Talk:Nuestra Señora Reina de los Ángeles Asistencia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mission vs. Pueblo[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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.

Was this pueblo actually a Catholic Church mission or is this article misnamed? Thanks Hmains 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The title is correct; I've added an entry that explains the evolution from mission to town.--Lordkinbote 05:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am still at a loss why this establishment should be called a 'mission'--I don't see anything in the article that says a church was established here. It just talks about a pueblo (town) being established. Thanks Hmains 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The very first line of the article starts out "The Mission Nuestra Señora Reina de Los Angeles was founded on September 4, 1781..." — there is an image of the church taken between 1890 and 1900 on the article page — and I've added a link to a modern photograph of the mission. Hope this settles the issue.--Lordkinbote 06:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks Hmains 04:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • La Placita church was never a mission. I've been talking to several historians over the last two weeks on this very subject. La Placita church was the first parish church in Los Angeles, but it was never a mission. Los Angeles was a pueblo (civic town), founded by decree/land grant of the Kind of Spain. It was not founded by the Franciscans. But thanks for your hard work. John Burnes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.10.185 (talk • contribs)
  • La Placita church was never a mission. It was a parish church. It was established as an asistencia (meaning "sub-mission"—essentially a mission without a priest in residence) to Mission San Gabriel Arcángel

NO. 144 NUESTRA SEÑORA LA REINA DE LOS ANGELES - La Iglesia de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles-the Church of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels-was dedicated on December 8, 1822 during California's Mexican era. Originally known as La Iglesia de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles, the church was the only Catholic church for the pueblo. Today it primarily serves the Hispanic population of Los Angeles.
Location: 535 N Main St near Macy St, Los Angeles

http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=21427

--evrik (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 consensus Duja► 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per comments above. --evrik (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Coincidentally I was just in the church recently. It once had "Mission Nuestra..." in big bronze letters over its entry, but the word "Mission" has been visibly removed. A docent at the Olvera Street visitors center volunteered that "they tried to make it a mission [after the fact], but didn't succeed". -Will Beback · † · 00:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose as the facility was originally founded as one of the California missions (even if it didn't remain as such), and (as is noted above) carried the name until very recently. The current use and name is identified in the article, and the facility's real notability is (in part) derived from the fact that the was intended to be another mission. I suggest a redirect from "La Iglesia..."--Lord Kinbote 00:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection, I think La Iglesia de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles should be developed into a separate article, assuming there is sufficient, notable information available to do so.--Lord Kinbote 18:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was NEVER a mission. There were 21 missions . It was a church at the settlement that came from the San Gabriel mission. Never, Never, Never a mission. --evrik (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the Iglesia have a separate article from the Mission? -Will Beback · † · 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the iglesia. --evrik (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current text reads,
  • The installation was therefore never actually granted mission status ...
Is that incorrect? -Will Beback · † · 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lordkinbote's comments above and below; in fact, I support the creation of two articles for this subject. The willy-nilly changes and reversions by evrik should stop now. Mdhennessey 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not split the article. Especially while this discussion is continuing. There is no mission, only the iglesia. --evrik (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former asistencia[edit]

From the California Mission Studies Association web site:

Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Landmark 144 [Formerly an asistencia to Mission San Gabriel] LOCATION: 535 N. Main St. near Macy St., Los Angeles, CA --Lord Kinbote 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--evrik (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if you go to http://missionsofcalifornia.org you will see that they list 22 missions, because the site designates San Antonio de Pala (Asistencia) as Mission San Antonio de Pala. I suggest you consult more scholarly sources in the future.--Lord Kinbote 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At that site they list all the missions on one page, with no mention of this one. [1]. -Will Beback · † · 01:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's #22 on the list; here is the specific page.--Lord Kinbote 04:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does Pala have to do with this subject? I meant that "Mission Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles" isn't on the list. -Will Beback · † · 05:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evrik's argument is that there are only 21 "missions" and cited the web site as one of his sources; the cite lists 22 facilities, calling each one (including Pala) a mission.--Lord Kinbote 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The portions of the article dealing with the church (along with the image) have been moved to La Iglesia de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles.--Lord Kinbote 20:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just revrted that change because it goes against what we are trying to do here. This entire article was supposed to be moved to that name. What you did went against tagging the article for renaming, unless you planned to nominate this for deletion. --evrik (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with -Will Beback and talk. What a waste of time and effort this page has become. --South Philly 20:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of asistencia[edit]

