Talk:Monterey, California/Archives/2019

This is an archive of past discussions about Monterey, 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.

San Andreas Fault

Monterey is NOT 2 miles west of the San Andreas Fault... it is many, many miles east. Does anyone have the correct info?

26 miles east Anlace 05:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Better late than never - here's a map from the USGS with Monterey and the local faults: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/ca/mon.html. Looks like it's mostly in the "Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault Zone", and is a fair ways west of the San Andreas. Hope that helps. --209.233.230.181 23:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Monterey Seal.jpg

Image:Monterey Seal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Otter images

A funny thing about that picture of the otters. They are in a position that shows clearly that they are disturbed by the photographer......which is a violation of federal habitat laws. Should this image remain. It may lead people to attempt the same thing.--Amadscientist 08:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

TED Conference

Monterey hosts the TED (conference). I guess that should be mentioned in the article as the conference is becoming quite popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.235.191 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Toponymy (not etymology)

Someone just modified the article to contain a section on etymology. I think toponymy would be a better entry, as long as someone doesn't just guess at the answer and put it in as fact. So here is a more reasoned guess (and that is why I am placing this on the talk page): my understanding is that Monterey was named by explorer Sebastián Vizcaíno in honor of the Viceroy of New Spain, Gaspar de Zúñiga y Acevedo, Count of Monterrey, who had commissioned Vizcaíno's expedition in 1601 to locate safe harbors along the coast of Alta California. However, other than my high school history class, I don't have a source to cite this with. Does anybody else have a source? Highspeed (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could help with this, but I have no idea where the name came from. I just want to say I agree that we should explain where the name came from. I just looked up that (now deleted) etymology section and I agree that it wasn't adequate. All it said was that Monterey means "mountain of the king. I want to know how the name was chosen. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

bad pictures

The main picture is too dark. Lots of the other pictures are pretty bad too. The backside of Cannery Row? Ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.243.247 (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bold edits reverted as unconstructive and possible Wikistalking. No consensus for change. Edits caused formating disruption. Admin Notified.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Was there consensus when the older (better) photos were changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.243.247 (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if an IP user who has been making changes to my images on wikipedia as a vendetta for a deletion nomination is editing in good faith. The wonderful image of the beach simply is not representative of the Monterey city skyline.

All changes I have made here were made with consensus. Talk page was utilised and change was not challenged. You made a bold change and I have reverted, the burden of proof falls on me as the reverter. Changes were not in good faith. IP user has also reverted controversial images from 3RR and edit warring situation across articles and talk page. I cannot assume good faith with an unregistered IP user engaged in vendetta editing--Amadscientist (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

While I am not pleased with this IP user's history, I am going to attempt to AGF. The lead image in the info box is taken at dusk over fisherman's warf.

I agree with the IP user that the image is dark. I also agree that the image is of a tourist attraction that may not represent the city well for locals.

Ideally we want a skyline image of a part of the city that is either recognizable or best represents the city in general. As a beach town in California the water is a good representation of the city. Perhaps an image from the top of the hills looking down over the homes and skyline towards the water or something similar to the beach image that was placed by the IP user but maybe a little closer into the actual city. As an unregistered user it is not possible for you to upload an image, but you can participate in the consensus on images here in good faith.

So in order not to "bite the newbie", why don't you gallery your choices of images from commons or here on wiki on the talk page and I will upload some images and do the same thing. We can discuss the images and let others join the consensus. If we work together in a civil manner we will not scare off other contributors who may fear an edit war brewing.

Place the images inbetween the bracketed gallery code;

<gallery>
Image:Sculpture fountain Monterey.JPG|Fountan sculpture near Cannery Row, [[Monterey, California]]
Image:Beach walk.JPG|Beach walkway along Monterey Bay coastline.
</gallery>

and it will look like this;

Fountain sculpture near Cannery Row, Monterey, California
Beach walkway along Monterey Bay coastline.

