Born2cycle (talk | contribs) |
Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Survey: augment my statement |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
===Survey=== |
===Survey=== |
||
* '''Support'''. Mindlessly following the U.S. city convention to disambiguate non-AP city names with the state name even when they don't require disambiguation ([[Carmel-by-the-Sea]] redirects here) for such an obviously unique city name is not only absurd, but flies in the face of [[WP:CRITERIA|article title criteria]] such as ''concision'' (the proposed title is obviously more concise than the current title) and ''consistency'' (most city articles in WP are disambiguated only when disambiguation is necessary because of conflicts with other uses - the U.S. convention is a hairball anomaly that needs to go). --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
* '''Support'''. Mindlessly following the U.S. city convention to disambiguate non-AP city names with the state name even when they don't require disambiguation ([[Carmel-by-the-Sea]] redirects here) for such an obviously unique city name is not only absurd, but flies in the face of [[WP:CRITERIA|article title criteria]] such as ''concision'' (the proposed title is obviously more concise than the current title) and ''consistency'' (most city articles in WP are disambiguated only when disambiguation is necessary because of conflicts with other uses - the U.S. convention is a hairball anomaly that needs to go). --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
*Reluctant '''oppose''' per [[WP:USPLACE]]. I hate it, but individual city articles aren't the place to review it. See the current discussion at [[Talk:Manassas, Virginia#Requested move]]. I said there, and I'm completely serious about this, that if anyone's up for another challenge of [[WP:USPLACE]], I'll come out with guns blazing; please just notify me. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
**For better or for worse, change occurs in WP mostly bottom-up, not top-down. See [[User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Change_guideline_first]]. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::*I appreciate your opinion, but frankly, I don't think "persuad[ing] a consensus of those participating at each step" is going to work with such a massive base of applicable articles. And perhaps we may disagree on this, but I prefer consistent adherence to a flawed standard than inconsistency, especially on a big topic like naming conventions. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 18:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::**Although hundreds of articles are involved, we don't need to reach consensus on each. Just a few, at least 2 or 3, before we can change the guideline.<p>Did you read what I linked? It's not an opinion. It's a ''fact'' that the guidelines/conventions reflect actual usage, and we can't just change the guidelines to say something other than what is actual usage. However, we can invoke IAR here, if nothing else (there is much else to base this move on, as reflected in the proposal and my comment), and, if we do so successfully on a significant number of such articles, ''then'' we can change the guideline to reflect the change in usage. <p>In fact, that's how the exception for cities on the AP list was added to the guideline. First a few of those articles, like [[Chicago]] and I think [[San Francisco]] and [[Seattle]], were renamed without updating the guideline. ''Then'' the guideline was update, then the moving of the rest commenced.<p>I see no reason to expect any other significant changes to the guideline to take place any differently. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. I was in favor of [[WP:USPLACE]], and I see no reasons for exceptions. My arguments were given in previous discussions. In fact, I would be in favor of tightening it to re-pre-disambiguate the cities on the AP list, with one or two exceptions. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 18:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:28, 25 June 2012
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 (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)
- In any case, I see no reason to use a different format than the other cities in Category:Monterey County, California. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment. This page was moved today from Carmel-by-the-Sea to Carmel-by-the-Sea, California before this proposal to move Carmel-by-the-Sea, California to Carmel-by-the-Sea was initiated. The editor who did that has been blocked for move-warring. I've restored the article to where it started and accordingly modified this proposal to be from Carmel-by-the-Sea rather than from Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Carmel-by-the-Sea, California is the way it should be, as per the standard approach. Only high-population, uniquely-named American cities have the state omitted. There's only one Orlando, Florida, and I would think it's fairly well known, being the home of Disney World, but it still has the state appended. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- As noted below, the guideline/convention to have only cities on the AP list have the state omitted is in dispute and apparently lacks consensus support. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- They should all have the state name, this "AP list" be hanged. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- As noted below, the guideline/convention to have only cities on the AP list have the state omitted is in dispute and apparently lacks consensus support. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Carmel-by-the-Sea, California is the way it should be, as per the standard approach. Only high-population, uniquely-named American cities have the state omitted. There's only one Orlando, Florida, and I would think it's fairly well known, being the home of Disney World, but it still has the state appended. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. The practice of predisambiguating titles seems to be falling out of favor lately. The U.S. city guideline wording indicating that the canonical form is city, state is currently being discussed, and so far indicates the current guideline wording lacks consensus support. Accordingly, I've marked the section of the guideline pertaining to the U.S. as "disputed".
