Talk:Carmel-by-the-Sea, California/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Carmel as an unicorporated area

Carmel is also the name of the unicorporated area west of carmel valley and east and south of Carmel-by-the-sea propper. For example, one who lives at rio road and hwy 1, has a city address of carmel, ca though is not within the city limits of carmel-by-the-sea.

Perhaps a designation should be made?

this comment really does not pertain to the present article. this article is about a specific incorporated entity called Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. if you have something to say about carmel valley or the unincorporated area by the barnyard shopping center, a better venue would be the monterey county page. Unless your information is earthshaking in scope, it really doesnt belong on this present page. also please sign your posts. Anlace 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are referring to communities in the area like Carmel Highlands, California? It seems that the post office will only accept mail marked as "Carmel" in most of that zip code area for some reason. Carmel Highlands does not have a post office, according to the USPS web site. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The recent improvements to the article are nice. However, there is still a slight bias towards depicting Carmel as a sort of a rosy tinted forgotten glade slash artist colony. Insisting on calling Carmel a "village" is one thing but saying that "residents enjoy walking to the centrally-located post office to receive their mail and meet their neighbors" is going a little overboard. I'm sure a lot of residents DO enjoy walking to the post office. But if we wanted to talk about "what people like" in Wikipedia articles, we could just as well say that "part time residents like to cruise Scenic in their Hummers". Whether the bias comes from a chip on a shoulder or straight from the chamber of commerce's playbook, it probably doesn't belong in the article unless it's verifiable. 12:39 UTC 12 March 2007 87.235.50.181 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Gabe

I agree and will attempt a fix.Smatprt 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Leon Panetta

I removed this text because Leon Panetta does not live in Carmel but rather at Villa Panetta about one mile before Carmel Valley Village, approximately 12 miles out Carmel Valley Road from the Carmel-by-the-Sea city limits. Mamoran 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Leon Panetta, former White House Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mamoran (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Better images please

This article still has very small low resolution images. I hope we can improve on this.--Amadscientist 08:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Carmel-ization

Might it be worth it to make a mention in the article to, well, mention the fate of the town as a famous picturesque tourist destination? you know, that inspired the term, so that people talk about trying to avoid Carmelization or about how Calistoga (et al) has become completely Carmelized? Novium 11:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Name

Does anyone know how the city got it's name since it's by the ocean and not a "sea" in the more literal sense? REL 13 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.236.69 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please add tourist links

Please add the official city travel website of www.carmelcalifornia.com the the "tourist information" link Can you please also ad www.stayincarmel.org as a link for "tourist accommodations"

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.60.176 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

These links are commercial and don't belong. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Weeding the link farm

I scraped off a number of the accreted External links as they didn't meet a strict reading of WP:EL. Another editor added nearly all of them back in. To prevent an edit war, let's discuss the contentious links one by one:

Carmel Magazine
- If Carmel Magazine is so important, write an article about it and use this link there.
Pacific Repertory Theatre: Carmel-based theater company
- If Pacific Repertory Theatre is so important, write an article about it and use this link there. This link is already used as a reference to support text in the body of the article. No need to repeat it.

- - - Um...there IS an article on PacRep. You might do a little checking before throwing your stones. Smatprt (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Tourist Information for Carmel
- A commercial link that anybody with half a brain could find on their own.
Tourist information for Carmel-by-the-Sea and Monterey County
- A commercial link from the county Chamber of Commerce that anybody with half a brain could find on their own.
Accommodations in Carmel
- A commercial link that anybody with half a brain could find on their own.
Carmel Bach Festival
- The Carmel Bach Festival deserves its own article. Write one!
Carmel Pine Cone (local newspaper)
- If the Carmel Pine Cone is so important, write an article about it and use this link there.
Harrison Memorial Library
- If the Harrison Memorial Library is so important, write an article about it and use this link there.

As you can see, I have two basic positions regarding this collection of links: commercial links must go, and other notable institutions in Carmel are better served with their own articles. This article is about the census-designated place called Carmel—is the Bach Festival that? No it is not. It is its own entity. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - here is my position. If you want to delete long-standing information from any article, then discuss it at talk first, and build a consensus among the regular editors of the article. Your edit was obviously contentious, so I am reverting it. To avoid an edit war, let's discuss each and every link you want to delete and try and build a consensus for the change you seek. If you can't build a consensus, then the change should not be made. I would begin by noting that insulting the readership at large (half-a-brain comments) are not a great way to start off on any talk page. You might also do a little research on Carmel and what makes it special. Without that information, you may be deleting information that actually does matter and is integral to the identity of Carmel itself.Smatprt (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Long-standing" is no argument. It doesn't matter how long it's been wrong if it is wrong. Per WP:EL "Links normally to be avoided", we see that "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" are not needed. Instead, the appropriate information from the link should be brought into the article and the link used as a reference. This is in fact the case with the PacRep link, which means the PacRep.org external link can be taken out without discussion—it is redundant. Still, wouldn't it be better if the drama company were given its own article?