--Amadscientist (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think i see what is going on. You took the pictures that I deleted, so now I understand your being upset. I also see from your user page that the reason you are here is to promote your own photos. So I think you have a conflict. I also looked at the talk page and I don't see any consesus for the changes you made. Is there another page where this discussion took place. The main image, which you admit is dark and does not fit the guidlines, I replaced with a picture of Monterey Beach, in the city of Monterey. Having lived on the Peninsula for a long time, I can tell you that we are lucky not to have a typical city skyline. Our skyline is green! You also changed the picture of the aquarium jelly fish to a night shot of Cannery Row nightlife that does not really show any nightlife, just some traffic. Since you took both photos yourself, maybe someone who is not connected so personally should be leading this discussion. It just does not seem right for you to be calling the shots and making the final decision.

Also I see that there was no discussion at all about your removal of the Aquarium picture under the attractions section. You just did it. Why did you tell me there was consensus? I really don't appreciate being lied to. I changed both images, but have left the photo of the backside of Cannery Row, even though I don't think there is anything worthy in that particular shot. Surely there are better photos available, even in your own collection? If you disagree, can you explain why you think that shot is such high quality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.243.247 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things. First there is no conflict of interest in editors who upload original work first published to Wikimedia commons and then linked to Wikipedia when discussing changes to their images. These images are released through wiki to the general public. Attribution is part of the copyleft and is not intended to promote but to credit original copyright holder. I am an amateur photographer, and while I do not benefit from the photos or images uploaded to wiki I openly enjoy seeing their use.

I also openly admit that I uploaded the Cannery Row image on two articles, however the use has gained consensus to be used and has not been disputed until now with an obvious vendetta using an excuse copied from a different situation from another article.

Second, the Cannery Row image has consensus in the general community having been used by several other editors on different articles. This is due to suggestions made by editors who maintain pages specifically to suggest images they locate to be used on suggested articles. I may well have placed the image on this page from a suggestion of that type as the image upload page will show links to the page mentioned.

Several of my images have been used in this manner, the last of which I saw being suggested to be placed on the article it was originally created for. Consensus on that page had removed the image some time ago, but replaced it with an image that seemed less illustrative to other editors and was also redundant with another similar image in the body of article.

Consensus is the decision of all editors to agree on or live with an edit. There is no consensus for your changes which have been reverted by another editor as well.

A good faith attempt has been made to work with you and allow a discussion of disputed image. While I agree the image is dark and of a tourist attraction, that does not mean I agree it should be replaced. Consensus must be gained.

I would suggest looking at the info box image at the Monterrey article. It to is dark. As for being a tourist attraction, that may be what the city is best known for. Discuss, behave and assume good faith.

As for the aquarium image, consensus was gained on that sometime ago. Adding it back was reverted as part of consensus. You added the image and I have reverted it and explained why. That is how it works. Defend the use of the image without disrupting the page. Consensus can change, understand the process and guidelines, work in good faith and without disruption and you will be on firmer footing in this discussion. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as your accusation that I am here just to promote my work based on my userpage at Wikicommons, I just created that page after being a member of Commons for a number of years. Inaccurate and unfounded accusations of lieing and self promotion are incivil.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I say you lied because you keep mentioning that all these photos were discussed and accepted when they really were not. I asked if the discussion took place on another page and you did not answer, leading me to believe that there was no actual discussion. If I am wrong, then I apologize, but if not, then you have been lying. As far as I can tell you are a baby and a bully. And the fact is that you keep replacing perfectly good pictures with ones you took yourself. 71.149.243.247 (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not a discussion. A discussion can form consensus. Silence is consensus as well. If an image is placed and no one objects, that is consensus. Your original changes were reverted because it went against the articles current consensus by more than one person. Accusations of lieing and bullying, personal atacks and name calling cross a line from incivility to harrassment. Failure to work in good faith and within guidelines by continuing to edit war. Refusal to work together or find compromise. I have no choice but to take this to ANI.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh - and regarding the lead photo, you admit it is too dark and does not even fit within the rules, so why do you keep reverting? The Monterey Beach Scene and Skyline seem to fit the rules perfectly. Besides, the Wharf photo is too dark and could be a commercial wharf anywhere. You can't even tell it is the wharf! About the Aquarium shot which you keep replaceing with a traffic picture, again, the Aquarium has had a major impact on Monterey and the picture is eye-catching and represents both Monterey and the Aquarium. Just what does your traffic shot represent? I admit, its a pretty interesting photo, but to represent nightlife on Cannery Row? What nightlife...tailights?71.149.243.247 (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd weigh in here. An image of jellyfish seems very out of place. If it were a wide shot that captured the fact that this is an aquarium, that would be one thing, but just floating in the middle of an article on a city it seems most odd — jarring almost. While I might agree that the Cannery Row pic might be more illustrative than it is, between the two (if those are the choices) it is by far the more appropriate. Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded another photo released to Sharealike 3.0 on Wikimedia Commons. Closer shot of the wharf makes it more recognisable and an improved brightness and contrast.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about pictures being replaced with other images taken by one of the involved editors):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Monterey, California and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Note that another editor has contributed since the request was raised, making this dispute unsuited for a third opinion. I shall however highlight that the matter of possible conflict of interest has been sufficiently addressed by discussion and the remaining issue of picture quality is one of artistic merit or subjective quality and not suitable for an objective third opinion unless a specific interpretation of the guidance of WP:Image is under debate. Sorry that WP:3O is not suitable on this occasion, though you may find WikiProject Photography helpful if the matter does not naturally reach resolution locally.—Ash (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Image size

