Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:52, 1 September 2009

California B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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)

monterey, california. a musicians worst nightmare.

living in a musically dead area, where concerts never happen and people who like anything that isnt rap are really hard to find. its no wonder why no musicians have come from this area, its terrible. dont get me wrong, its gorgeous and has okay weather but thats it. theres no good shopping, music scene is non-exsistant, and the people can use a real attitude adjustment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.71.36 (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone needing an attitude adjustment, please line-up over there! Thanks. Someone will be by in a minute to help you. Highspeed (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2009 (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, ]
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Your fifth change was fairly neutral... a little tweak to descriptions of nearby attractions, a section I think should be deleted entirely.
• Your sixth change added that fisherman's cabin photo with some blond kid in the shot. What a lousy image!
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• Your tenth change moved images around and deleted unneeded text about where they were. Important ones are still not near their article mentions.
• 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.
• Your twelfth change was a minor bit of image text tweaking.
• Your thirteenth through fifteenth changes went against the recommendations at Misplaced Pages: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.

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)

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)

• B-Class California articles
• High-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles
• B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages