This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Support. The USPLACE guideline in which articles are "typically titled" with a comma is commonly ignored when there is obviously no need for disambiguation. Cities listed in the AP Stylebook are commonly exempted from the comma. Certainly we have New York City rather than New York, New York (using the comma), of course there are the examples of San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia and more. Thus we can see that USPLACE, in writing and in practice, allows for deviation from the typical comma-fied place name. If we look outside Wikipedia to see the general practice of news agencies, we see a majority of mentions of Carmel and Carmel-by-the-Sea lacking the comma followed by the state name. Here are some examples of non-California news stories that do not have the comma/state appended to the city name: , , , , , , . On the other hand, here are articles with the comma/state: ,  (from 1923). I think that a foolish insistence on US place name consistency is not constructive; it goes against concision, precision, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. We should use the shortest possible unambiguous name in common use. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't get that from reading the guideline; the sort of deviation allowed by USPLACE is not spelled out beyond the AP Stylebook and the word "typically" which allows for atypical cases. Certainly, "Carmel" is the more commonly used name locally (I should know, having lived nearby in the San Francisco Bay Area for three decades) but the above nomination is about the longer name. If "Carmel" was determined to be the preferred common name, the comma/state would become necessary for disambiguation, and by extension, the more formal comma/state use calls for the more formal name "Carmel-by-the-sea", bringing us full circle. The longer name used sometimes in print but very infrequently in conversation, requires no disambiguation at all. I think in this case we should stand by the "precise" and "concise" provisions of determining article titles, and settle the issue by taking only the unambiguous formal name. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose; U.S. cities are frequently referred to by appending the state name. That makes the comma-delimited version the WP:COMMONNAME. PowersT 14:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I note from their official website, that "Carmel-by-the-Sea" and just "Carmel" are both used. But it appears that they consider "Carmel-by-the-Sea" to be their "official" name. U.S. convention is to append the state name unless it's a large enough city that everyone knows it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - for the same reasons given 6 months ago higher up in this very same thread. Why or why is this being discussed again so soon? Smatprt (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
January 2011 is somewhat longer than "6 months ago." In the last RM you wrote, "Carmel-by-the-Sea is unique, so requires no disambiguation." You know that this proposal is not the same as what was proposed earlier? There is no logic in voting the same way again. Kauffner (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Why? I'll tell ya why. It's because certain users, technically known as "busybodies", just can't stand the idea of the state name being appended, and rather than doing something useful for the readers of wikipedia, they try and try again to deal with this horrible problem which, if left as-is, would surely bring about the destruction of wikipedia as we know it. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Needs comment for the sarcasm-impaired. Some would take that seriously.... — Arthur Rubin(talk) 08:03, 28 June 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to move.Cúchullaint/c 21:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:PRECISION, "over-precision should be avoided. ...However, when a topic's most commonly used name, as reflected in reliable sources, is ambiguous (can refer to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia), and the topic is not primary, that name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated. There are generally three methods employed to avoid using an ambiguous title: ... Comma-separated disambiguation. With place-names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, as in Windsor, Berkshire."