Like I said...there IS an article on PacRep. Duh. Smatprt (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuing in that vein, the Harrison Library link should be used to support comments made in the body of the article about Harrison Library. The Carmel Pine Cone was already linked inline to its homepage. No need for a redundant external link. The Bach festival has no supporting reference; the festival's home page should be used as reference. Again, it would be so much nicer for the festival if it had its own Wiki article...

Then why don't YOU write one?Smatprt (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I just might do that some day. I already tapped the Bach festival in Carmel for a story about the implementation of a particularly interesting LARES system at the Sunset Center. Binksternet (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

From WP:EL: "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." In this sense, the Carmel Magazine link would only be appropriate at a page about Carmel Magazine. There's no text in the body of this article about the magazine, no reason why that link should be here. Same with the Monterey County Chamber of Commerce. Is that particular Chamber of Commerce mentioned in the body of this article? No. How about CarmelCalifornia.com? This webpage is selling hotel, shopping and restaurants. The history it has about Carmel is so minute that there's nothing this article wouldn't already have if it were expanded to Featured Article status. Lastly, we have StayInCarmel.com, a frankly commercial site apparently run by a group of innkeepers looking for business. Out it goes.

You challenge me to achieve consensus, but I see no reason to do so. Commercial links aren't allowed, links that are redundant with references aren't needed, and links that should have been supporting text as references should get up there and do their job.

No, I didn't "challenge" you - I made a polite request - which you basically blew off. Smatprt (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If I haven't been able to figure out what makes Carmel special, to understand what is integral to the identity of Carmel by reading the article, do you really think it will all come together for me if I just take a moment to look at the Carmel Innkeepers Association home page? Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes - be sarcastic. Very helpful. What, are you 12 years old?Smatprt (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving some of the links that serve as references up into the text. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The PacRep and theatrical venues info was rife with redundancy. I trimmed some of it back, including a second paragraph about PacRep that isn't necessary considering it has its own article. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Having it's own article (now that you found it), is no reason to say something "Isn't necessary".Smatprt (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Harrison Memorial Library link up to reference its mention. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The commercial links promoting tourism? I took those out again as this is not the article called Tourism in Carmel-by-the-Sea. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that there really is a hell of a lot in Carmel-by-the-Sea besides tourism! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and god forbid the article directs a tourist (in a tourist town) to a hotel. The shame, the horror of trying to be helpful.Smatprt (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The removals are correct, though. Consider: Carmel is small, so there are only a small number of candidate tourism links. Now, let's apply the "being helpful" principle to another town I've lived in. Say, Las Vegas or San Francisco. Instant link farms. That's what we're trying to avoid, in each case. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Repertory Theatre

I deleted the second of two paragraphs about PacRep because the company has its own article at Pacific Repertory Theatre. There, the deleted paragraph was split into two headings and two paragraphs, so I judged it sufficiently covered there, and not needing to be here. Here at the Carmel article, I don't think that we need to have so much of the PacRep article duplicated. One paragraph with salient points suffices to notify the reader of the company's existence and importance, and provide a jumping-off place if they wish to investigate further.

Beyond that, in this article there are additional mentions of Golden Bough and Forest Theater, etc. which serve to remind the reader about PacRep. It's not like the company is wasting away from lack of coverage. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your after-the-fact discussion, you obviously don't want to really discuss things. You just want to be defensive and bullying. I asked for an open discussion and an attempt at consensus building after your previous edits and was pretty much blown off. So I think further back and forth is probably a waste of time. I will say that the article is not about "coverage", it's about being thorough and doing some fact-checking, which anyone with "half a brain", as you say, can do. Regards the restoration of some of the PacRep info, to delete the Artistic Director of a regional theatre, for example, is an obvious oversight. I also updated the Bach Festival section, which you could have easily done if you were not so obsessed with "judging" what is sufficient and what needs to be included according to your personal criteria.

So, while I would have welcomed a positive initial response, or some sense of partnership, I fear that you prefer to be a lone wolf. If I am wrong, please let me know and we can actually converse in a helpful way. If not, well, we'll just each do our own thing. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right in that I'm largely a lone wolf, but I have been involved in several rewarding partnerships where consensus was sought and reached. At all times, I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong. Mostly, though, I charge into a situation with a strong idea of what needs fixin' and I fix it. (Be Bold!)

