that there was "no expansion" of the Visual Arts section due to my editing, or some such nonsense. As far as I can see, neither Amadscientist or any other editor has even attempted to expand that section. For the record, I have no problem with someone expanding it, and I even placed an expansion tag on that section several weeks ago. So please, someone, anyone, feel free to expand that section. It was also alleged by Amadscientist that there were 2 images of the Golden Bough fire of 1949, creating issues of undue weight. This is also a fabrication, as one image depicts the fire of 1935 and one image depicts the fire of 1949. Amadscientist also alleged that the entire arts section was "basically about two theatres and nearly nothing else". In actuality, the Literary section is approximately the same size as the theatre arts section, not to mention the sections on Visual arts and Music (both of which need expanding, by the way). All of these accusations seem to be continuing Amadscientist's previous pattern of harassment, forum-shopping and personal attacks. I thought we had moved past this?! Anyhow, out of a spirit of "can't we all just get along?", I have removed the current image of the existing Golden Bough and replaced it with a production shot that features performers instead of buildings. It's actually nice to see some performers represented in the article instead of just bricks and mortar. I hope that puts to bed the issue of the Golden Bough getting too much attention. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the Village pump. You are bringing issues discussed on another page to this talk page against wiki policy and against working in good faith. I have no time for your promotional work on these articles. If no one else cares that you are using Wikipedia to further your own personal off site agenda and career as well as theatres you are directly involved with in a management position, than that is Wikipedia's fault for letting this slip through the cracks, letting you make this article nearly nothing but your own personal and professional web page. I have every right call attention at the village pump. You have a conflict of interest editing on this page that has effected the article's quality. I will continuing to look into the different routes given to us as members when these situations come up. It's not harassment to call attention to a violation to a guideline, a policy and wiki rules. There are not enough people editing on this site anymore for this very reason. Too much information which has no place and too many editors that will put it there and call it encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It would really help all concerned if you would refrain from misquoting policy. This has been requested by numerous past editors and the above post is another example. Having mentioned this page at the Village pump, wiki etiquette requests that you place a notice on this talk page so that regular editors can participate in the discussion. Basically, when you post a section elsewhere called "Article has a few problems" and then fail to alert the regular editors of the article in question, it make it seem like you are going behind people's back. Also, general policy is to provide an Edit Summary when making edits. You seem to disregard this very simple policy on a regular basis. Similar to your failure to inform proper (related) talk pages, leaving out edit summaries can be interpreted as an attempt to hide your edits, or at least an attempt to make them harder to follow.Smatprt (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You telling me about policy and guideline is actual pretty funny. You know very little. There is no guideline on the Village Pump stating that I must place a tag on the talk page to advise other editors. You are just bringing this here across talk pages inappropriately. There is no official or unofficial Wiki etiquette that must be followed. But as you stated these are general guidelines and not hard set rules. To accuse me of further bad faith is a smoke screen to your own actions.

