Wikipedia

Talk:Newport Beach, California/Archive 1

< Talk:Newport Beach, California
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cyberbot II in topic External links modified
Archive 1

New Map

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The new map of newport beach shows that the city is half the size as the previous map. Seems that it was made with old data and is missing the Newport Coast annexation. MarsRover 04:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

City Website

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

References in this article to resources on the city.newport-beach.ca.us domain were valid links until last Friday. Since that day, on which the City debuted its new website with new domain name, (some of) these links do not currently return the requested information. They (many) return 404 "Page not found" error pages. I used the new City website's search function to try to turn up a page on the City's history, to no avail. Help from others would be appreciated. I used WebCite to archive the City historical timeline page on the Newport Beach Public Library section of the site; it is still working.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 13:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge with 40th Street

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The 40th Street article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. As such, it should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Geography

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe there are incorrect statements in the Harbor subsection of Geography which currently reads...

"The Upper Newport Bay was carved out by the prehistoric flow of the Santa Ana River. It feeds the delta that is the Back Bay, and eventually joins Lower Newport Bay..."

I believe that the statement should be revised to state "The Lower Newport Bay was created by the dredging the historic estuary of the Santa Ana River. "

It is San Diego Creek that feeds the Upper Newport Bay (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Creek). A prehistoric connection between Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek might have existed but there isn't any online reference to indicate that was the case.

Note that the connection between the Santa Ana River and the bay was closed either naturally due to silting or was closed by man - perhaps as a result of the extensive engineering to control flooding of the Santa Ana River (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_River)) in the not-so-distant past.

If you visit, physically or via online maps, the area adjacent to the eastern end of the Pacific Coast Highway (Highway 1) bridge, you will see a water channel heading towards the extreme western end of the bay. Presumably this is a remnant of the original Santa Ana river channel into Newport Bay (once known as the Santa Ana Estuary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.128.167 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Without evidence that lower Newport Bay was an estuary/outlet for the Santa Ana River, it should probably be referred to as a lagoon.69.234.27.132 (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

South Orange County

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone know why Newport Beach is considered to be central orange county, not south orange county? Geographicaly the southernmost portion of Newport Beach is south of the entire cities of Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, and Rancho Santa Margarita; all of which are considered to be south orange county. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielboros100 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Newport Beach is more in character with older neighborhoods in central Orange County than the newer, sprawlier, large-tract subdivisions of Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel, etc. Newport Coast is a relatively recent exception. When people say "South Orange County" this is traditionally what they're referring to. Also, it refers to nominal north-south along the major transportation corridors -- 405 and 5 freeways, 73 tollway, and Pacific Coast Highway.69.234.27.132 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious "points of interest" removed

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I removed Big Canyon Country Club and Newport Coast from "points of interest." Newport Coast is simply an area. The Big Canyon Country Club is just a private club of no interest to the general public.

Are real estate weasels trying to use this page for their own benefit? In Newport Beach? Imagine that...

I also don't understand what's so special about the Mormon Temple, compared to the other churches in town. Should we add all of those too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.31.70 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No real estate weasels are not using this page for their own benefit. I as a child grew up in those places and frankly speaking much of the data if not all of the data and the photos, I posted. I am not a real estate weasel. I have nothing to do with real estate Big Canyon itself is a community in Newport Beach, and should be listed as such.

You might want to consider in the future editing under a real name rather then simply a IP number. I am reverting your edit. --WPPilot 23:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI . . . It would be appropriate to list any church in Newport that is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, like the LDS temple. 72Dino (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Communities in Newport Beach

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Considering the above mentioned IP number decided to remove much of the communitie data that had been edited into the Newport Beach page, I am making a "Communities in Newport Beach" section to replace some of mr/ms IP numbers edits. --WPPilot 23:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to start off with prose - talking about location and significance - instead of lists that may have to be converted to prose in the event that this article gets nominated for GA status. This could also be part of a new Cityscape section. 08OceanBeachS.D. 23:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree I like the cityscape idea. The city has a great deal of diversity and that should be mentioned in some context..--WPPilot 02:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed Nicholas Cage