To me, the name of the current Artistic Director of a regional theater is not as important as the company itself, unless that person was already notable and had their own Wiki article. The reader who was that curious about the further details of the theater company was only one click away from satisfaction. Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Carmelcalifornia... dot com and dot org

I noticed a couple of commercial links that I had deleted reappeared. One, to carmelcalifornia.com is a frankly commercial site that is happy to hook the reader up with a hotel room or equivalent. The other, to carmelcalifornia.org is supposedly the Carmel Chamber of Commerce website, but all I see when I click on the URL is a blank blue page. I'm taking the first URL out because it's commercial, and I'm taking the second one out because it doesn't work. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing "supposed" about it - the Chamber link works fine on my browser. You might check you settings. Having a city's Chamber of Commerce site should hardly be contentious and in my opinion should be expected. The other site is the official city-sanctioned tourism site and includes a wealth of information, all coordinated and representative of many aspects of the city, including, yes, accommodations. I see nothing wrong with that in that it is a legitimate clearing house of useful information, including itineraries, background stories, and more. I think it should stay - and since it represents all the various groups - both non-profit and business, it would replace all other links that only focus on one business or group of businesses. That makes perfect sense to me. Smatprt (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the .com site is owned by the city—that makes a difference.

The Chamber of Commerce web site desperately needs attention by a skilled web developer who knows more than how to use an old version of Dreamweaver. On my computer, it tries and fails to load an old version of Shockwave Flash. I'm using Windows XP Professional as my operating system with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 as my browser and Shockwave version 10 installed; not at all an unusual combination. If you're connected with the C of C web dev people, let them know to use more than one computer to test their page coding results. This page deeper inside works just fine, but the 'experience' page does not. Also, tell them this page includes an incorrect hyphen between 'Shake' and 'speare', the same thing I fixed earlier in this article. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the chamber know about the problems. Thanks for that. Regarding the hyphenated "Shake-speare", actually that is intentional. It reflects the Carmel Shake-speare Festivals participation in the centuries-old Shakespeare authorship question. The hyphen is actually historically accurate as Shakespeare's name was hyphenated almost half the time it appeared in print in the late 1500's and early 1600's. See here: [1] for an example and here: [2] for a better explanation. The Festival has hosted several international conferences on the authorship subject, as have the Globe Theatre in London and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland. And now you know.... the rest of the story!Smatprt (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the more important point is, what is the official name of the festival? I was having trouble finding a source for this spelling for the festival, and I even vaguely remember it on a poster or to, but I might simply have been missing the online reference. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Carmel Shake-speare Festival - go here[3] for reference. See middle of page 29. Smatprt (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The book's helpful. I found a lot more usage of it on later pages in the Google search; the name of the thing is indeed the "Carmel Shake-speare Festival", including what I'd consider conclusive enough: the Carmel Pine Cone of August 10, 2007, page 15A: The 24th annual Carmel Shake-speare Festival (PacRep prefers the hyphenated version of his name) begins with a preview of “Macbeth”... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That discovery indicates changing the festival's name on this page and on the PacRep page. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do.Smatprt (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

