Talk:Carmel-by-the-Sea, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)


WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [1], 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)