I kinda like the reduction on the images with this article. It somehow kind of works well with the layout and the information. Expansion of the article would even increase space more for additional image placement.

To me cities require illustration. California cities can be unique or in some instances have much in common with other cities in other areas of the world. A good lengthy article of a California city can have many images and pass GA and even FA. I encourage users to use additional space from image reduction to place images they may feel also illustrate the city well.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was looking through Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and was surpirsed at the many different options that I don't think I have ever seen before. I admit I am not knowledgeable about the different ways one can use images on wiki. This page is great!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rating Importance=High

The reason the article is rated as High and not top is because, while a historic city, may of the things that gave it the notability, where removed very early. Case in point. Founded as a Mission settlement, but Mission was removed to another location within one year. Capital of the State of California, but only for a short time. Cities like Sacramento and Carmel-by-the-Sea have links to Monterey, but are now the cities with that notable history being replaced within those city boarders.

I think a rating of High here is justified. I don't think I rated the page, but confess that I can't remember.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent Deletions of Photos and other information

I added some great shots from the Commons, including a shot of the aquarium under Attractions, a shot of Steinbeck under Arts, and a lead photo that shows the skyline and beach. I moved the dark wharf shot down to attractions, even though the image is not representative of either the wharf of the city and does not conform to the requirement that an image be recognizable (which it isn't - it could be just about any building at twilight that sits on the water). I also added some info, such as Steinbeck's writing of "Of Mice and Men", and some other minor edits. ALL of these were deleted 3 times by Amadscientist, apparently because he/she is being overly protective of his own image, which he/she is insisting stay in the lead location (in spite of its obvious faults). I believe ownership issues are at play, as he/she is deleting all the edits (even the minor ones) and is deleting any photograph that he/she didn't take. There is no valid reason for all these deletions (and no reason is being given on a case by case basis). Can an administrator intervene here? 75.54.204.224 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are my observations:

Your first change took the Colton Hall image from a section where it was discussed to a section where it wasn't mentioned. The backside of the aquarium was a fine addition.

Agreed. I will make the changes accordingly. 75.54.204.224 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The addition of photos should be done in within MOS to keep format from breaking up and text from being squished between images. I have no objection to the image replacing the other image of the Aquarium, just keep size to where it was before with no thumbnail size.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your second edit put some better text into the Colton Hall image, which is fine, but it was still too far from where it was mentioned in the article.

Agreed. I will keep images close to the appropriate text.

Text in image is a good addition.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your third change took out some promotional text about scuba classes, supported by a reference hosted at gocalifornia.about.com—this is okay. You replaced this dicey material with assertions that the popularity of San Carlos Beach fishing, kayaking and scuba diving has been increasing because of this and that. Your assertions are not backed up by the www.seemonterey.com reference supplied. Not good. You added some unsupported text about Cannery Row being a tourist attraction: not good.

I understand. However, the stuff about Cannery Row being a tourist attraction was already in the lead. I'll try and clean that up while keeping the appropriate reference intact.

Claims should generaly be accompannied by inline citations if they are extraordinary in anyway. Use of reliable sources that are acceptable to MOS a must.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes - if they are extraordinary. Seriously - is stating that Cannery Row or Fisherman's wharf are tourist attractions "extraordinary claims"? Re.gardless, I have left the old verbiage intact in this section

Your fourth change added some text which crowed about the Custom House being #1. The text is correct, but some context would be good, as well as one or two wikilinks.

Agreed. I'll try and add context and some links.

This seemed OK to me and am nuetral about this change.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your fifth change was fairly neutral... a little tweak to descriptions of nearby attractions, a section I think should be deleted entirely.

I won't delete the section, but if you want to, that's your call. For my part, I think it merits inclusion.

Nuetral on this. Section could go or stay. I leave that up to Binksternet.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your sixth change added that fisherman's cabin photo with some blond kid in the shot. What a lousy image!

Agree that the kid should go. I merely tried to supply a photo that corresponded to the text that read ("photo below"). Apparently, it was the original photo when that text was created.

The same discussion about the kid took place as well and a question about the privacy and use of underaged living persons obviously being photographed as partof the image on purpose......plus it was a lousy shot.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to this "discussion". It might help us all to see the history of some of these photo decisions.

Your seventh change was the swapping of the nighttime wharf photo in the infobox with the beach photo, and you kept the wharf shot. This is a high-visibility difference, and one I thought was okay. I have never thought that night photos were the best choice for this article, unless accompanying text about nightlife.

Agreed.

I like Binksternet's eplanation of his objection to the nightlife image. I disagree, but can live with the objection as part of consensus.....I just really do not like the beach image that keeps replacing it. I don't care if one of my images is used or not, but I do object to the beach shot as not representing the article or the city well. It's not the best shot at Commons and it's not my fault I uploaded a large quanity of images of this subject so if you can find one that is good enough for all to live with that is NOT one of mine then that would be great. However, if there is an objection to an image that I uploaded to the article and it is not replaced with one i can live with replacing it....then consensus is not gained and the burden of proof for the change is on the one who makes the change. We are all agreed the main image can be replaced.....that is not consensus to add any image you want. We all must agree on it. That is not an ownership issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll need to back-up that statement with a direct quote from poicy. To say that "all" must agree to any change is simply not true. Can you imagine these articles actually progressing if that were the case? Please don't make up policy. It is not helpful.75.54.204.224 (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your eighth change moved a paragraph about the Custom House and added promotional text about tourism, eateries and, incomprehensibly, whale watching. Too gung ho promotional.

Well...whale watching trips are precisely what is offered and since the wharf is certainly a tourist attraction, and since duplicate language describing Cannery Row was already in the article, I didn't think the addition was controversial. I still don't, but will defer to you on this.

I have to agree with Binksternet on this one. I'm not too keen on overly promotional material.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

But you have no problem with Cannery Row being described that way in the previous version??75.54.204.224 (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your ninth change replaced the color Custom House image with a vintage one. That's okay by me. You also moved images around but they are still not near text which discusses them, except the lousy one with the blond kid. o_O

Agreed. A few vintage shots in the history section is appropriate.

I like the vintage shots, but keep the default size please. Images were all resized recently and I really liked the way that turned out. Also, please remeber to stagger your images from left to right and only add images where there is appropriate room for such. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your tenth change moved images around and deleted unneeded text about where they were. Important ones are still not near their article mentions.

Agreed.

Images are sometims hard to deal with. If the formating issue is difficult just add the images where you think they best fit and be prepared to see them get tweeked for formatting issues. MOS states that all images must be illustrate a portion of the text and be in the section mentioned and as close to the prose as possible. When things of this nature occure, most people simply revert.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your eleventh change put a nighttime Cannery Row photo near the Cannery Row tourism text (good!), brought the Colton Hall image to its mention in the text (good!), and the Customs House image near it article prose mention (all good!) but you added an image of the Presidio Chapel up in history when it is mentioned in attractions.

thanks. I'm glad to get a few "goods"! I think the Presidio Chapel actually belongs in the history section. Perhaps move the text there?