Back to the issue. Why is this article overweight with these few theatres. They can not possibly be so important to the city of Carmel that the article requires so much prose and images (fair use or not) on these few businesses.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they are. Carmel-by-the-Sea is a very unusual city in many different ways, and the emphasis on the arts is one of them. The Visual Arts section can be expanded to bring the theatre section more into proportion; this tiny town has a history of world-class photographic studios and galleries, for example. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Carmel-by the-Sea is an unusual city. But, no article I am aware of repeats the same subject as much as this one. Also you state that they are so important that the weight of the article is fine, but that is consensus issue not to be decided by an Admin so I will take your post as adding to the consensus. Now, do you want to way in on the use of the two seperate images of two fires from a single place. That seems too much for the city article. One should be used. The importance of fires in a single location don't qualify the images use as I understand fair use. Also to be very honest, a free image of these could be located instead. The free image of the Golden Bough was removed and replaced by a fair use image. You agree with that, do you?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Take my post however you want, if it makes you happy, but I was simply replying to your last paragraph, since you said it was "the issue": "why is this article overweight with these few theatres". If I'd wanted to say more I would. This has nothing to do with me being an admin; I'm an editor like anyone else, with special knowledge and interest as an occasional resident. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The point was exactly that. You are speaking as a member towards consensus and not in official capacity as an admin. I felt compelled to mention that for clarity, not to be rude. You didn't go further on to the issue of the images which is the core of the dispute here, that's all. I would hope you would go further, regardless of whether or not you agree with my assesment. Little is achieved with just two people of completely differing opinion. As for the weight of the article I am looking to see how other editors feel about that as it is made that way with an over use of images as well as Prose. You personal knowledge and interest is appreciated if you have more to say.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It would really help if Amadscientist actually read the article sections he is complaining about. In his post at the Pump, he stated that his concern was over images (not prose), specifically 2 images of the "same" fire. I corrected this and pointed out that the 2 images represent 2 different fires - one in 1935 and one in 1949. Now he objects to the images because he states they are two fires in a "single location". If one reads the section, one would find that these images are of 2 different fires in two different locations. FYI - the original Theatre of the Golden Bough was located on Ocean Ave and was hailed world-wide as the best equipped little theatre in America and was noted for it's architecture. The 1935 fire that destroyed it had a major impact on the city. The second "Golden Bough" was located on Monte Verde St. and was formally the Arts & Crafts Hall and Clubhouse. The fire of 1949 destroyed these historic facilities. Two different fires, two different locations, both with a major impact (historical/cultural/architectual) on the city. Is that clearer now? Smatprt (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It would really help if you worked in good faith, but that isn't happening. It doesn't matter if the images are from two different fires. They are fair use images and one would be enough to illustrate the section. You are overusing fair use images on this page. You also took out an image that was free that could be used to illustrate the same thing. One image has no rational for use on any page and they are not being used properly per guidelines and copyright policy for fair use historic images. Also the License does state that use of the image elsewhere even on Wikipedia may be copyright violation.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you could provide specifics, that would be helpful. What free image that illustrated the same thing was removed? This is the 2nd or 3rd time you have mentioned that a free image was available but I know of no other images of the fires, nor have you ever shown us any. If you could do that, it would be helpful. The only image I removed was an image of mine that was of the Golden Bough in the present day (not very historic compared to the images of the various fires). FYI - I did this to accommodate your complaint that there were too many images of a single building (although you continue to be mistaken about how many Golden Boughs there have been and where they are located). It's really hard to keep up with your various complaints because they keep changing. One second it's about images, then it's about prose, then its about policies or guidelines that you often misquote (like saying a fair use image can be used in only one article, which was blatantly untrue).
It's also very odd that on Sept 7 you wrote "But the images are too nice to see get deleted. I support your contributions and will help where I can to add additional rationals and where needed add to prose to meet guidelines I will try to defer to you in regards to deleting from an article though" and then on Sept. 8 you complained at the Pump stating, among other things "Too many images of the Golden Bough Theatre, two of which are Fair Use and are basically the same subject; a fire that destroyed the original building in 1949." Aside from being dead wrong in the assertion, I think its ingenuous to make these kind of two-faced statements within 24 hours of each other on two different pages, and then not even have the courtesy to place a note about your... change of heart... on the article talk page. It would also be helpful to other editors if you would provide an edit summary, a guideline you consistently ignore. Smatprt (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI, this is from the guideline on edit summaries here WP:ES - "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important." BTW, the bolding is not mine, it is on the guideline page to show the importance of this guideline. Smatprt (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your the one that has fought the hard fight to remind all of us that a guideline is not a hard set rule. Live by it.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are referring to our discussion over section order, where the guideline says section order is "completely optional". That is completely different that a bolded guideline that uses the word "Always". If you can't even make that small a distinction, I really don't know how to progress. You certainly haven't been able to attract any support for your complaints or had any success in the way of building a new consensus for your issues, so as far as I am concerned, I have nothing further to add here and I am done with this section. Smatprt (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A guideline is not a brightline rule. It is not policy and there is no way you can call one "Guideline" something you can vary from and another that must at all time be adhered to.

You keep saying that's all you ahve to say....then keep coming back. Consensus....now you care about consensus. Nope, no one cares what you do Smartprt. You are free to promote yourself, your theatres and violate copyright at your will. Wahoo!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Carmel/Carmel area residents

While most of these people lived nearby, evidence is needed to claim that they lived in or owned a home in the village of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Ansel Adams, for example, did not live in Carmel-by-the-Sea. He lived in the nearby community of Carmel Highlands some 4 miles to the South. (moved unsigned from article space) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.204.243 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 August 2010 UTC

I think "Carmel area" covers it. Many, like Adams, are forever associated with Carmel (or the Carmel area), so I think the new heading covers it. Carmel is only 1 sq mile, but its sphere of influence exteands beyond that. Another factor - the Carmel zip codes of 93922 and 93923 are not in the city limits, but the mail still says "Carmel"! Smatprt (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Move Request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for Carmel, California, but page moved to Carmel-by-the-Sea, California per US naming conventions following consensus on page Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey-Discussion

Carmel-by-the-Sea → Carmel, California — As the article says, this is usually called Carmel; this would also permit easy extension to the "Carmel area". Now, Carmel is, of course, multiply ambiguous (and most of the claimants are, like the original Mount Carmel, by the sea). Therefore, we should also disambiguate by the standard procedure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Carmel-by-the-Sea is unique in California, I believe; hyphenated town names aren't common. But it is, indeed, the formal name of the city. We've got here a similar problem to Las Vegas, Nevada; to much of the world, Las Vegas means the whole area -- even to the police department, which is actually the Clark County police department. But the article on Las Vegas is about the city of Las Vegas, not about the area popularly referred to as Las Vegas. If every city deserves its own article (and that seems to be what we do), Carmel-by-the-Sea needs its own article, as it has its own special history and culture (often at odds with the surroundings.) For example, we can say "Carmel-by-the-Sea has no street addresses"; we can't say "Carmel has no street addresses. We can say "Clint Eastwood was the mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea". I think we're best of as it is. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
We don't usually use formal names - a little further up the coast we don't use City and County of San Francisco; but if there is consensus to do so here, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The title is already disambiguated as Carmel "by-the-sea" and doesn't require additional disambiguation. There is only one "Carmel-by-the-Sea". Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Then discuss making this an exception to WP:NCGN; we tend to restrict such exceptions to those cities, like San Francisco or Los Angeles, which are indeed well-known world-wide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
No, you are supposed to move the article after you propose the discussion, not before. Now, you clearly edit warring over it. Best practice on Wikipedia is and always has been disambiguate only when necessary. There is no good reason to disambiguate this title, and you are enforcing your own personal standards. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Far as I know, the practice for some time now has been to include the state unless the given city is in the top population tier of the USA, which Carmel certainly is not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The Post Office goes by Carmel also, although I am sure they deliver "Carmel by the Sea". I never saw the hyphens in the name. Loopy48 (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, I see no point in adding the ", California" as there's no ambiguity in the current title. Kuguar03 (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps me understand where you are coming from. I guess what I was saying was that in the case of Ventura/San Buenaventura, having spent my early youth in Southern California, I might very well believe that the "nobody calls it that" argument might apply. Not that it matters here, but I, for one, certainly never heard of San Buenaventura until today! But in the case of Carmel-by-the-Sea, where I have also spent considerable time, the name Carmel-by-the-Sea is extremely common, as it is in the media as well. That is why I didn't get the comparison idea. Smatprt (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support moving the name from Carmel-by-the-Sea to Carmel, California (or to Carmel-by-the-Sea, California - see my comment below). In the first place, there is no reason why this small town should be an exception to the general U.S. city naming convention (which is nowhere near as disputed as Born2cycle claims), namely City, State. In the second place, the city is much more commonly referred to as Carmel. See, for example, the city's own website, ci.carmel.ca.us, which uses the flowery formal name a few times but mostly refers to itself as Carmel; in fact the title at the top of the page is "City of Carmel - Home page". --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • rename to Carmel-by-the-Sea, California This is the name this article had prior to the improper October 20, 2010 rename, which was made without discussion and in violation of the naming standards for US cities. The city's website [6] uses this name everywhere except when it abbreviates the name to Carmel. Look at the government pages, including the city budget documents and references to this city by other government documents. Look at the post office address. Etc. Hmains (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I would be OK with "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California" if that's preferred, but as a lifelong Californian I can tell you that nobody calls it that except very self-consciously, as in "look at me, I am calling it by the official name, isn't that special." See, for example, the Carmel Chamber of Commerce. But if Carmel-by-the-Sea was the original name of the article, I am OK with simply restoring it. The main issue under debate here is to restore the comma and the word "California", and I don't wish to confuse the issue or introduce another variable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Though I don't completely object to the move to Carmel, California, I have to say using the City, State convention as a justification is pretty weak. It's just a convention, there are plenty of examples of it not being followed when disambiguation is not needed. Disambiguation is needed here, so between Carmel-by-the-Sea and Carmel, California it could be argued that the later is preferable as a more common name, but blind adherence to a convention and calling moves "improper" is just counter-productive. Also, Ventura is the official name of that city according to their website, San Buenaventura is still the name of the mission. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    For what it's worth (which may be nothing), according to the city charter, it's still officially the "City of San Buenaventura", although the county is the "County of Ventura". Dohn joe (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, you may be right. They use "City of Ventura" exclusively everywhere else on their website that I checked. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Google Test Results