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I removed Nicholas Cage from the notable residents page. He sold his Newport Beach home and moved to Bel Air. Jerry Herbst, owner of Terrible Herbst casinos, gas stations, and car washes in Las Vegas now owns Cage's former home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.1.190 (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This list is not just for current residents because obviously some on the list are deceased. This list is for notable people that either live or have lived in Newport Beach. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
A lot of notable people have owned houses in Newport Beach without ever really settling. What are the criteria for being a resident?69.234.27.132 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He was definitely a resident for a time and lived around the Newport Harbor. Although he no longer lives in Newport Beach, he did for a few years and is more of a resident than many of the other people listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Newport Beach Yacht Clubs

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I plan to create a subsection and list the Yacht and Bay Clubs of Newport Beach. The yacht clubs have always been a core part of this Beach Community, and should be featured as such, much like the yacht clubs of the East Coast cities are. Below is a list of the current and some former clubs:



Any thoughts? --WPPilot 18:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I plan to photograph and create a page for each of the clubs, that are listed above, over the next few days. If anyone cares to assist and contribute editorial for these "Feature" of Newport Beach please feel free to start the pages, I will photo and upload photos soon.--WPPilot 04:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


    • I have done some majpr updates to the pages mentioned and connected to Newport Beach. I could use some help on the stubs above that I have not already started and I am thinking about creating a subsection of "Aerial Photos of Costal Orange County" just to feature the pictures that I take when I go flying with my cameras on my lap. Any thoughts? ;WPPilot (talk • contribs)--WPPilot 06:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea--sailing is certainly central to the founding of Newport Beach and is still very current in the nature of the city now. With so many different and esteemed sailing organizations, pages would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Newport Beach

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I visited the beaches along Balboa and Newport Bay. This is definitely the wealthiest place in America (but no evidence I found on the socio-economics to back that up). The home values are boiling over the hill, since someone (a close friend) told me a joke is "where the millionaires move to" had a response "but the billionaires pushed them out already". I've heard NBA superstar Dennis Rodman bought a beachhouse in Newport Beach and other famous African American celebrities follow him. I'm amazed the rich white majority is very cool about their neighbors, and this is what's surely a conservative homogenous county. Not really...Newport Beach has a working class neighbor, Costa Mesa...the last time I checked was 5 years ago. The news media slandered Newport Beach as the headquarters of the far-right Institute of Historic Review and the Imperial Klans Knights of America. But my friend who lives in Newport Beach said most of his neighbors happen to be 1. Jewish. 2. some are openly gay couples, and 3. consists of several nationalities. Even his upstairs neighbor is a black man married to a white woman. And downstairs is an environmentalist and volunteered for the Kerry election campaign. This is the real O.C. not portrayed on primetime TV. + 207.200.116.5 05:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

how is this important to include in the discussion page ? --89.159.157.45 (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Newport Beach is one of the most conservative (voting-wise) areas of California, but this does not mean it's not accepting. I think the people are more tolerant of others and diversity but when it comes to politics they tend to be more opinionated and strong-willed. The O.C. portrayed on TV (at least the Real Housewives) does not actually take place in Newport Beach and is primarily focused on inland Orange County. They also only highlight a few people and choose their cast strategically for drama and higher ratings--not necessarily a good representation of the general public in Newport Beach or Orange County in general. Although very right-wing, this does not mean that Newport Beach is not an accepting or tolerant community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Number of images

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It looks like there are 32 images in this article, 19 of which are aerial. Some are duplicates or from such a distance that any kind of detail is lacking. While I appreciate the editors taking the images, I think the sheer number can be reduced and the content less duplicative (e.g., sailboats, yacht clubs, Balboa Pier, etc.) What are the thoughts of others? Bahooka (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This Wikipedia page has 40 images: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york I am going to remove a few of the repetitive ones, but it would be perhaps better to have a gallery. what do you suggest the total number of images be reduced to? What I find interesting about NB is the unique and exceptionally diverse nature of the place. While it is not New York, I think these pics are of great value to the page, but I am biased. WPPilot talk 15:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