Move the images unless the prose is really in a bad place.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your twelfth change was a minor bit of image text tweaking.

Agreed.

Minor change.

Your thirteenth through fifteenth changes went against the recommendations at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline and pushed the Arts, Media and Education sections above geography. Not good. You asserted that Steinbeck was the most notable artist—no source! You added images of Steinbeck and Del Monte Hotel. Adding MMA was okay but I would have deleted that old bit about the Maritime History Museum, an organization unrelated to Arts.

I did not assert Steinbeck was the most notable. That language was already there. But you are right, it should have a reference. I added the photo and his writing of "Of Mice And Men". Regarding the order of the section, I have no problem with what you propose (although the guidelines do say that the sections can go in any order). For me it just looked odd that the attractions section was above geography, then resumed with arts, etc (more attractions, really), but section order is the least of my concerns.

MOS does have a set way to establish sections for articles as well as projects. I strongly agree with everything Binksternet stated here.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was at this point in your progression that other editors including Amadscientist and myself noticed all of your work and reverted it whole. There were too many unsuitable changes mixed in with the suitable. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll go through the list and answer above, then make the changes you agreed were suitable, as well as the corrections you recommended. Thanks! 75.54.204.224 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is a discussion not a settlement. I am reverting everything untill consensus is gained. Some edits may well be worth keeping but just making them because one other member listed their concerns does not settle this at all. The list made is a great start but not the end.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have contributed to the discussion and will return anything that I see all envolved now agree on.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok - lets test your statement. I disagree with moving the snow shot from the Climate section. Since I do not agree, does that mean the image stays for all time?75.54.204.224 (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You just being difficult. This is an article about the city of Monterey not the county or city of Seaside. You illustrate you inability to work in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC) <=In general, I think of Cannery Row as a tourist trap rather than an attraction. It was once an interesting part of Monterey's history but is now just another place to buy candy and knick-knacks. Only the fisherman's shacks etc along the Row have the requisite historical connection. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Cannery Row was originaly Ocean Ave. It was renamed as a Tourist attraction. I hate the term Tourist trap....even if it is suitable....I don't know why really....anyway, the site is now very much filled with high Diamond rated hotels as much as candy and trinket shops along with several historic sites of importance today like the Pacific Biologics Lab as well as a number of other structures that still have the original shops. I would say it's as much a tourist attraction or tourist trap as The wharf in SF.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I substituted the image of Stienbeck with one of Ariss. Stienbeck actualy lived in Pacific Grove not Monterey, however his contribution to the city is enough to include a section in the arts area and after an expansion an image should be included, but....there may be something wrong with the lisence on the image that was used. It's a good image and if it can be varified as PD could replace the awful pic on the steinbeck article as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Recent reversions to this page (diff) appear to be reversions of similar edits. Three such reversions within 24 hours is considered edit warring. If the current discussion here does not resolve the issue please consider the advice at WP:BRD or the options described at dispute resolution before making similar reversions.—Ash (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Main image

Time to gain consensus on a new main image, however....this one;

Is not the Monterey Beach. It's Seaside. Read the description. I stayed in Seaside and can confirm it but if you want I can provide coordinates.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Image was from a Commons gallery not from the Monterey category. It's actual category is California beaches and is titled incorrectly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been there: that's an image from Seaside, California looking southward along the beach toward Monterery. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've beeen there too. The city beach extends along the shore and the structures and hillsides in the photo are all in Monterey. The view may be from slightly north, but that's like saying the city view of New York or San Francisco are not valid because they are taken from the water! It's often challenging (or sometimes impossible) to take a picture of a city from within a city!75.54.204.224 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not in the city of Monterey and only shows a small portion of the city and neihboring area. It's actualy in Sandcity according to Google earth. It is not a good shot of the City of Monterey skyline.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If the shot was more to the right showing the main portion of the city, but this is a shot of Del Monte beach, that is the subject not the City of Monterey or it would be a major portion of the image.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some other images to consider;

San Carlos Beach on Cannery Row
The city hills from the bay
The wharf
The Marina

These are really the best shots right now for a main image. If these don't thrill anyone....make a suggestion of what we would like to see and perhaps an image can simply be shot? I am not often in town, if no one else has a good enough camera I would have to wait untill my next trip, or ask a family member who travels there more often.