We use official names of municipalities in titles of articles about cities, and the official name of this city is Carmel-by-the-Sea, and the title should be that. This is a unique name, and there is no need to disambiguate it with ", California" nor with anything else. In fact, doing so is a violation of WP:PRECISION which states that titles should be only as precise as necessary to make them unique. That's Carmel-by-the-Sea. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I were to write a letter to Clint Eastwood or whoever, I would specify the address as Carmel-by-the-Sea (or maybe just "Carmel"), California (or "CA"), plus the zip code. That's normal procedure for addressing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Mailing addresses are not the same as municipalities. The "Carmel, California" mailing address extends from Monterey, California, to Big Sur to the south, and includes the areas of Carmel Meadows, Carmel Highlands, Point Lobos [1], etc. The municipality Carmel-by-the-Sea is just one square mile (see the article). What people normally refer to as "Carmel" usually extends a bit beyond the borders of Carmel-by-the-Sea, to at least include the unincorporated Carmel River area where the Carmel Mission and Clint Eastwood's Mission Inn [2] is found, but not usually the entire area encompassed by the "Carmel, California" mail address. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- If I were to write a letter to Clint Eastwood or whoever, I would specify the address as Carmel-by-the-Sea (or maybe just "Carmel"), California (or "CA"), plus the zip code. That's normal procedure for addressing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Alternative. Not that I support it for the reasons stated just above this, but since the article is now back at its stable Carmel-by-the-Sea, an alternative destination to consider is Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's what it was, until Viriditas moved it back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, yes, this article was at Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, after it was moved there unilaterally without discussion[3], for about five hours, until Viriditas moved it back to Carmel-by-the-Sea [4]. It's true that the move to Carmel-by-the-Sea about two months ago was also unilateral without discussion[5], but no objection was expressed in discussion or via page moves during those two months, while this move was objected-to within hours. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's what it was, until Viriditas moved it back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose; it seems utterly unnecessary to disambiguate titles of locations when the name of the location is unique enough on its own. And the suggested title is also inaccurate as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Having grown up in Carmel, it was never known as anything else, except on "gifies" boxes for tourists. Look at Sam Farr, who went to my high school. He grew up in Carmel. Loopy48 (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. No one calls it "Carmel by the sea". "Carmel, California" was a stable title until moved without discussion. Will Beback talk 01:13, 23 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)
- No one calls it Carmel-by-the-Sea? More call it "Carmel-by-the-Sea" on the web than call it "Carmel, California". See #Google Test Results. Also, see Books with "Carmel-by-the-Sea" in the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll respond below. You need to be more careful before citing Ghits. Will Beback talk 17:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - the article is about the city, and the city's name is Carmel-by-the-Sea. Kuguar03 (talk) 08:23, 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)
- Support. Deb (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. The name "Carmel" is the most commonly used. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Assuming that "Carmel" is the common name, it follows that the article must be disambiguated to either "Carmel-by-the-Sea" or "Carmel, California". Both options 1 and 4 at WP:NCDAB would seem to apply here, however, considering the fact that there is no current consensus on whether option 4 is appropriate (see WT:NCGN#RFC:_United_States_cities), option 1 remains as the only relevant guideline. Therefore, I oppose the move, as "Carmel-by-the-Sea" is the "more complete name" according to option 1. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 00:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is the first time I have seen WP:NCDAB cited on these issues. Since Option 1 (use a more complete name) is in plain conflict with the governing policy, which prefers shorter names, no more precise than necessary, I can only conclude that this is one of the those clauses which is "undisputed" because nobody has ever seen it; I should add that the most "complete" name would be Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, which is neither of these. 19:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- How are NCDAB and TITLE in conflict? A "more complete name" is a name that is "no more precise than necessary". NCDAB does not call for a "most complete" name, it calls for a "more complete name...that is equally clear and is unambigous". Furthermore, Carmel-by-the-Sea is the shorter name. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 00:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is the first time I have seen WP:NCDAB cited on these issues. Since Option 1 (use a more complete name) is in plain conflict with the governing policy, which prefers shorter names, no more precise than necessary, I can only conclude that this is one of the those clauses which is "undisputed" because nobody has ever seen it; I should add that the most "complete" name would be Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, which is neither of these. 19:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Torritorri and Ryulong, above.Smatprt (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The current title appears to be the official name of the municipality and is unique in Wikipedia so nothing needs to be done here. --Polaron | Talk 07:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Per general guideline (no need for an exception here) and per my own impression outside of Wikipedia that this is Carmel, California. --Doncram (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose While I support the current City, State guideline and would support this move under normal circumstances, the fact remains that there is an extensive debate at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names) over just what the guideline should be. Therefore, I think there should be a moratorium on all place name moves until we come to some sort of resolution or detente on the current convention.DCmacnut<> 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. In this case, I think "Carmel, California," is in more common usage than "Carmel-by-the-Sea." BTW, compare with San Buenaventura. (ETA: I oppose a move to Carmel-by-the-Sea, California.) john k (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support It is Carmel, California is most reliable sources and news sources about events in Carmel. Clearly the most common usage. AgneCheese/Wine 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Follows the naming guidelines and Carmel is the common name. While Carmel-by-the-Sea may be the proper name, it is not used by most people in everyday discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Question: I don't understand the comparison to San Buenaventura. That article states that the city "was" called San Beunaventura until 1891, whereas Carmel-by-the-Sea is still the current name and is in more-than-regular use today. Seems like apples and oranges. Also, it was stated above that "no one" uses Carmel-by-the-Sea anymore, which has been proven to be an incredibly incorrect assertion. So why is this still being discussed? Aside from that, there are several Carmels, whereas Carmel-by-the-Sea is unique, so requires no disambiguation.Smatprt (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- San Buenaventura is still the official name. I'm not sure why our article says otherwise. See the US Census, for instance. john k (talk) 15:50, 30 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)
- Support. The place is best known as Carmel, but it needs a disambiguator, so add it. This whole discussion is yet another example of the pointless time-wasting which occurs when some editors decide to crusade a naming convention which provides commonly used unambiguous names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Per BrownHairedGirl, Paul August ☎ 22:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. This article is ambiguously titled, since it is about Carmel, California.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I would support a change to the naming Convention for the United States, but so far there has not been consensus for that. As such, the convention remains. This stipulates that the name should be in the format Placename, State. There is a secondary consideration here though, whether it should be Carmel, California or Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. The article is about the city, as defined by its municipal boundaries. As such, it should use the name of the city, Carmel-by-the-Sea. I realise that few will normally refer to the place as such in normal conversation, particularly locals. In the United States, such names are pretty unusual. Here in the United Kingdom they are fairly common. As such, we have Ashton-under-Lyne, Henley-on-Thames or Newcastle upon Tyne, even though locals would always refer to them as Ashton, Henley and Newcastle. I would therefore Support a move to Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, with a comment in the introduction similar to that at Newcastle upon Tyne, which starts Newcastle upon Tyne (locally pronounced /njuːˈkæsəl/ ( listen)) (often shortened to Newcastle) is a city and metropolitan borough of Tyne and Wear, in North East England. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Rename, per WP:COMMONNAME. Whether it should be Carmel, California, Carmel-by-the-sea, California, or Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, is unclear to me. I would prefer the first, but the second has some merit. The only merit to the current name or the third option is that it is what they call themselves, in spite of the non-standard capitalization. It fails all other criteria in WP:TITLE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Was down in Carmel last week on vacation. I can confirm (but forgot to take a photo) that both the city limits sign and the Highway 1 turnoff sign for Ocean Ave are "Carmel-by-the-Sea". Per my comment from a couple of weeks ago, I still support separate articles for the incorporated city and for the immediate surrounding area, including unincorporated regions contiguous to incorporated Carmel-by-the-Sea town limits. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm liking this more and more... Carmel-by-the-Sea is about the one square mile that is circumscribed by the boundaries of the incorporated city, and Carmel, California is the postal area including and surrounding the incorporated city. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Google Test Results
- "Carmel-by-the-sea": About 415,000 results
- "Carmel, California": About 322,000 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Need more explanation please
The article lacks any explanation of the following and should elaborate on them:
- 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.