Oppose, for the myriad applicable reasons given during this same conversation last year, as well as those from last month. Seriously folks, threevotes on naming in the last year and a half? As was said by someone then - "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." And yes, Carmel-by-the-Sea is the official and correct name, well used in books and articles and the like. But it's a small town with a tiny population. To the common reader it could be in Oregon for all anyone knows. Thus "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California" is going to be a)absolutely correct, and b) most helpful to the reader (and isn't the reader the most important factor here?) Smatprt (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose – commonname notwithstanding, it is unusual and inappropriate to name an article on a city by the city's nickname instead of its real name. The consistent pattern of City, State serves our readers well, and I have never heard of it being considered as "over-precision". Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all, "Carmel, California" is not a nickname. It was the name of the settlement until relatively recently (1916?). Furthermore, even currently "Carmel" is still the long-recognized and more-common form of the City's formal full name (see WP:OFFICIALNAME). The short-form is demonstrably used by the municipality itself, and at all levels of government. Consider:
Support again. Even if we were to prefer the official name over the common name, the city uses "Carmel" on their (official) web site. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 23:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment This should really should be clarified - the city seal says "Carmel-by-the-Sea" and on the website home page, it distinctly says: "CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL CITY WEBSITE". In fact, the city's homepage  is quite clear about this, listing the address as: Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall, P.O. Box CC, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921. So can we please stop inferring otherwise? (Yes, the city abbreviates for marketing purposes, including web addresses. But they are very clear about their official and preferred name.) Smatprt (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
No, "Carmel, California" is not a mere "marketing" tool for "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California"; in fact nearly the opposite is closer to the truth... The settlement has been named Carmel/Carmelo since the 1600s, and the flowery "Carmel-by-the-Sea" moniker was first added to a particular neighborhood by 20th-century real estate developers. It was retained and officially adopted for that neighborhood when that neighborhood incorporated in 1916. --→gab24dotgrab← 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Question: Is the city hall on Carmel's Monte Verde Street responsible only for the "square mile" of Carmel-by-the-Sea — or for all of greater Carmel? If the former, then the article's title should probably be "Carmel-by-the-Sea"; if the latter, then presumably it could be "Carmel". In either case, it might be well to add "California", as there are many "Carmels" in the United States and around the world, including — in the Middle East — the original "Carmel", a couple of thousand years older than California's Carmel. Nihil novi (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The editor cites a document from one constituent community within Carmel, California (according to the state and county, the communities are Carmel Woods, Hatton Fields, Mission Fields, Mission Tract, Carmel Point, Carmel Hills, and Carmel-by-the-Sea); all of those neighborhoods are in Carmel, California, so it seems odd to abandon the 1600s name of the entire settlement and pretend that one neighborhood's relatively new name should supersede it. It would be like featuring a document showing the very real name Battery Park City and pretending that should be the name for the article discussing New York City. --→gab24dotgrab← 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Poor analogy, because "Carmel, California" is not an abbreviation of "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California". Instead, this RM notes that the name "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California" is overly precise since "Carmel-by-the-Sea" is a subset community within "Carmel, California" and the article actually discusses the entire town of Carmel, California rather than the one community within it. --→gab24dotgrab← 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
oppose Carmel-by-the-Sea is name of the town. Request a moratorium/salt on renames for at least 2 years after this; several rename discussions in 1 year is ridiculous.--KarlB (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I presume you mean the name of the city proper. But this article is not about (just) the city proper - it's about all of Carmel, and the title is misleading. See discussion below. The reason there is so much discussion is because there is just as much confusion. It needs to be sorted out. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
How's that? The entire lead is about the city proper. There's no hint of the article scope being "all of Carmel". Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
No hint? About half the article deals with the history and famous residents entire area (many actually lived outside "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California" but inside "Carmel, California").
Oppose. I believe that non-"by-the-Sea" Carmel is administered not by the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea but by the County of Monterey. If that is the case, I would support the above-proposed moratorium. Nihil novi (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly. The state and county have assigned the "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California" incorporated municipality to administer many public services for the surrounding unincorporated communities, all of which have "Carmel, California" addresses. In fact, most of the population and most of the residential acreage of "Carmel, California" is actually OUTSIDE the borders of "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California". --→gab24dotgrab← 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Support. There is general agreement that the short form is more common, and user gab-24DOT-grab makes a persuasive case that this usage is also more correct. According to the U.S. Postal Service, zip code 93923 (population 12,986) is within the city designation only of "Carmel". The area within zip code 93921 (population 3,057) may be properly referred to as either "Carmel" or "Carmel-by-the-Sea". The comma-California ending makes the title look like a postal designation, which is an additional reason to follow USPS usage. Finally, the current form amounts to double disambiguation, or least gives that appearance. The article needs to be moved to a title that looks more professional. Kauffner (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Carmel, California is USPS zip code 93923, which entirely surrounds the smaller 93921 Carmel-by-the-Sea, California