Talk:Mission San Antonio de Pala
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Southern California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Southern California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the Asistencia San Antonio de Pala. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was No move Duja► 10:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This was not actually a mission, but was an Asistencia. --evrik (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is a great deal of relevant discussion at Talk:Mission Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles.--Lord Kinbote 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ultra hyper really strong support The historic name is Asistencia San Antonio de Pala as cited here and here. The name is misquoted all over the place, so we should get it right here. --evrik (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose: Mission San Antonio de Pala IS the correct name and is how the facility is called today. This is an uninformed request.--Lord Kinbote 16:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose as well per above. Mdhennessey 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Whether or not a building was a mission depends on whether it served a missionary function. Arbitrary labels, are just that, arbitrary. San Antonio de Pala served as a base for missionary work, therefore it was a mission. Just my opinion, but I think it is logical. BruceHallman 15:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the title of the building is important. While it may have served as a mission, it was an Asistencia.
Why is the title of the building more important than the function of the building? BruceHallman 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- We don't call the White House the President' Home, the building has a proper name, and we should use that name. --evrik (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