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the city website.[[7]] Check out the seal in the top left corner. It's definitely Carmel-by-the-Sea, with the hyphens. I live here and the citizens and government are pretty touchy about their "by-the-Sea", even though they acknowledge that many people just call it "Carmel". Smatprt (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm about as big a proponent of WP:COMMONNAME as you can find, but we don't put Los Angeles at L.A. just because it's more commonly called the latter... --Born2cycle (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • On Google books, "Carmel art colony" (without quotes) got 4,330 results, while " 'Carmel-by-the-Sea' art colony" (quotes around the hyphenated city name) got only 638, and a bunch of those are from the 1910s. The full, hyphenated name is very rare in speech, uncommon in writing. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • True enough, there is no doubt that Carmel-by-the-Sea is often, if not usually, referred to as "Carmel" for short, including as part of longer names like "Carmel art colony". But that's not relevant to how we name articles about cities and towns. Otherwise, Los Angeles would be at L. A.. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This article, like its abstract, refers to this town as simple Carmel. The full text also introduces another town with leaf-blower issues as Aspen, Colorado, although that is certainly primary usage as a placename. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Since no one is denying that Carmel is often referred to as just "Carmel", I don't understand the point being made here. The argument in support of Carmel-by-the-Sea is that it too is commonly used to refer to the city, and that is its official name. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The 100,000s of Ghits are unreliable. Follow the Google searches to the last page to get a more reliable number.   Will Beback  talk  17:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they're inaccurate in absolute terms... what about in relative terms which is all that matters here. At any rate, dozens of pages of results refutes the claim above that nobody says "Carmel-by-the-Sea", which was the main point here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Ultimately, the main point is that "Carmel, California" appears more often than other unambiguous terms, and is also consistent with the naming convention.   Will Beback  talk  09:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes! Loopy48 (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't really understand why you'd even go to this particular google search. Does anyone dispute that "Carmel" is far more common than "Carmel-by-the-Sea"? If it is, then "Carmel, California," makes far, far more sense as a disambiguator than "Carmel-by-the-Sea", because even if the set phrase "Carmel, California" is only used with about the same frequency as "Carmel-by-the-Sea," the disambiguation by state makes it much clearer to readers what is being referred to. john k (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest we not get distracted from the main point of this discussion The main point is to restore to the article the comma and the word "California", which were removed in October without discussion and in violation of the still-existing convention for American cities. Whether it gets called "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California" or "Carmel, California" is a separate issue and is muddying the waters here. I have argued for "Carmel, California", but now that I see that issue is becoming a red herring, I think we should simply move the article back to what it was originally - "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California" - with a redirect from "Carmel, California". --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

My two cents...

I'm concerned that we have an article about the city itself, but not the surrounding region, which is where most of the residents are in the region.

C-b-t-S doesn't reach up to Highway 1; the high school is on the other side of the freeway up there. Most of the shopping in the region is along 1 south of Carmel Valley Rd. We don't address Carmel Valley, except for the Carmel Valley Villiage CDP a long ways up Carmel Valley Road.

