Talk:Sedona

Political climate edits
An anonymous editor has been adding (and re-adding) the following text:


 * "Although the political climate is noticeably leftist, Sedona lacks the haughty elitism of many other ultra-liberal areas such as San Francisco or Berkeley. It's a very friendly place that welcomes all visitors and a great place to experience "new age," left-wing counterculture Americana alongside the spectacular scenery."

I don't think this adds much of value to the article, and the digs at San Francisco and Berkeley are unnecessary. Project:Be fair states that in cases of disagreement over editorial content that politics should be left out of articles unless it is absolutely necessary, and in this case the above does not seem like it is absolutely necessary to include in this article. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 18:00, 16 July 2011 (EDT)


 * I concur. I was hoping my edit would be more acceptable to both sides, but even that was reverted.  I support reverting the text entirely until some more discussion can occur.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:11, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Banner image
The current banner image has a nice composition, but the rocks are shrouded in fog and clouds. Not exactly the prototypical Sedona scene. I've found a couple of alternatives; please weigh in.



-- Powers (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the two you made have the best colors. Not sure which of the two I like better though. Maybe #4. Texugo (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally I prefer the first banner – I find the last three to be not sharp enough and poorly exposed. And actually it does snow every winter in Sedona, just as it does in the Grand Canyon. I know many photographers who would jump at the chance to photograph Sedona in the snow. :) –StellarD (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, one, it's not at all clear that that's snow (I didn't realize until you pointed it out). Two, snow or not, the low clouds still get in the way of the rock formations.  And three, when we have a destination where the iconic red rocks are the main attraction and the most recognizable symbol of the destination, I think we have a responsibility to display them in the best light possible -- not just for aesthetic purposes, but for recognizability.  I think the ideal is a banner image that causes the reader to immediately say "Oh, that place!"  Powers (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * When it comes to well-known destinations, I think the ideal banner is one which causes the reader to say "oh, I thought I knew that place but this is another side which is less familiar to me, I would like to go back". Ideally the best banners of such places will avoid cliché, yet still portray the essence of a place.


 * Regarding the current banner, it is perfectly recognizable to me as Sedona. The rock formations are still visible, and the snow highlights the dramatic color of the rocks. I do understand that some people prefer bright sunny skies; however I think the three alternative proposed banners are still poor candidates, because they are poorly-exposed, unsharp photographs. Do you want to replace a high-quality banner with a low-quality substitute, simply because it has sunny skies?
 * –StellarD (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but the current banner does not look particularly sharp or well-exposed to me, no more or less so than the other three options. The fourth option is a little unsharp, but only at its full resolution; desample it down to 2100px or so and you'd never notice.  Powers (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The foreground of the fourth option is underexposed on the left, and the sky and background are overexposed. I guess then we simply do not agree on what defines a good photograph, or a good banner. –StellarD (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Just looking at each of these banners as photographs, without considering anything else, with the first two scaled 60%, the third, 16%, and the fourth, 29%, I think I slightly prefer the 4th to the 1st, and I don't like the other two nearly as much as compositions. I do agree that the first provides a very interesting view, so I don't really understand the urge to replace it. My aesthetic is very much formed by how I look at paintings, and the dark and light areas in the 4th photograph look fine to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, this is an example of a photo that is properly exposed. The highlights are not washed out, and the shadows are not plugged in.


 * I honestly don't understand why we are splitting hairs discussing some of the finer aspects of photography when there are so many pages that have banners that are truly bad, or have no custom banners at all. I'm now inclined to think that perhaps the banners I've contributed have been a waste of time. Anyway, I'm clearly outnumbered here, and I don't care enough to spend any more time discussing this.


 * –StellarD (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a very good photo.