List of people

That list of people, so many with "citation needed" tags, looks terrible. Isn't it time to prune it or authenticate each challenged entry? Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I recognize most of them as correct, but it will take some doing to authentic them. I can attack that as I have time, but it will be slow going, I'm afraid. Smatprt (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox of a city should always be placed on top, not some picture. This is standard for all city/town articles on Wikipedia. I don't understand why this should have special treatment and why it is being continually reverted. It's not vandalism. It's standard, so leave it alone. Having a better layout is not an acceptable excuse either. I don't see anything wrong with the current layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.148.158 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Improving an article by ignoring a "rule" is perfectly acceptable. See WP:IAR for a better explanation67.180.244.168 (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No. "Ignoring all rules" is nonsense and is a very weak argument considering that all city articles are done the same way. You are just putting the picture up there for personal preference. I will continue to revert changes to the formatting. There is absolutely nothing wrong in the current format. If the placement of the infobox changed the text (e.g. a huge gap between paragraphs) then there would be an argument for the change but right now, there is nothing wrong with the formatting. In this revision: [4], the picture should've been moved down instead of the infobox which indicates more of a personal preference than following precedent. I'm merely switching the two while keeping the format layout, so you can't actually say it's a "better" layout when in fact they are the same. --71.160.72.214 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Having a photo in the lead position is much more pleasing to the eye than a map, which is fairy boring and unimaginative. If our goal is to have readers read and learn about the article subject, in this case the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea, then to have a representative picture of what makes Carmel unique (in this case, it's white sand beach and twisted trees along the sea shore), is much more suitable. The only reason you state for the other version is "that's the way it's done on other city pages" seems to be a weak argument. Perhaps if you could develop a stronger argument? Also - saying the layout is the same is simply not the case. Choice of the lead graphic is actually quite important. Smatprt (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also - this has been the lead image for quite a long time. If you want to change it, then please develop a consensus for making this change. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when I came to this article I was interested in the info like location, population etc. Pictures are a supplement to the article. They should not be lead ins. It was the lead for sometime only because no infobox was created. I'm sorry, but it is your argument that is extremely weak. How is citing precedent weak? If anything it would serve as a guideline for how other articles should be treated. You are basing your argument purely on aesthetic purposes and not for information purposes. If people were to rearrange things on wikipedia just for the way they look, then there would be a lot of problems. An encyclopedia is for those seeking info isn't it? Even in infoboxes for cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York etc there are pictures included in the infobox yet you're rearranging the picture and the infobox because "it's pleasing to the eye?" How is that a strong argument? The layout IS the same, the placement is different. --71.160.72.214 (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you understand the term layout. In the meantime, let's agree to disagree. However, since you are the one trying to make a change to a long-standing version, then feel free to take it to RFc, or build a proper consensus, before making a change a threatening an edit war. Surely building a consensus is something you would agree is the right approach over this disagreement? Smatprt (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel the need to chime in since this keeps popping up on my watchlist and hopefully to avoid an edit war. As someone who absolutely loves Carmel and the Big Sur area, I would say that a picture is a lot better for the lead. However, as a Wikipedia editor, I would say that in general it is poor practice to move the infobox especially all the way down to where it is currently. I have never seen any other article that is similar. Previous articles on other towns/cities should serve as examples and having a picture for the lead for the sole reason that it looks better is not necessarily an ironclad argument. You can say that Carmel is a very beautiful city (and no argument there), but you can also say the same thing about various other cities. Using that logic you can try and change the infobox/picture lead argument to other articles but you'd probably be met with resistance and probably be accused of trying to illustrate a point. Why don't you just put the picture in the infobox as was briefly mentioned above. It would seem like a nice compromise unless both parties are that adamant in their stance. For example Monterey, California is done rather nicely. I would like to hear the opinions of others in this matter. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is also on my watchlist. Carmel is unique and the photo is pretty, but that's not justification for treating this article differently from every other article for a city or town anywhere in the world. Accordingly, I reverted the page rearrangement. Also, I removed the size specifications from all of the thumbnail images, per WP:MOS. --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not adamant in my stance at all and would readily agree to having the photo incorporated into the infobox as in Monterey, California. Had this been done in the first place instead of simply moving the picture completely, I would not have objected. This is a fine compromise. Smatprt (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"All's well that ends well." --Orlady (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now perhaps someone might want to do the same for Pebble Beach? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow....all that about a picture. I guess that says a lot about the location we are writing about. There are very few words that can adequately describe beauty. It is subjective.

I agree that the info box should be at the top of the article. It is for "At a glance" information , that is obtained quickly without searching the entire article. I strongly believe that California city articles should have an image in the info box. Where an info box is missing an image is appropropriation the lead until the info box in put in place and then the image goes inside the box.

Eventually all wiki articles should have an info box, image and at least two sections of prose or the article may come under question of notability at some point.

I just wish there where more people in the area with a camera. People in Carmel can be very touchy about advertising the city too much, but let's get some better images in here.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Tone issues

A lot of this article reads as if it were written by an employee of the chamber of commerce. Some sections like the one about dog-friendliness may not warrant so much space and need citations. I don't want to clutter the article with tags and hope that it is more helpful to bring these issues to the talk page.Gimme danger (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I really disagree with this. I believe anyone who has visited the city realises the importanc the city has placed on being a dog friendly location is more notable than soem advertising from city hall or the chambr of commerce. These is something other cities in california are also catching on with, such as Sacramento, South Lake Tahoe and San Francisco.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Further sections needed

The arts section is huge, but everything else is pretty small. We need to organize the article and expand.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The arts section is huge because it's a town that was created around the arts. Sort of makes sense. But I agree that it would be nice to expand other sections. Gofor it!! But I am agaiinst deleting properly added and referenced material. Say NO! to deletionism! Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Redundancies

I have twice taken out second mentions of Forest Theatre and Golden Bough Theatre that appeared in the Planning section, because the second appearance of those subjects features them unduly. I think all such redundancies should be trimmed off, and rewriting the Planning and environmental factors section would be a good start. The way it is now structured, it reintroduces a number of topics, giving the reader a confused image of what the article is about. The Planning section could simply contain a brief prose mention of important structures, like this:

Planning has consistently recognized the importance of preserving the character of these major sociocultural and public facilities: Sunset Community and Cultural Center, Golden Bough Playhouse, Forest Theater, Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, Tor House and Hawk Tower, Harrison Memorial Library, and City Hall.

Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I trimmed it all out last night and i believe another editor organised it a bit better after the trimming.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This brief mention seems reasonable. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Image size

I think we need to discuss the image sizes used. I see them as too small for this day and age and if you look at other major articles you will see that image size is no longer left at the tiny default size rendered with a generic "thumb" code without a size. Using between 250 and 300 px is acceptable and formats the article to be viewed with modern screens. We should not be formatting for the lowest denominator, or in other words, the oldest computers. Articles can be formatted for average use regardless of guidelines, which are not hard set rules like policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever seen the extended image syntax |thumb|upright=x| ...it helps scale images up and down in size depending on user screen resolution. Take a look at Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax for some pointers, and at User:Binksternet/Upright for a series of size examples. The first size to try is |thumb|upright=1.5| , a standard response for times when something bigger is desired. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I was (Edit; NOT) unaware of that developement. I do know that individuals can set there personal preferences at wiki for images sizes, but that should be pretty helpful!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Images in General

The use of images, just like the use of prose is subject to bold editing. I have been removing the theater image based on the fact that it gives to much emphasis on theatre in this town. It is a little POV. Absolutely nothing about the visual arts, such as sculpture, painting and other such mediums the city is famouse for. I am removing the theatre image as unconstructive to the article. I removed the other image as being boosterism. We do not need an image of two theatres with the size the article has been at for the last two years.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree. There are 3 historic theaters in this small town of 1 sq mile that generate over 1000 performances, rehearsals and events. Can you name another town outside of Ashland Oregon that can match such a claim? In fact, the town's history is intertwined with the theatre scene dating back to 1906 - maybe you are not aware of that. I have no problem with you adding images (such as your own picture for the lead image?) but I simply don't agree with deleting long-standing images for the reasons you propose. Smatprt (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with your breaking the prose by moving a climate chart and demographics, of all things, up following the history. The arts and culture side of Carmel is exactly what it is known for and was a natural progression of its history. Your last rearrangement makes no sense. Why don't yo spend some time actually expanding the article itself instead of this constant rearrangement and deletion campaign? I just don't get it. Smatprt (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2009 (UT

You are sort of pushing an agenda about the arts. sir. Step back. I am aware of other cities with much more theatre seating with history. Sacramento and the California Musical Theatre.

I get the feeling you are not willing to do much more than place stubs and and gaurd your own work. Please, release this article for other editors to contribute to. Please leave your POV and boosterism at the door, before editing.

As an artist, theatre tech, designer, costumer, performer and audiance member I understand where you are coming from, but ask that you do not allow your stubborn pride from holding the article back. Expand your stub of the theatre you created in 2006 instead of pushing the information here. Look at other similer articles and research and contribute there before making demands of others here on this article.

Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind addressing the issues instead of throwing stones? Why, for example, would you want to place a climate chart in the middle of the prose? Saying two pictures of two historic theatres (theatre sites that actually pre-date the incorporation of the town) in this article is one too many? Isn't that just your opinion and not based on any Wiki policy? I'm willing to discuss these things, but you seem more interested in simple deletion. Why? Smatprt (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the climate chart "in the middle of the prose." I see a measured staging of contents: History, Climate, Demographics (the basic stuff), followed by lighter content such as the Arts, culture, near-trivia, etc. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

For a town that began as an artist colony, I don't think you can really call the arts "lighter stuff" (not that you should, anyway). This may be a subjective view, but I don't think that climate is the most important or notable aspect of your average city or Carmel, in particular. So I would rather see it listed lower in the article.

As for the images, having two images of theatres is hardly excessive. If there were fair use issues at stake, maybe, but as near as I can tell, there aren't. I disagree that having the images is "unconstructive". Removing them worsens the article; it doesn't improve it. If we want to emphasize the gallery culture of Carmel, we should add more images of such, not subtract the images we currently have. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, regardless of what the cities main emphasis is, you simply don't jump right into what we as editors percieve to be important issues. That is POV and why we strive to start of with the basics of the cities founding, then the geography and climate, etc. Why.....because this is done to be consistant with other similar articles. I'm an artist and a theatre designer and performer.....but that is not what the city is really about. That is what is on the surface. Don't hold down an article with low resolution images and redundant, obviouse boosterism towards a particular theater. The image is too low a resolution and of a subject not needed to be illustrated on a page where famouse works of art in the public domain exist to illustrate this page and no one is bothering to research or attempt to upload anything more in the last two years. Let's move it guys. Don't be stick in the mud editors. Really, take my picture out of the infobox as far as I am concerned, it is not important either and is replaceable. I plan to do so. The article needs a bold change. Placing sections in order for clarity and move the culture and arts section down is aproppriate!

Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First off, there's no reason that this article needs to follow the specific structure of another. If the editors all agree, an unusual framework can be employed. However, when editors disagree, it is well to settle into established rules. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline there is a basic city framework which puts Arts after History, Geography, Climate and Demographics. This is what we should use. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As Binksternet says, the article can follow whatever framework we chose. The guidelines are just there to be helpful. I don't like the idea of placing climate so high in the order, but since we have a disagreement, that would probably be a fair solution.

I'm sorry that you consider it boosterism to have an image of a particular theater, Amadscientist. As it happens, the Forest Theater is a venue, not an individual company. Several theatre companies use the space. I suppose that's unfair to the companies that don't use the space, but the venue is still an important building in the history and culture of Carmel. If you want to upload photos of Sunset Center or the Carl Cherry Center for the Arts, by all means, do so. Same with the aforementioned public domain of famous works of art: please upload them. But don't bowderlize the article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is where I think we are getting off track - in most cities, the arts are not the focus, nor do they reflect the history of the town. This is where Carmel certainly stands apart. Carmel was basically founded as an "arts colony", thus the numerous historical references to Carmel Bohemians, the role Carmel played in the expansion of the California Arts & Crafts movement, etc. As such, perhaps the logical conclusion would be to incorporate the arts and culture information into the history, or as a sub-section of the history. It's not like we are listing current shows or presentations, but providing the history of Carmel arts & culture from the early 1900's onward. Since the city template states to list the history first, and the history of Carmel is intertwined with Carmel's arts & culture movement, I believe this would make the most sense AND be following the suggested guidelines. In a way, that was why the article was set up the way it was - the early history (pre-1900) seques perfectly into the arts & culture movement of the early 1900's and beyond. That is what I meant by "breaking up the prose" with a climate chart. Thanks for letting me clarify that. Smatprt (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you're misinterpreting the project guidelines. The history section of a city article shouldn't go into great detail regarding current usage, nor should it feature images of relatively modern structures like the Golden Bough playhouse, ones that wouldn't have existed in the early city history. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this - but while I agree with much of what you say, I think you are mistaken in several key area - first - the sections don't go into detail, they are obviously summaries. The town was only incorporated in 1916, so events of the next few decades are, indeed, "history". 2nd, you have not responded in any way to the point that the arts in Carmel ARE intertwined with it's history in countless ways. Next - you simply havent read the sections very well: The Golden Bough was first built in 1922/23! A spectacular and suspicious fire destroyed it in 1949 and it was rebuilt in 1952 - that is part of the town's history, for goodness sake! In Carmel, any structure older than 50 years is a candidate for the historic designation, and the Golden Bough (1952) certainly meets that. Perhaps you might understand that, now? Smatprt (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

When the subject of the city's history has modern developments, like what's playing this summer, then that material dumps the subject out of History and puts it in Arts and culture. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! - do any of the sections say "what's playing this summer"? No! None! Thanks for making my point.Smatprt (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to repeat that guidelines are not hard set rules and articles can vary away from MOS if the reason is justifiable and consensus is formed. I just believe that the reasons being given t keep the arts section at the top amount to Point of View and Original Research. I am also not saying the article SHOULD NOT have the image.....I am saying that the low resolution image is inadequate for the current article and the need for multiple images of theatres at this stage is overweight. I first edited on this page 2 years ago and there has been very little movement to expand, improve references, add to sections, research and mention notable figures from contemporary times. Isn't there a foreign Prince or King that calls Carmel his "Home Town" because he lived there during his college years.

Where is the section on artist, paintings and locations made famous by some of Americas greatest artist? Not having a section in the arts and culture while defending a low resolution image of a relatively modern structure, which seems out of place on the article just doesn't help the article at this point.

Boosterism is not an insult. It is not a claim against an editor. It is something that can be seen by the edits and the perception of stability on the article that has not yet even obtained a rating of any kind, is linked to a single project and is at least two years old.