People

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have done some clean up on this page as frankly speaking it was looking like a "Hollywood Movie Credit Roll" rather then a Wikipedia page on a city. I think the net result provides a cleaner look to the page as well as making it more useful. It is interesting to note the Mayors is not in any way referenced and it should be, if it is going to remain here on Wiki. talk→ WPPilot  01:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Newport Beach California Temple

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

At one time, there was a link to the Newport Beach California Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It appears to have been removed at some point, so I readded it under the 'See also' section. It was removed here with the edit summary "not an appropriate link." The 'See also' section is for links to articles that "might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." The article on the temple located in Newport Beach, which is notable enough for its own article, appears to fit either under 'See also' or under 'Points of interest'. I am discussing it here to find out why another editor feels it should not be in the Newport Beach article. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That is NOT going to remain here. I am sorry but a church has nothing to do with MORE ABOUT NEWPORT BEACH, it has to do with religious teachings, and the teaching that church provides as well as the links you have tried to install here have NOTHING TO DO with Newport Beach. Newport Beach is a city, and "featuring 2 churches" is simply not doing ANYTHING other then promoting the churches agenda. This is a ENCYLOPEDIA and you will never see a encyclopedia refer its readers to a church website to find out more about a town. Please stop inserting your church of choice into the area about "MORE ON NEWPORT BEACH" as it simply DOES NOT BELONG HERE. If you care to make a page about Churches of Newport Beach and you feel that you may do s owith adequate refs, go right ahead, but you may NOT simply put the 2 churches you like, under "More About Newport Beach" unless these pages provide "More about Newport Beach, and the ones you have tried over and over to insert, do not. The churches you instert are not "tangentially related topics" talk→ WPPilot  13:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the applicable policy is WP:NOT.John from Idegon (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I still disagree. These two churches are notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles and I feel they are "tangentially related topics" per WP:SEEALSO. These entries do not make the article a directory or indiscriminate list of information, unlike the laundry list of "points of interest" that are not notable enough for their own articles. These churches are notable places and add value to those reading about Newport Beach. Bahooka (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. That is inappropriate for the page, it is inappropriate for the sub heading "More About Newport" and constitutes IMHO a bias that Newport Beach AS A WHOLE does not have. A sub heading, perhaps under politics that has a link to the nice page you can create that is NON BIASED and about all the churches in Newport would be ok, assuming it was well refed and written, but to add, as you have the LDS temple, and to suggest that it provides "more info about Newport beach" is simply not going to fly as these pages need to be written in a manner that provides no bias, and your suggested good faith contributions are biased, in the manner that your trying to insert them here. Lastly we do things by consis, and at this junction you are the minority and seemingly the only editor that feels your two churche's deserve to be a research component for those looking for more information on Newport Beach. If I was writing a story, on the city and was to go to those churches wiki pages, what am I going to learn about "More" on Newport Beach that the Newport Beach Wiki page does not already tell me? The answer is nada, zilch & zippo, but I might owe them 10% as a tiding, if I am not mistaken. talk→ WPPilot  16:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Further, the LDS Temple's article did not show notability and I could not find any references that did, so it is now at AfD. I formatted the discussion for clarity. John from Idegon (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
As noted below, I have created an RfC to discuss the listing of these two church buildings for a broader group of editors to weigh in. We clearly have different opinions of what goes in a 'See also' section (there is no 'More about Newport' section.) Bahooka (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Contributions require foundation. Take Manhattan: Manhattan, note the religion section has a unbiased demographical breakdown, of the religion's that are predominate, in that overwhelming populated area, and rather refined Wikipedia page. No links to church Wiki's, anywhere. This is not about anyone opinion, it has everything to do with policy, and it is that policy that you do not seem to understand. No one city I have reviewed has a link to the church on it. None of them. talk→ WPPilot  15:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