zip code. Interestingly, when the U.S. Postal Service releases a new commemorative stamp, the stamp is issued from the local post office with the most significance to the stamp honoree; early in 2012, a new USPS stamp commemorating a local landmark was issued by the post office in Carmel, California (that is, NOT a post office in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California); see the official U.S. Postal Service web site. Again, the tiny Carmel-by-the-Sea, California zip code is entirely surrounded by the larger Carmel, California zip code of 93923 (and 93922, plus Carmel Valley is 93924). The zip code map also makes it obvious that many Carmel landmarks are OUTSIDE the 'Carmel-by-the-Sea' enclave but within greater Carmel (which is STILL "Carmel, California"). --→gab24dotgrab← 19:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Of all these "Carmel, California" communities, none but the last is actually inside the city limits of "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California". Just last year, a formal review entitled "City of Carmel‐by‐the‐Sea 2011 Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Review" explicitly stated, "While the City limits of Carmel‐by‐the‐Sea contain approximately 640 acres, or one square mile, the [area of] unincorporated [communities] contains approximately 850 acres. This relatively large Sphere is primarily developed as detached single family residences". In other words, the communities of "Carmel, California" total about 1500 residential-developed acres, and only about forty percent of Carmel's residential-developed acreage is actually "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California". It seems obvious that an article on a town cannot be named for just one of its many communities, even if that namesake community happens to be the only incorporated community among unincorporated communities. --→gab24dotgrab← 16:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The settlement alongside Carmel Bay and Carmel River was known as nothing but "Carmelo" and "Carmel" during the 1600s and the 1700s and the 1800s; there are dozens of historic references in print and none uses the name "Carmel by the Sea". Ironically, the poetic expression "Carmel by the Sea" has been around for thousands of years, from the Bible at Jeremiah 46:18. The flowery long name was first used by 20th-century developers of area real estate, and when the exclusive core-neighborhood incorporated in 1916, they differentiated themselves from the surrounding community by officially naming their tiny municipality with the longer name. Thus, the tiny 'Carmel-by-the-Sea' neighborhood is surrounded by the older and larger community of 'Carmel, California'. Extending the enclave name as though it referred to the entire community would be like renaming 'Plymouth, Massachusetts' as 'Plymouth Rock'. --→gab24dotgrab← 19:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that the tiny square mile municipality is "Carmel-by-the-Sea", but much of "Carmel" is unincorporated Monterey County. Which is the topic of this article? Just the municipality? Or the surrounding unincorporated "Carmel" as well? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The elephant in the room is that Carmel's beaches, parks, and pre-20th-century history are entirely OUTSIDE the tiny 'Carmel-by-the-Sea' neighborhood/municipality. Of course, these attractions are in Carmel, California (that is, the so-called 'greater Carmel area' actually is 'Carmel, California' ). I would not oppose an article split, but if the topic remains a single article then its title cannot remain intentionally inaccurate. --→gab24dotgrab← 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
"... Carmel's beaches, parks, and pre-20th-century history are entirely OUTSIDE the tiny 'Carmel-by-the-Sea' ..." This is not an accurate statement. Carmel Beach and most (if not all) the major parks are within the limits of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Smatprt (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see an objection on a technicality and a laughable counterclaim, so I'll qualify and elaborate.
The elephant in the room is that the vast majority of Carmel's beaches, parks, and pre-20th-century history are entirely OUTSIDE the tiny 'Carmel-by-the-Sea' neighborhood/municipality.
Technically, the 'Carmel-by-the-Sea' city limits do include Carmel Beach Park (including Carmel City Beach), Devendorf Park, Piccadilly Park, First Murphy Park, and Forest Hill Park for a GRAND TOTAL of maybe 60 acres of beaches and parks in the City of "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California". But that 60-acre TOTAL of several scattered parcels is dwarfed by the 300-acre 'Carmel River State Beach' (which is outside "Carmel-by-the-Sea" but inside "Carmel") and also by Point Lobos State Natural Reserve's 550 acres of Carmel Bay coastland (often described as "Carmel, California" but entirely OUTSIDE "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California"). And of course the historic Carmel Mission is inside "Carmel, California" but outside "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California". --→gab24dotgrab← 16:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm with you on the general argument that Carmel > Carmel-by-the-Sea, but I think the claim that Point Lobos or anything south of the Carmel River is part of Carmel is a stretch, unless maybe you're just going by the postal designation. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
In a related subthread, I noted the formal review entitled "City of Carmel‐by‐the‐Sea 2011 Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Review", which describes the fact that Carmel, California has multiple constituent "communities" (of which Carmel-by-the-Sea is one) and that the state and county have assigned the incorporated "City of Carmel-by-the-Sea" to administer many public services for the City's "Sphere of Influence": the unincorporated communities which are also part of "Carmel, California" (yes, that is how addresses in all those communities are addressed). The review notes: "If Carmel‐by‐the‐Sea annexed all of the Sphere of Influence, the City would more than double its existing size and population. ...Included in the Sphere of Influence are the unincorporated communities of Carmel Woods, Hatton Fields, Mission Fields, Carmel Point, and the beach area immediately north of Carmel Beach. ...the City of Carmel‐by‐the‐Sea has no plans to request a change in its Sphere of Influence". So, the fact remains that the term "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California" can only be applied to less than half the area and/or less than half the population of "Carmel, California". The article should abandon the overly precise name and move to the WP:COMMONNAME. --→gab24dotgrab← 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"the fact remains that the term "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California" can only be applied to less than half the area and/or less than half the population of "Carmel, California"." Right, and that's a more specific way of stating the point about which we agree: "Carmel > Carmel-by-the-Sea". Or, if you prefer, "Carmel > Carmel-by-the-Sea * 2".
