Talk:Newport Beach, California

RfC: Should links to articles about church buildings in Newport Beach be included in the 'See also' (or, alternatively, 'Points of interest') section?

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)

• No - See above. This is not a place for promotion of any religion or politics. It does not belong here period. talk→ WPPilot  14:34, 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120312124310/http://ocbiz.ocregister.com/2008/07/13/fletcher-jones-tops-wards-dealer-500-for-first-time/2481/ to http://ocbiz.ocregister.com/2008/07/13/fletcher-jones-tops-wards-dealer-500-for-first-time/2481/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for www.edwardscinemas.com/contact.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080319133137/http://factfinder.census.gov:80/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on&geo_id=16000US0651182 to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US0651182&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090820052450/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/legal/law-firms/333844-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/law-firms/333844-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402234232/http://www.newportbeachca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=15023 to http://www.newportbeachca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=15023

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

616 in demographics

what is 616? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.159.7 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Newport Beach, 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://city.newport-beach.ca.us/nbpl/AboutNBPL/newport_beach_time_line.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edwardscinemas.com/contact.html

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) 19:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Newport Beach, 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831121522/http://www.newportbay.org/bayintro.htm to http://www.newportbay.org/bayintro.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619074805/http://ocbiz.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/26/three-oc-cities-rank-near-top-in-us-income/ to http://ocbiz.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/26/three-oc-cities-rank-near-top-in-us-income/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pacificlife.com/NR/rdonlyres/44D28D5D-75F3-4309-AA12-4F8CAA502035/0/2010Intro2PacificLife.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727130654/http://www.nosa.org/nosa-history.html to http://www.nosa.org/nosa-history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716113839/http://www.sparkoc.com/org/detail/220030710 to http://www.sparkoc.com/org/detail/220030710

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) 23:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Am image that may be in your city

To those of you who are from Newport Beach; Is this image off of your coast? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Because I see boats that are registered as being in Newport Beach

33°36'32.3"N 117°53'25.7"W User:Bob (talk)