- Why are the city and the stores so uniquely dog-friendly and what is the history of this?
- 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)
- 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)
Requested move: → Carmel-by-the-Sea
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California → Carmel-by-the-Sea – "If the subject of an article is the primary (or only) topic to which a term refers, then that term can be the title of that article without modification," according to WP:PRECISION. Carmel-by-the-Sea already redirects to this article. GeoNames confirms that the subject's name is as proposed, and that it is the only town of said name. The title should tell the reader how the subject is commonly referred to in the real world, not give its postal address. A reader looking for the town will already know that it is in California. Those who don't can figure it out from the opening sentence. Other reference works do not disambiguated their entry titles, which is necessary on Wiki only because our software does not allow multiple instances of a title. Britannica`s entry opens "Carmel, also called Carmel-by-the-Sea", Columbia says "Carmel-by-the-Sea or Carmel," and The New Webster's International Encyclopedia says "Carmel-by-the-Sea or Carmel". There is also a book about the town named Carmel-By-The-Sea. Kauffner (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Survey
- Support. Mindlessly following the U.S. city convention to disambiguate non-AP city names with the state name even when they don't require disambiguation (Carmel-by-the-Sea redirects here) for such an obviously unique city name is not only absurd, but flies in the face of article title criteria such as concision (the proposed title is obviously more concise than the current title) and consistency (most city articles in WP are disambiguated only when disambiguation is necessary because of conflicts with other uses - the U.S. convention is a hairball anomaly that needs to go). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose per WP:USPLACE. I hate it, but individual city articles aren't the place to review it. See the current discussion at Talk:Manassas, Virginia#Requested move. I said there, and I'm completely serious about this, that if anyone's up for another challenge of WP:USPLACE, I'll come out with guns blazing; please just notify me. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- For better or for worse, change occurs in WP mostly bottom-up, not top-down. See User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Change_guideline_first. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate your opinion, but frankly, I don't think "persuad[ing] a consensus of those participating at each step" is going to work with such a massive base of applicable articles. And perhaps we may disagree on this, but I prefer consistent adherence to a flawed standard than inconsistency, especially on a big topic like naming conventions. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Although hundreds of articles are involved, we don't need to reach consensus on each. Just a few, at least 2 or 3, before we can change the guideline.
Did you read what I linked? It's not an opinion. It's a fact that the guidelines/conventions reflect actual usage, and we can't just change the guidelines to say something other than what is actual usage. However, we can invoke IAR here, if nothing else (there is much else to base this move on, as reflected in the proposal and my comment), and, if we do so successfully on a significant number of such articles, then we can change the guideline to reflect the change in usage.
In fact, that's how the exception for cities on the AP list was added to the guideline. First a few of those articles, like Chicago and I think San Francisco and Seattle, were renamed without updating the guideline. Then the guideline was update, then the moving of the rest commenced.
I see no reason to expect any other significant changes to the guideline to take place any differently. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Although hundreds of articles are involved, we don't need to reach consensus on each. Just a few, at least 2 or 3, before we can change the guideline.
- I appreciate your opinion, but frankly, I don't think "persuad[ing] a consensus of those participating at each step" is going to work with such a massive base of applicable articles. And perhaps we may disagree on this, but I prefer consistent adherence to a flawed standard than inconsistency, especially on a big topic like naming conventions. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I was in favor of WP:USPLACE, and I see no reasons for exceptions. My arguments were given in previous discussions. In fact, I would be in favor of tightening it to re-pre-disambiguate the cities on the AP list, with one or two exceptions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)