I have a great love for this city and have since I was very young, I noticed a few years back that Wikicommons did not have many images so I have published many images in that category at commons. If we try to find an image just because it is not one I took....then there is another agenda at hand, sorry, but it's true. Members should not have to defend their passionate contributions just because another editor has decided to seek a vendetta or accuse another of ownership. The answer is simple. Take a picture and upload it to commons. It can't be that difficult and digital cameras are not that expensive. You can buy a disposable and have the picture developed along with or just as, a jpeg on disk..--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC) --Amadscientist (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just contact the chamber of commerce and request a shot? Anyhow, the present one is not a photo of Sand City or Seaside. It's taken from the northern boundry of Monterey and Seaside, looking towards Monterey Beach, the Monterey shoreline and the Monterey skyline. 75.54.204.224 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm from the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau. We're the official tourism organization for the city of Monterey and Monterey County. (We're not exactly the chamber of commerce, but I think we have more photos.) I also volunteer with Historic Monterey. I would be happy to provide a photo - although I will say from my perspective that the photos labeled "The city hills from the bay" and "Fishermans Wharf and Marina" are both excellent and very representative of our town. Rednikki (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys - actually you are all a little wrong and a little right. The photo in question was taken from a part of Monterey State Beach, technically State Park property. More to the question, though - the building at the extreme left (with the flagpole) is the Monterey Beach Resort, located at 2600 Sand Dunes Drive Monterey, CA, 93940. The next set of buildings is the Ocean Harbor House complex on Del Monte Beach, in the city of Monterey, as well. Finally, the hillsides are a part of old Monterey that look down towards the water (here we call it Carmel hill, as it is the hill you climb to go over to Carmel). So the entire photo is indeed of Monterey, but from the viewpoint of the state parks beach front. The sand dunes in the foreground are part of the California State Parks system, and are directly adjacent to all three cities you are discussing - Monterey, Seaside and Sand City. I hope that helps. Also - as per the above suggestion, if I have some extra time this week, I can go take some shots for you to look at. What precisely are you looking for? Smatprt (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The image has been clearly identyfied as not being within the city limits and of very little of the actual city. I don't know why th hotel shows a Monterey address, but that is not the issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. The hotel is within the city limits of Monterey. (It is my job to know these things.) The border between Monterey and Seaside follows Highway One at that point. Anything south and west of Highway One is Monterey, anything north and east of Highway One is Seaside. (Once you cross Del Monte, that changes - but that is not pertinent to this argument.) Rednikki (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey - I'm just letting you know the facts. I'm sorry that you refuse to even acknowledge them.Smatprt (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And here are a few more that could be used in the article somewhere. I'll post some more if I can get out with my camera.Smatprt (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Monterey Harbor and Wharf
Downtown Monterey & Harbor
Monterey Skyline
Monterey Commercial Wharf
Fisherman's Wharf and Marina
Fisherman's Wharf

To continue discussion on the lead image - just so you all are clear - the one that keeps being reverted is indeed of Monterey. From the extreme left with the Hotel to the extreme right (no dissent on that point, I assume). The sand at the extreme front is actually State Park property and is in no "official" city. You say that the photo has been "clearly identified" as not being within the city. Can you be more clear on that, because you appear to be mistaken. In any case, I will be happy to take you up on your request for someone to go shoot a picture. What do you have in mind? Smatprt (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If you really want to take a picture, you should have the right to make the artictic desicions as to what to shoot. We are all aware that the city itself does not need to be the focus of the image, the beach in the city, or a shot that you feel encompasses the feel of the city best. Choose what you feel are your best works, load them to commons and gallery them here to gain consensus. I don't know about others but if you would try to really take a picture that was obviously of the city as the center focus or something within the city and give us at least three images to choose fro......that kind of effort would deserve choosing from your selection from my part. In other words....bring three pictures and if they are legitimate efforts (like not the same shots consensus was going against, night shots or a distant shot from Sand City) and I'll agree to choose my part of consensus from your efforts.

