Talk:Presidio of Santa Barbara

older entries

'It is the second oldest building in California.' This comment should include some information about the oldest building.Kember 02:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That's the Mission San Juan Capistrano (1776). I'll mention it. Antandrus (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean the Mission of San Diego de Alcla, as the Mission San Juan Capistrano was seventh in a line of missions. See table at bottom of page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mission_San_Juan_Capistrano#External_links

This is from the Mission San Juan Capistrano article: "In 1778, the first adobe capilla (chapel) was blessed. It was replaced by a larger, 115-foot long house of worship in 1782, which is believed to be the oldest standing building in California." The earlier missions (e.g. San Diego) have no remaining buildings: the first structures were destroyed ([1]); the church at Mission San Diego was not actually completed until 1813, even though the mission was founded earlier. Maybe the article should clarify that it is the second oldest surviving building in California? Antandrus (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. It seems like all the other six mission buildings were either in ruins or did not complete their construction until after the San Juan Capistrano mission was completed. The term "surviving" would help clarify.

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. -- The Bethling^(Talk) 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the above issues don't seem to have been addressed, I've nominated the article for GA Review. Contributors and initial reviewers alike are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer3000 19:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to have looked at the article's edit history, I need to inform you that these series of edits addressed "The Bethling"'s objection above. Thank you for your attention, Antandrus (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My hats off to Raime and Drewcifer... Raime has done such a great job over the past couple of days working on this article that Drewcifer voted keep on the GA/R... I agree, the current status makes continued debate (along with the noms change of position) meaningless. So I've closed the GA/R as KEEP.Balloonman 15:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore the policy does not require inline citations as a matter of course - it requires them for quotes, contentious facts about living personages and material which is or is likely to be challenged - Bethling, you need to tell us what your good faith challenges are regarding the validity of the material. --Joopercoopers 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Presidio of Santa Barbara. 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/20070927010129/http://www.keyt.com/news/local/5018406.html to http://www.keyt.com/news/local/5018406.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) 23:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)