 * I agree with you on this: "I honestly don't understand why we are splitting hairs discussing some of the finer aspects of photography when there are so many pages that have banners that are truly bad, or have no custom banners at all." This article has a fine banner that should be left well enough alone. The 4th banner surely can be put into some larger regional article, no? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, here's the obvious solution: Sedona is in Northern Arizona, which has no custom pagebanner. Move either the current banner here or banner #4 to that article and call it a day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't address the basic problem, that being that the height of the clouds and grayness of the light quality in the current banner make Sedona look markedly less attractive and interesting than it actually is. If the snow is necessary to keep for interest purposes, #3 has snow cover in it.  StellarD, please don't take this as a personal attack in any way; I'm sure your eye for photography techniques is better than mine.  I had no idea who created the current banner, but I do know that the cloudiness of that picture does not make for an appealing depiction of Sedona.  Powers (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with you. It's a good and interesting photograph. You think no pagebanner in Northern Arizona is better than this one? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Northern Arizona should probably have a banner featuring the Grand Canyon and/or the San Francisco Peaks. Sedona is a bit of an outlier in that region due to being the only part of it south of I-40.  Thus, it's not really representative of the region.  Powers (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you realize that you've temporarily chased User:StellarD off the site? Is your determination to delete this pagebanner more important to you than that? I think I'll try to drum up more interest in this discussion so that you don't effectively function as a "consensus" of one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion on changing the current banner, but Ikan is right that replacing the default banner on the Northern Arizona article is the right thing to do and I've plunged forward to do so. As with anything on a wiki, debate over whether that banner should be replaced by a Grand Canyon image should continue, but there is no reason to stick with a default banner when a viable alternative exists. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 01:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. I can't see something being at the edge of a region as a reason to disqualify it as representative of the region...otherwise we'd have to avoid using Niagara or NYC to represent New York State, Ottawa to represent eastern Ontario, the Avalon Peninsula to represent Newfoundland and Labrador. K7L (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and also think the old banner fits nicely on Nothern Arisona, if it's removed from Sedona. Especially for regions with super famous landmarks, it's kind of nice to not take the one best known attraction, but showcase that there are other excellent sights too. It's not only about the details of photography, it's also about taste, so we can argue until the end of days. I actually like the first banner a lot, at least equally much as the others, - because indeed it gives me an image of this region I hadn't expected. If you had asked me, I'd have said these US regions are vast, super dry, smoking hot deserts which, quite honestly, I don't like too much :-). Yes the rocks may be less recognizable but they look quite interesting to me in the old banner, a bit mystical, or something. Let's use it somewhere. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think the existing banner photo is perfect and see no need to replacing it. It is not a sunny picture, but is dynamic and has a nice composition and quality and simply interesting to look at, even more than the sunny alternatives. I understand when low quality banners should be replaces, but StelarD did great job finding this picture and the alternatives are just personal preferences, not a real improvement, therefore no reason to change, I find. Danapit (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't really see anything acutely wrong with StellarD's banner. And if I'd have to pick a favorite out of the four (each of them quite good looking) banners above, that'd be #3. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Danapit said. Jjtkk (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not as simple as Sedona merely being at the edge of the region; an otherwise geographically compact region was extended, amoeba-like, south along I-17 explicitly to grab Sedona, apparently for its affinity with Flagstaff. But Sedona's geography and scenery is fairly unique and very far from most of what a traveler would see in Northern Arizona.  But that aside, those clouds are ugly.  Clouds are not why people visit Sedona.  Come on.
 * Ikan, I have been very clear that I am not criticizing StellarD personally. I am not sure how it is my fault if StellarD has been driven off the site.  I have not made any personal attacks, and I don't think I've been rude or offensive in any way.  All I have done is criticized this particular image as being not an appealing view of Sedona.  Is that enough to drive someone away from Wikivoyage? Should I have left the site when no one thought my banner for United States of America was any good?  Powers (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * She's not gone permanently, but I agree with her that you've been way too focused on this, instead of so many things that are obvious and uncontroversial problems on this site. The time you've spent on this could have been spent on finding pagebanners for articles that lack them, for example. In any case, I don't agree with your appraisal of this photo. Before I had any idea who made the pagebanner, I rated the current one only slightly under the 4th one.


 * I'll admit that I don't personally know Sedona, nor Arizona as a whole (I've only overflown it and changed planes once or twice in Phoenix), but StellarD certainly does, and her opinion deviates from yours, so it's a simple difference of opinion. Meanwhile, your approach is to have Northern Arizona remain pagebannerless until a banner of a sight like the Grand Canyon that's so well-known it's almost a cliche (though an incredibly gorgeous one) can be installed there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering Northern Arizona currently has a banner, I'm not sure what the problem is. Given that this is a wiki, and will never be finished, should I simply stop discussing issues once it's clear someone disagrees with me, lest I drive them away from my continued discussion of the topic?  Powers (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It has a banner because the 4th pagebanner here was moved there, but if it had been up to you, that article would still have no pagebanner. You know that, of course. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Where did I say I was against any pagebanner appearing on Northern Arizona? All I said was that I didn't think a view of Sedona was the best option.  Powers (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

After taking a closer look, I'm not buying the claims of superior technical quality for #1. The bottom of the image has been triplicated: the bottom 20 pixels or so repeat twice. The patch of grass in the foreground is out of focus, and the rest of the image isn't particularly sharp at full resolution (the original source image is even worse). I even think there may be some blown highlights in the clouds. In no way am I claiming these are major issues, but they are at least as bad as the criticisms StellarD had of the other images I suggested. Given, then, that the technical issues are a wash, shouldn't we be choosing the image that best represents what people go to Sedona to see? Powers (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Powers, you are right with the problem with the problem at the bottom of the image - easy fix. Danapit (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Come on now. You didn't offer an alternative banner: you were just nixing the idea of moving the current banner here to Northern Arizona. As for the rest, I appraise photos by how they look to me and how my eye can or can't move around them, and we simply appraise them differently. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ikan, you're making it really hard on me. I did not nix the idea.  I did not stand in the way of anyone who wanted to put a banner on Northern Arizona.  I expressed a farking opinion that the banner was not ideal.  Nowhere did I say "having no banner is better than having this one".  Nowhere did I say "Don't put up the banner on Northern Arizona".  All of that you read into my statements, completely unwarranted.  Please read what I wrote again.  You first suggested that putting one banner on this article and the other on Northern AZ would be a good compromise, but I (correctly, I think) pointed out that that doesn't actually address my concern with the quality of the current banner; it just moves the discussion to a different page.  (Note that I did not say "No, don't do it.")  You then asked if I thought having no banner would be better than having this banner; while I didn't expressly say "no, I don't think that", I also didn't say "Yes, I do."  I suggested alternative subjects that would be better suited for the Northern AZ article in my opinion.  How you go from all that to "If it had been up to you, that article would still have no pagebanner" is completely beyond me.  Powers (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I also read this comment as an objection to implementing one of these banners on the Northern Arizona article. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 02:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Powers, are you now saying we shouldn't take your opinions too seriously, and should just act in contradiction to them because you're just sounding off? My reaction was that as long as you were standing in the way of my suggested solution and there was no consensus of a sufficient number of other people agreeing with me, your opposition was effectively standing in the way of action. But if you'd rather that people do things you seem to be objecting to than complain that your opposition has the actual or intended effect of blocking action, I guess that would be useful to know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not standing in your way. I was suggesting that your proposal wasn't ideal and didn't address my objections, and I explained why I would prefer a different banner image.  What words would you preferred me to say?  What could I have said differently that would have headed off these ridiculous accusations of obstruction?  (And Ryan, I don't know that I objected so much as expressed a preference for an alternative.  Somehow Ikan read that as "I'd rather have no banner on that article.")  Powers (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Insofar as consensus requires that outstanding objections be addressed, if Ikan says "let's do A" and you then say "I would prefer B", action is effectively blocked until there is either an agreement to go with either A or B, or until you say that you're fine with A. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 15:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds perilously close to saying "differing opinions prohibit consensus", and I don't think that's accurate. "I would prefer B" is an opening to discuss the differences and try to find a middle ground, not an immovable object blocking any path to consensus.  Powers (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions about this (and think we should relax a bit in this discussion), but I have to say I prefer sunny pictures. While Wikipedia is neutral, on the contrary Wikivoyage shows every destination in a favorable light, as much as possible. Example: for an objectively boring town, we strive to show its attractive aspects and not show the rest. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Do we? I mean, in this case, if you really think clouds are ugly, I am not going to argue that Sedona is boring and shouldn't look good. But if we're really trying to present boring places in a deceptively attractive light, that might really ill serve the prospective traveller, who might be better advised to steer clear of such places as much as possible. I think that kind of larger issue is best discussed elsewhere than this page, though, perhaps at Tone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In real life, I'd say this discussion should be moved to the pub and discussed over a beer :-) It's just a picture, we've clearly taken some comments more negatively than they were intended.. so... let's settle on a compromise and move on to more important issues. This is a nice example of a luxury problem: we have several banners and of course opinions are going to differ about which one is best. Powers raised some concerns, his new proposed banners are nice and sunny too so let's keep one for Sedona, but as several people have also indicated they like StellarD's banner despite the concerns.. can we just go with the option to have the old banner on the region article? Powers, I know you don't find it ideal also - but can you live with it for now? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a lot I can live with, and it's certainly better than the status quo. But are you also asking me not to raise the same concern again on Talk:Northern Arizona?  Powers (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose I am, but only to keep things fun. I don't mean to keep you from raising concerns if you find it very important - I'm just saying it might not be worth the discussion. Opinions on what looks nice clearly differ so quite some more discussion would be needed, and then it's only the one image. If it's acceptable to others and you can live with that banner on the Northern Arizona article, it seems like a functional compromise. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fine for now; as noted above, it's better than nothing. Powers (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sedona/Northern Arizona
Hi, everyone. Please have a look at Talk:Sedona. It seems that there's a rough consensus of 3-1 so far in favor of replacing the current pagebanner for Sedona with what's Pagebanner #4 on the talk page. However, Northern Arizona has no pagebanner, and my proposal to move the current Sedona pagebanner to Northern Arizona is currently being blocked by a single user who does not like that banner, which was put into the Sedona article by User:StellarD. A 50-50 deadlock between two people does not constitute any kind of consensus. So if any of you would like to have a look and express your opinion, please do. But my main feeling is that even if the image in StellarD's pagebanner is determined not to be suitable for a pagebanner, it should at least be inserted in non-pagebanner photo form somewhere because it's a good picture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be technically high-quality, but it is not an inviting travel photograph. Powers (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)