Now....can I ask why The Monterey Pop festival is mention in the music section first when chronologically....it came after? I only ask, because I have a reference that states the organisers were influenced by the Jazz festival, so it would make more since to that referenced claim if I edited that section again when I add the prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Of the two images you suggested I like the closer shot of the old canneries from the water. I had almost suggested that but thought it was too close and of too specific a section of town......but then on the other hand it really does have a good feel of the city.....but I still think you should take a few shots to choose from. Something totly fresh, new and specificaly for the article that you will take time to produce will get my attention and as I said I would commit to backing a new image that you specificaly take if you give us a few options to decide from. Thanks. Mark--Amadscientist (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, since you like the closer shot of the old buildings, shall we go ahead and put it in for the near future? I agree with you that it does have a good feel for the city, and at least it addresses Binksternet's issue of avoiding use of a night shot.Smatprt (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use

An image of the Monterey Pop Festival would be nice but, whoever uploaded the Who image under fair use didn't provide a rational (and may be deleted on that basis) and its use on this page violates Wiki Fair Use policy. The image may only be used once. Any additional uses on wiki or elsewhere may constitute a violation of applicable copyright law. (I think that's what the policy says) anyway...the reason for use here is a little weak since there is nothing in the image to link it to the city or the festival.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the actual guideline: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." And the article does indeed state that the Who performed at the 1967 event. I'll add that to the caption if you like. Anyhow, it's one- article minimum - not maximum. Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Historic information conlict

The state website shows the Montery theatre as beginning in 1850, but the article here says shows began in 1848. Both websites for the Monterey theatre and the Eagle theatre in Sacramento claim to be California's first theatre with Sacramento claiming to be the first permanent theatre opening in October of 1849. By the information and chonological dating, the Eagle Theatre still seems to be the first theatre in California. Is there a reliable reference that can substantiate this claim. Maybe we can clear up this slight historic problem and be ahead of the curb on this subject. If dating is correct in this article could mention the distinction between this claim, the Sacramento claim and I think there is one other claim as the first theatre in California somewhere else.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick look into this seems to show that the Monterey theatrs was the first establishment in California to use a stage with performers of ameture status as well as just soldiers from nearby who used it for some shows as well. I did notice that the dates are still somewhat blurry as I found one book reference claiming the first ameture show in Monterey as 1847. The first permanent strucure built as a theatre and produced the first profesional production was the Eagle Theatre in Sac. The claim from San Francisco is very old and does not appear to have any validaty from a dating of 1850.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote form the State website (probably a more reliable source on this than most) is "The building in which the first paid public dramatic entertainment in California" - I incorporated that language into the article. The source is certainly reliable and we need to depend on that. What would be needed now would be a source that specifically says the state reference is incorrect. Competing statements from the theaters themselves (or sources that merely parrot those statements) are not as reliable as independent sources like the State of California itself, which, presumably, has done its homework. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In Episode 2001 of "California's Gold" on PBS, Huell Howser declared the Monterey theater to be California's "first first theater." He calls the Sacramento theater "California's second first theater." The difference: the Monterey building was built as a rooming house and hosted theatrical productions that people paid to see; the Sacramento structure was the first structure in California purpose-built as a theater. ^[1] Rednikki (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/archive/index.jsp?pgmid=2373&date=20050101

Ariss Photo

Could you check into the legal use of this photo? Angelo may own the picture, but as you know, that does not give him the right to authorize its use. And if he has, has he submitted a letter to Wikipedia with his authorization? Any idea who actually took it and owns the copyright? Thanks,. Smatprt (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actualy the law is pretty plain on this. As an artist I have looked into this and have stated this to you already. The image was a gift from Ariss' wife, who owned the copyright of the work-for-hire portrait. This is not a promotional actors head shot where the image is still owned by the photographer, it was a personal portrait. Angelo is the current copyright holder of the image. No negative of this work exists and copyright was transferred to portrait owner by US law. If you check the license you will see that the image was first published on commons and was not published elsewhere before hand. I was granted copyright by permission in order to publish the image directly to commons. The image is a photographic copy I made in Mr. Di Girolamo's presence. However, should Angelo wish for the image to be removed, I will remove it instantly, it is his desicion to make. Also, just so you know your being a bit incivil by bringing this issue here (A common practice you have of crossing talk pages with a dispute) It's not a wikipedia image. It's a commons image. Take it up with them and if they want written permission I will act then.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Use in movies