This is about notable church buildings, not a particular religion. For example, featured article Boston has links to the The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Cathedral Church of St. Paul (Boston), First Church in Boston, King's Chapel, Old North Church, Trinity Church (Boston), Park Street Church, Old South Church, Jubilee Christian Church, and Basilica and Shrine of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. Also, the Boston suburb of Belmont, Massachusetts has a link to the Boston Massachusetts Temple. Bahooka (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Every one of the refs you list here are truly historic. The NB temple that was built on the former landfill, was created in 2005, and the refs you included are simply reprints of the press release about it, and do not qualify as ref's in the first place as that is self sourcing. What if I published a press release that said I an now the ruler of the entire world, a few mags printed it, so does that make me the leader of the entire world now? No talk→ WPPilot  18:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus against habitual or routine inclusion of churches (or, by extension, any other class of building á la directory). Notable buildings are notable, therefore pose no particular problem. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: I apologise for a lack of clarity. What I mean is that if there is clear evidence that a specific building or buildings are considered by reliable independent sources to be worthy of inclusion in their articles (e.g. if local travel guides highlight them) then that would be a case for inline inclusion as narrative with context, but the fact of meeting WP:N does not make the building a notable local feature, only reliable independent sources do that. So what I mean is that notable buildings are notable but that Wikipedia:Notable buildings are not considered to merit especial mention according to this RfC.
Consider for example Willen, Buckinghamshire. Its most notable feature is one of the few surviving buildings designed by English polymath Robert Hooke. No guide to Willen fails to mention it. The church has parity of fame with the village and inclusion does not risk giving undue prominence to it because the prominence is accorded by independent sources not by Wikipedia.
So include just because: no. Include in narrative style where there is substantial evidence that independent sources consider the building to be an especially notable feature: fine.
I hope that's clear, and I apologise for excessive brevity. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Should links to articles about church buildings in Newport Beach be included in the 'See also' (or, alternatively, 'Points of interest') section of the Newport Beach, California article? Bahooka (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • No - WP:NOTDIR. Agree with the comment above. An article or two about some of the churches in the community does not add enough to the reader's knowledge of the community to overcome the POV brought into the article by covering some houses of worship and not others. IMO the only time we should discuss houses of worship is when there notability supersedes its religious purpose,such as having historical or architectural significance. John from Idegon (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. If a building is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it, it is acceptable to have a link to it in the related location article. I see links to both the Newport Beach California Temple and St. James Anglican Church (Newport Beach) as both notable and located in Newport Beach. Either section, 'Points of interest' or 'See also', would work. The listing of these churches complies with WP:SEEALSO from the Manual of Style, particularly the sentence "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Bahooka (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
What is notable about it to a non Mormon? The three links used for your refs, that were created when the press release was issued and it opened in 2005, do not qualify, please tell us what it is that makes this building special much less a source for "More Information" on Newport Beach. talk→ WPPilot  22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Please indent so it is easier to follow the discussion. Those are articles in newspapers, not reprints of press releases. The L.A. Times, OC Register (including an article written a couple of years after the opening), an NBC affiliate, and a book, are all reliable sources. You clearly are not interested in the building except to bash it because you claim it was built on a dump, but others of various faiths find it interesting as noted by the large turnout for the open house. Bahooka (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Rather then tell people it is notable, please what is it that is notable about this place. I have no desire to "bash" anything, that is silly and ridicules to assert. What is notable about it to a non Mormon? It is one thing to say "It is notable" and it is another thing to provide reference's to trustworthy publications about something other then the fact that it is "OPEN" as the three refs you have used show. You mention Boston, and its wonderful old classic churches, that each have wonderful history and photos, and would like readers to think that this pink building, on the edge of town, is a place to obtain more information about "Newport Beach". Please tell me what it is I am missing here but what is a Jewish, or a Catholic person going to gain as far as "more in depth info on Newport Beach" from looking at pictures of a building, built in 2005 that no one can see inside, as it is secret and it was once (10 years ago) featured in 3 local papers about its opening. Does it have bells and whistles, does it glow in the dark, is it a building that was designed by a special designer. Does it have any, non religious significance what so ever or is its sole significance the fact that it is a religious place? I lived here and rode my dirt bike, around the edges of the old landfill for years. Nothing but the facts here, I am sorry that you feel the truth, when used in the context of a location that is well known to locals from Newport Beach as a former landfill. That is the most notable fact about the place but it is omitted from the page, never the less it does not belong on the Newport Beach Wikipedia page. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  22:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am going to disengage to allow uninvolved editors to start weighing in without wading through this discussion. I have explained on various pages and sections on why it is notable, even to non-LDS. Please read the references and Temple (LDS) for more info on why these buildings are notable. However, notability is not the question here. That is the question at the AfD. As long as there is an article, it is considered notable. And the RfC question here is should notable church buildings be listed in the article. That's what we want to hear from other editors. We know the opinions of the three of us. So I do not anticipate answering any more of your questions here. Bahooka (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You still do not seem to understand. If I need to look somewhere else to see why that page is notable, that page is not notable. This is a fruitless conversation, and you seem to not understand what notability means. Good luck on your "mission". Wikipedia does not PROVE notability, your confused. The question here was, Does that page have anything MORE about Newport Beach in it. The answer is no, unconditionally it is just another building, live with it.talk→ WPPilot  01:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No: Absolutely not in "See also"; that's not what that section is for. The "Points of interest" section is for major attractions, not the marginally notable. If we added everything with a WP article in a city to that city's article, every city article would in fact be a huge directory of misc. stuff, i.e. a patent violation of WP:NOT#DIR.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No: Like SMcCandlish, I think that the article should mention or have links to only the most significant points of interest, and that this list be kept very short. A long list of every public building in the town is distracting and hard to read, and very quickly becomes a useless jumble of trivia or a directory. Not every building is significant in a top-level article about a town, even if it has it's own WP article. While churches can be major points of interests in some towns, that isn't the case here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, because Newport Beach is a moderately sized city with fourteen individual building articles and tons of other individual-spot articles. For a smaller community with only a few local articles, this wouldn't be a problem; see the "Attractions" section of Kenton, Ohio, which links to all three articles (and has a link to a not-yet-created fourth place) about Kenton locations on the National Register of Historic Places. This works well for Kenton, since it only has these few articles, and it's not likely to attract more, but the same is not true for a city ten times its size, populated apparently by a lot of rich people, and located in a much more scenic area than flat marshland. I would say the same thing if the RFC asked about important houses or significant buildings of any other type; I'm opposed because I agree that "a long list of every [notable] public building in the town is distracting and hard to read", and because it doesn't help the reader get a sense of the city. Note that I came here after seeing a note at someone else's talk page. PS, on the two examples given, I think "no" for the Anglicans (they appear significant only for the Anglican realignment issue), but "yes" for the temple, since an LDS temple is generally quite significant even for non-LDS folks, and since (according to Google Maps) this one's on a major four-lane street just off the four-lane highway CA 73. It's seemingly a major landmark even if you're just a random person driving into the city from the south, quite unlike temples such as Columbus Ohio, which sits on a minor side street, and probably most people going past are local residents or people going to the temple itself, not visitors just passing through the area. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Churches, or any religious buildings for that matter, aren't really notable enough to be mentioned on city articles (except for the extraordinary ones like the Sistine Chapel). Instead, we could link to Category:Buildings and structures in Newport Beach, California and Category:Newport Beach, California in a "See also" section, but that may be a bit of a stretch itself. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 00:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested closure

I requested an uninvolved editor to formally close this RfC at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Bahooka (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And a "thank you" to those editors that took the time to comment at this RfC. Although I was hoping for a different outcome, I appreciate the consensus approach here and the thoughtful comments by those participating. Bahooka (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Newport Beach, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newport_Beach,_California/Archive_1&oldid=1137044765"