I am sorry, but the article needs to move on now. No editor is being turned away and I am not attacking User:Smatprt or pushing his ideals or contributions away. On the contrary, he has helped me see a very important issue about Carmel and that is the difference between the Valley and the city. While the valley is a part of the cities founding and history, the articles geographic locations are set as Carmel-by-the-sea's boarders.

Anyway. I am glad we talked about this.

Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as painting is being mentioned as underrepresented, I might add writing, poetry and music. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as an artist colony with a long standing history, many artist of varied mediums and expressions are left out of this article's arts and culture.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree - how about you folks adding some material in regards to painting (mentioned by the way in the Arts & Crafts Club section including a number of artists), poetry and music. Writers and poets, by the way, have not been ignored - perhaps you missed the section on Mary Austin, Jack London, Sinclair Lewis, etc. Oh - and Robinson Jeffers - poet and writer! And the section on Carmel ARt Association certainly addresses some of your concerns. I don't understand the OR reference at all, though. There is nothing here either original or controversial. I agree that more references should be added, but that is what cite tags are for, right?Smatprt (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Also - I took the views expressed here and came up with a logical and representative solution - only to see it reverted? No response to my suggestion above? Why are you (Binksternet) starting another edit war? It kind of smacks of bullying - or of trying to push a regular editor of this article away.Smatprt (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm....what was the solution? I thought consensus was beginning to become clear on the placement of the Climate and geography sections per MOS. Are you saying you cannot compromise? I certainly can expand the section with the image of the theatre and upload a newer high resolution image in time, so I know I can live with that image for now, what others believe is up to them.

As for the issue of the Climate and geography sections coming after History, I would submit to you that if you can live with that, we can avoid further problems in that section, but please be aware I don't just drop issues I bring up. I am attempting to improve this article with a goal towards GA. It cannot happen overnight, but guidelines must be met for inclusion with that rating.

As a show of good faith I will rate the article as "Start" class with a medium importance for now, that can certainly be changed if others feel the article is of more importance.

Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See my posting above at 19:39, 18 July 2009, as well as my postings below in the history section. The more I read the City Guidelines, the more I see that the Arts section should be incorporated into the history (which stops with the incorporation of the town in 1916! No actual history OF the town! The Arts & Crafts movement, Bohemian influx, and events surrounding the creation of the Forest, Golden Bough Tor House, etc - these were all integral to the history and development of Carmel. Please see my post below quoting the city guidelines and how these are indeed more than appropriate. I think this new format absolutely meets the guidelines and I hope after considering my comments, you will agree.

I, too, am not one to drop issues, but am happy to reach for consensus, if possible. But it would help if everyone really read the guidelines, then read the article from top to bottom. As a show of good faith, I will meet you half way and move the climate and geography chart up below the expanded history section, even though I still believe it fits this article better in its present location.Smatprt (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way - please don't remove your lead photo. It was I, after all, who defended it against deletion last year. It's a great shot and certainly captures the geography of Carmel. (And it has nothing to do with the arts!) :) Smatprt (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No....the arts section does not belong in History. What the hell are you doing? Come on! Stop with the cut and paste moves and contribute real prose to the history section on the movement as it pertains to third party refernces and not just what you thinks is a "Good idea"....it really isn't.

That Image is not as good as many other images I have of Carmel-by-the-sea. That one was one of the first I ever uploded and I had been holding back images that I did not wish to release at that time.

The arts are of course of great importance to the city. It should have a seperate section as all cities do. You cannot overemphasize what you personaly feel is what is important no matter how strongly you feel about it. That is original research. Carmel is no more or less special to the arts than say Paris or even the city of San Francisco which is where the artist came from that deleloped into Carmel.

That was unconstructive. Sorry. I am changing that back.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Resorting to swearing at me does not do that. I made a good faith edit. You reverted it for your own reasons. That's fine. But attacking me, or making accusations about my contributions to other articles is a form of personal attack. It's not helpful. Regarding your statement above, are you saying that Paris and SF are arts colonies the same way Carmel is? If so, I just don't agree. Carmel is/was known world-wide as an "arts colony". I've never heard those other cities referred to in that way.Smatprt (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The sort of history writing currently found in the arts paragraphs is not Carmel history, it's the history of each particular institution. The history section in this article needs to talk about how the founding of the various cultural institutions affected the city, and vice versa. Binksternet (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that - good points. Smatprt (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

History

As it stands, the History section stops at 1916. What it needs is an expansion to describe further changes past that time. Check out other city articles for inspiration, such as San Francisco where a lot of history speeds by in a few paragraphs, or Oakland where some of the history is broken down into decades. This History section needs an expansion, not a band-aid. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First - from the guidelines: "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, while it recommends ordering geography after history, it does not specify to add a climate chart in the location you have claimed. Next - take a look at the above sentence again - "the needs of the city". I maintain you are completley ignoring that guideline. The Arts & Crafts movement in Carmel defined the town. I just don't see how you fail to grasp that. Oakland broke it down into decades, good for them! Carmel breaks it down by Artists and historic buildings. Are you really saying Oakland and Carmel should be handled the same way??Smatprt (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Valley of the Moon

A deleted paragraph discussing what Jack London put into his The Valley of the Moon book is not "unreferenced." The book is the reference. However, the reference could be improved by listing page numbers inside ref tags. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a single sentence within a paragraph. It was unreferenced. It did not have an inline citation as required. The book itself can be used to illustrate it's mention as previously writen, however it seemed unnecessary to the article as Jack London did not live in Carmel. Not notable enough for coverage realy, but if you wish, perhaps it can be mentioned elswhere in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jack London lived off and on in Carmel for years. The book was the reference, but I have also provided another reference for the paragraph. I thought the preferred process on Wikipedia was to place a fact tag on an unreferenced section, as opposed to simply deleting. In any case, I restored the paragraph (with reference) and placed it at the bottom of the history section, instead of the unexplained unreferenced 8-word assertion that Carmel "started" as an arts colony in 1903 (which was also incorrect). It wasn't until 1905 that the Arts & Crafts Club was formed to "foster the arts", but it was really 1906, when the great bohemian influx happened, that the town became known as an arts colony. The Arts Colony section could use a bit more, but at least we now provide readers with a bit of history on when and why the artists started coming in mass.Smatprt (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, deletion of unreferenced material is standard. Fact tags are are for disputed information, that may be controversial to delete. All claims must be accompanied by an inline citation or may be deleted without consensus. The claim being made is just that London mentions the the city in a book. The inline citation would be needed for a reference. If a claimis being made that is extrodinairy than a third party reference would be required.

I like where you added back the information for the artist colony. It leaves room for expansion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Great information missing

Father Junipero Serra used Mission San Carlos as his headquaters as head of the California Missions. He died and was buried in Carmel. Father Serra is considered the father of California. How this information was missed is just shocking and it's inclusion would elevate the articles importance to top not just high!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going through what is here and what else is on Wiki already as well as a number of books and will giving this it's own section in "History". This article has potential to be very large.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering - are we going with the standard "Serra was almost a saint" coverage, or will we mention any of the conflicting sentiment regarding what he actually did (and how he did it). I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but you are aware that he has become a bit controversial, right? Smatprt (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a openly gay recovering Catholic who hasn't been to church in nearly 30 years. What is your point? Are you attempting to bash other's beliefs because it does not fit your own? No, Father sierra was an important historic figure for the state, the church and the city of Carmel. Stop jumping the gun on other peoples contributions by second guessing what they are doing and please do not push an equel coverage of a subject. It is NOT required on Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did that come from? I was referring to his treatment of the indians - not anyone's homosexuality or catholicism. Regarding not pushing equal coverage, isn't that what NPOV is all about? Not to offend, but I think NPOV is required on Wikipedia. I'm not going to make any edits in this regard, but you obviously took my question the wrong way. I guess it hit a nerve and for that I am truly sorry!

I'm not sure what you guys are discussing in particular, but generally re: NPOV and balance, Jimmy Wales says: "If you have an article about the moon which treats equally the idea that the moon is made of rocks, and the idea that the moon is made of cheese, you don't have neutrality, you have extreme POV pushing for a radical minority view! How, in practice, to sort out a proper sense of proportion and balance is always going to be tricky and involve thoughtful consultation and dialog, of course. There is no magic formula. But a recognition that some views are widely held and grounded in a reasonable analysis of evidence, and that some views are extreme fringe views and not based in evidence, is pretty important to achieving neutrality." Jimbo Wales, 18 May 2008 Hope that's helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Importance

I noticed Carmel was regarded as "top importance" for several WikiProjects. I reduced the importance to the Cities and Catholicism WikiProjects according to their importance scales: Cities and Catholicism. Regarding the first, its population is very small, and the only event I could imagine being covered by international news is Clint Eastwood's stint as Mayor - and that's more of a reflection on Eastwood's importance than Carmel's. Regarding the second, it seems to fit the "highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture" description. Actually I doubt it fits the scope of that WikiProject at all, but I'll leave that for others to decide. I don't know enough about the California or Performing Arts WikiProjects to change their importance, but I'd suggest that California importance might be high instead of top, compare Monterey. Huon (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)