So - how about a completely different way of looking at things. We need a "Carmel, California" article for the region of Monterey County, including Carmel-by-the-Sea and the surrounding built out areas. And a Carmel-by-the-Sea article (existing one), either with or without the trailing ", California", about which I don't really care.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I support this idea, and I've suggested something similar at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada as a solution to the perennial problem about the scope of that article. Some want it to be only about the city (which does not include the surrounding area including The Strip), while much of the article is written in a manner that expands beyond the city. In that case I suggest an article about the city at City of Las Vegas (the official name of the municipality), and an article about the city and entertainment capital at Las Vegas. Great minds... --Born2cycle (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I support this idea as well, for all the reasons identified by Born2cycle and Georgewilliamherbert. Good idea you two! Smatprt (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Need more explanation please

The article lacks any explanation of the following and should elaborate on them:

  1. Why does the city have such a long and unusual name and what is the history of "-by-the-Sea" being added to the name? The history of the name "Carmel" is included but the current name, which is extremely uncanny, isn't explained at all in the article.
  2. Why are the city and the stores so uniquely dog-friendly and what is the history of this?
  3. How can a local law "prevent" someone from suing over high-heel shoe injuries if they didn't get the permit? What kind of standing does a city law in the US have to prevent a civil suit against the city itself?

--Wykypydya (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

chart placement

The temperature chart seems to break the flow of the article. Might I propose two alternate locations? Either right after the lead, or further down above demographics. Thoughts? Smatprt (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

residents

I will track down better references for a number of the current/former residents that were recently deleted. It would have been a bit easier if they were simply flagged as needing better references, rather than simply deleting them. Also, please note that I changed the heading to "Carmel area" residents. Prior discussion here pointed out that "Carmel-by-the-Sea" is only one square mile, whereas the Carmel "sphere of influence" (to use the city term) includes a much larger area. This includes the zip codes of 93922 and 93923, both of which are "Carmel" zips (only without the by-the-sea). Smatprt (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not the article about the Carmel sphere of influence. References such as Harrison Memorial Library's "Carmel Area Authors" are not specific enough. It lists Robert Louis Stevenson but in the summer of 1879 he camped once in Carmel Valley, not Carmel. He wandered around and wrote about the valley, the Carmel Mission, the Carmel Indians and Point Lobos. The city of Monterey has a greater claim to RLS since he wrote books while staying in the city.
If another Wikipedia article covers the "Carmel area" quality of the person then they are not needed in this article. For instance, Leon Panetta is associated with Carmel Valley Village, California, zip code 93924. Same with Michael Nesmith who lives in Sleepy Hollow, Carmel Valley, according to the Daily Mirror. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Good points, but I'm not so sure about whether the article is about simply the one-square mile of Carmel-by-the-Sea, or about what is known to the world as "Carmel". For example, the Carmel Mission is in the sphere of influence and not in the one-square mile. Yet it occupies a large part of the article and (probably) is "Carmel"'s most important historic landmark. As for Michael Nesmith, and many others - he lived in Carmel at one time (I know, I visited his house as a teenager). The way I understand it, the article lists residents at one time or another in their lives. If they move to the valley, or elsewhere, - or if they die :), it does not mean that they were not once a Carmel resident. Do we agree on that? Smatprt (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. - yes you are right that the library reference is vague. I will look for better ones in the future. I also agree that Monterey has more of a "claim" than Carmel, but I didn't think that it was a case of one or the other. It was my understanding that RLS stayed in Carmel for a time period when visiting Pt. Lobos and the Mission, as his valley campsite was quite a trek. I'll see if I can find a cite for that if I have time. Smatprt (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I also note that the Wikipedia article on Nesmith notes that he moved to Carmel in 1972 (I visited his house in about '78, IIRC). Smatprt (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Writers who wrote about Carmel while passing through are not notable residents. Robert Louis Stevenson does not qualify.
Another possible resident: I heard John Chambers (CEO) has a second home in Carmel, after his quite large primary home in Los Altos Hills. I just cannot find a reference. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is one: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/23/business/a-cheerleader-for-a-company-in-a-midlife-funk.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Smatprt (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California/Archive_2&oldid=1136592847"