My objection is to including Pt. Lobos or anything south of the Carmel River as being part of Carmel. Nothing in the "Sphere of Influence" list is south of the river. For example, both Carmel Meadows and Carmel Highlands are south of the river and have Carmel in their names, but are not considered party of Carmel. Neither is Carmel Valley, which is of course to the east. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kind of agree, but based on defined "Sphere of Influence" rather than the river; see my comments below. --→gab24dotgrab← 16:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Please, User:24dot, try not to be so condescending. Especially when your facts are skewed. Your "Ah, I see an objection on a technicality and a laughable counterclaim..." was uncalled for. You stated that Carmel's beaches, parks, and pre-20th-century history are entirely OUTSIDE the tiny 'Carmel-by-the-Sea. Now you admit that no fewer than 5 parks (and you missed at least one that I am aware of) and over 60 acres of beaches and parkland are actually IN the city limits. That's not a technicality, thats a fact. To then call the clarification "laughable" is truly odd. Especially followed by the suggestion that Pt. Lobos State Reserve and the Carmel River State Beach are part of "Carmel". They are California State Parks, owned and operated by the State of California, with support services by Monterey County (in an emergency, Carmel Police do NOT show up). These parks are not "in" Carmel or any of the bedroom communities you have mentioned. Smatprt (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The addresses of the major parks in Carmel, California are as follows:
Carmel River State Beach; Carmelo Street; Carmel, California 93923
Point Lobos State Natural Reserve; Route 1; Carmel, California 93923; or
Point Lobos State Natural Reserve; Highway 1 & Riley Ranch Road; Carmel, California 93923
Again, the major parks of "Carmel, California" are outside "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California"; I'd earlier considered 'Carmel City Beach' (part of 'Carmel Beach Park') to be outside the city limits because technically the beach itself mostly is outside, but that's a distinction unworthy of its distraction. --→gab24dotgrab← 14:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
who suggested that either State Park is within the city boundries??? Please stop throwing red herrings into this conversation. I also see that you are changing your wording are now referring to "major parks". Its hard to have a conversation when you keep moving the goalposts. Smatprt (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, it was noted above by user:24dot that "the state and county have assigned the incorporated "City of Carmel-by-the-Sea" to administer many public services for the City's "Sphere of Influence"". Well, that may be in print somewhere, but actually owning a house in "Carmel Woods", I can assure you (and its completely verifiable) that as far as services go: police calls are taken by Monterey County Sheriffs; the trash is administered by a Monterey company, fire and ambulance come from the City of Monterey or CalFire; and the only water comes from Cal-Am. I am actually at a loss as to naming one single "service" that the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea provides outside the official city limits. Smatprt (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW - I, too, would not oppose an article split. It was suggested above but no one has started the process. In the meantime, I would suggest having "Sphere of Influence" a section in the current article. As noted above, it is an official term, and would help to clarify the relationship that the city has with its adjacent bedroom communities. Smatprt (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It would seem that the editor concedes that this article does/should/will discuss the entire multi-neighborhood town of "Carmel, California" rather than the one incorporated neighborhood of "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California" which is entirely within Carmel. Regardless of whether a future article (specific to the Biblical-named, 640-acre neighborhood) is or is not eventually created, it seems plain that this article should not remain inaccurately named but should be moved to "Carmel, California". --→gab24dotgrab← 14:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. (And wow, for a relatively minor matter such as this, you sure seem to be fired up.) To be absolutely clear, I support leaving the article named "Carmel-by-the-Sea", the city's official name, and the primary topic of this article. I also support adding a section called "Sphere of Influence", to mention the (primarily) non-notable bedroom communities adjacent to the city. Smatprt (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I now favor (rather than "would tolerate") separate articles, if we can agree on some ideas I've suggested further down in this thread... --→gab24dotgrab← 16:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this discussion is way to similar to that about Las Vegas. Having two articles about the small area known as Carmel would be silly, and certainly would not serve our readers. It's better to cover the Carmel area including the small Carmel-by-the-Sea municipality in one article that clearly explains the difference. But then the topic of that article is Carmel, and a sub-topic incorporated in the article is Carmel-by-the-Sea. Thus the title should be Carmel (disambiguated to Carmel, California), not Carmel-by-the-Sea, which is the title of a sub-topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I see where you are going, but here is my thinking. The City of "Carmel-by-the-Sea" is what the great majority of this article is about. Give it another read with this in mind. It (the city) is notable on many fronts. A quick glance at the lead spells it out pretty plainly. The city's primary attractions, Carmel Beach and the 3 historic cultual centers, are all notable, and are all contained within the city limits. These bedroom communities, on the other hand, have very little notable about them, with the exception, of course, of the mission, which already has its own article. (Also there are plenty of California missions that are not situated in their 'downtowns', but bear the namesake of the area they are in.) Having said all this, and after another perusal of the article, it seems to me that the primary topic of the article is, indeed, the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea. This topic is repeated over and over throughout the article. The 'sphere of influence' is a non-notable subtopic. Nothing more. Smatprt (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
And I completely agree with you about Pt. Lobos. I also extend that to any State Parks that border the area. Smatprt (talk)
As I said today above, I now favor (rather than "would tolerate") separate articles (one article on the municipal entity and a separate article on the entire area), if we can move toward:
Any thoughts? If things are moving in this suggested direction, there seems little reason to keep this WP:RM open much longer. It will be more than a week before I can write the new article 'Carmel, California', but it would be my pleasure to do so and a very likely candidate for a nice WP:DYK featurette at completion.--→gab24dotgrab← 16:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Sounds confusing and redundant. I still think the entire topic could be dealt with much better for our readers under one article entitled Carmel, California. I suggest expanding this article to that article, including the following sections, arranged approximately as follows:
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (new)
Unusual laws (existing)
Carmel-by-the-Sea Sphere of Influence (existing)
Any others (new)
Arts and culture (existing)
Planning and environmental factors (existing)
Marine protected areas (existing)
Notable residents (existing)
If that article is too long, then split it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I would not oppose a combined article discussing all the communities and the area in general if such an article was properly titled (that is, as 'Carmel, California'). --→gab24dotgrab← 19:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It's kind of a Catch 22. I suggest we expand the article first, then discuss whether to rename or split. But first let's see how others feel about expanding the scope of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The section on "Communities" must be done anyway, so preliminarily that can be at this article, such as:
I will be away for most of the next week; editors should not construe as disinterest my likely lack of participation during the coming week. --→gab24dotgrab← 20:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I recommmend this article follow the layout of the well-known WP:USCITY guideline. Thousands of other US City articles already follow it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
I have reverted the deletion of the Buddy Image. I believe this deletion is the continuation of a personal vendetta by the deleter. I would ask for immediate dispute resolution if this becomes conflict continues. RespectfullySmatprt (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because we had an issue before does not negate the fact that you have a conflict of interest in regards to placing this image on this page. It is promotional in that you are directly connected to the subject. It is a recorded fact at ANI archives. Just beacause you have requested I not use your real name, does not mean I cannot raise the COI issue here. Our policies on COI have changed and are stricter with regards to direct editing of content you have a direct connection to. I have been going out of my way to work with you in good faith, but you continue to edit war and argue at almost every turn.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)