I had read that the Monterey Bay aquarium was used in Star Trek 4. If this is true, and if other movies have used Monterey as a scene to film from, would this not be interesting information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbennett2007 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tons of movies have been shot here. The Monterey County Film Commission has the stats. Smatprt (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link if you want to add a section: http://www.filmmonterey.org/main_movies.htm Smatprt (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I was an extra in the Star Trek movie shot at the Aquarium. It was a gas!. Smatprt (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Monterey/ Monterrey

Hi. An edit of mine about alternative spelling Monterey/ Monterrey has been reverted. How are users who are not aware of the different spelling supposed to know that they cannot find what they are looking for because there are two different spellings? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. I wasn't involved in the revert, but I have lived in or near Monterey most of my life. I have never seen or heard of Monterey being called "Monterrey". In fact Monterrey is in Mexico, while Monterey is in California. See [[1]]. Just FYI - Smatprt (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote at my user talk in response to this is that none of the people confused about the spelling of this California city will ever end up at the wrong article. If they type Monterrey, California, a misspelled version, they end up at the correct article through a redirect page.

To help the misspellers, both of the relevant disambiguation pages refer to each other: Monterey (disambiguation) and Monterrey (disambiguation). If one is mentioned in a hat note, the other does not need to be. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet, Ok, perhaps you could have been clearer by what you/ is meant by "rv unneeded hat dab". Not everybody is an expert on internal WP terminology and the policy is to make everybody as welcome and as at home as possible and not to intimitate newcomers (which I am not) by trying to cower them into taking an inferion position to admins or those with years of experince. People who go around reverting without offering a proper explanation are - in my opinion - the greatest threat to the growth of the Wikipedia and its sister projects. Best regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a novel or a memoir, it is an edit summary. We have communicated in a very straightforward fashion on talk pages, haven't we? It is a very simple issue; it was explained quickly. I am not the enemy of the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Rework Economy Section?

The economy section should be reworked. The number of employees at DLI and the number at NPS do not include service members stationed at those locations. They are certainly employees as much as the civilians are. I attempted to consult the referenced document, but it links to a Financial Report for the city of New Orleans. Additionally, the section fails to mention tourism. The tourism industry is essential to the economy. --166.205.139.6 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Lacarids (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, there is more to a city's economy that simply top employers and number of employees. --Lacarids (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Famous Residents

In the list of famous residents is an individual noted as a "famous model railroader." If this person is famous...then why does the reader need to be informed as much here on the Wikipedia page? Doesn't inclusion of the word "famous" here suggest that in fact this person isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.130.253 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

First Theatre?

According to the State Parks website, "It was used as a theatre in 1850 when U.S. Army officers from Colonel Stevenson's 1st New York Volunteers produced plays as a money-making venture." Yet according to our Wiki article, "After the Gold Rush of 1849, much of the population, including Swan, traveled to northern California in search of riches. As a result, by the end that year, the [theatre] company disbanded."

So how did a theatre company which formed in 1850 disband as a result of the 1849 gold rush? Does anyone know the correct facts? --72.47.85.22 (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Economy Section

Someone erased my comment on this page that I put here a year ago....the issue I raised was never discussed. Here's my concern: Neither the article nor the cited financial report account for the "students" at NPS and DLI. Yes, they are students. They are also employees. They receive a paycheck from DoD to study in Monterey. They are employed by NPS and DLI just as much as the staff and faculty. The numbers given in the report only count the staff and faculty, but not the students. --72.47.85.22 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Only place for taxable goods in Alta California?

Is there a cite for this claim?

It was the only port of entry for taxable goods in California.

What about Fort Ross? babbage (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Monterey, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/archive/index.jsp?pgmid=2373&date=20050101

[1]