Mdhennessey came across an interesting article at the California Mission Studies Association web site (probably the only truly scholarly mission-related site on the Web) that not only defines the term asistencia in the global sense but confirms that La Misión de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Ángeles clearly qualified as such:

...Fr. Zephyrin Engelhardt...the father of mission history denied such an interpretation. He defined an asistencia as "a mission on a small scale with all the requisites for a mission, and with Divine service held regularly on days of obligation, except that it lacked a resident priest." Since the Plaza Church fitted the definition, the two assigned priests at San Gabriel had all they could do to administer a mission and its western asistencia."

And for the record, a stand-alone church was referred to as a visita, or "visiting chapel."--Lord Kinbote 04:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then it was an asistencia of San Gabriel rather than a mission. -Will Beback · † · 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, though it was established as Misión rather than Asistencia. The "Pala Asistencia" later became "Mission Pala" for example (an in fact it was the goal that all asistencias would eventually become full-blown missions in support of the overall plan to convert the native population).--Lord Kinbote 05:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if we know that "Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles" was an asistencia instead of a mission then why are we fighting over this? -Will Beback · † · 07:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty obvious at this point that there are two separate entities: one named Mission Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles (a satellite mission founded by the Franciscans as a part of Spain's efforts to proselytize the native populations), and another named La Iglesia de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles that emerged on the mission site some years later, for the purpose of ministering to the spiritual needs of the foreign settlers. We should call it a day with the two separate articles as a compromise.--Lord Kinbote 08:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've just presented evidence that there never was a mission, only an asistencia. What sources are there for Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles being an acutal mission? -Will Beback · † · 09:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate what has already stated above, asistencias and missions were one-and-the-same, save for the presence of a resident priest (which would have actually required two resident priests as the Franciscan Order prohibited the missionaries from living alone); this settlement was founded as "Mission NSRLA," and that name appears to have survived in one form or another for more than 225 years (even by your own observation), hence the article as currently named is correct. It was never "Asistencia NSRLA." The "Iglesia NSRLA" designation is a relatively recent development, and applies only to the surviving chapel building, whis why this now has its own article. Also as stated above, the entities served different purposes.--Lord Kinbote 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this reasoning. What exactly is the opposition to having two different articles? Mdhennessey 17:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if we have a dozen articles so long as they are accurate and verifiable. Reasoning is great but what are our sources that call this subject a mission? Several sources have been presented which do not call it one. This page [2], answers the question directly, saying that as of the first building the name was "Iglesia". Yenne, right now the only source for this article, does not call it a "Mission". We agree here that it was actually an asistencia. So why do we call it a mission? -Will Beback · † · 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The site you link to doesn't even have the right date (1784). Engelhardt is the only real authority cited in all of this, and he (as a representative of the founding agency, by the way) confirmed that it was an asistencia and not an iglesia. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. The mission was founded under the authority of the Alta California mission hierarchy, the iglesia was not. And I don't believe that "we" are calling it a mission, that was its name (same as Mission San Antonio de Pala). And virtually all of the other web sites listed (other than CMSA) lack scholarly credibility.--Lord Kinbote 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Engelhardt cite in the article. The two cites to Yenne are incorrect - he only mentions the pueblo of Los Angeles, not any asistencia, mission, or iglesia. His book can be viewed in Amazon. -Will Beback · † · 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's no mention of this mission in the "authoritative" CMSA site. When they do mention the edifice, they simply refer to it as the "Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles".[3][4] Could that be a compromise name for a merged article? -Will Beback · † · 06:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here is another authoritative article on the founding of the puebla, one which gives a very different view of events then we have here.[5] -Will Beback · † · 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

What a "mission" is[edit]

A mission station is a location for missionary work. Historically, Christian missions would attempt to convert locals to Christianity, teach Western culture and language, and offer some kind of social service. The mission station would serve as a place for the missionaries and perhaps some converts to live and work. In some colonies, mission stations became a focus of settlement for displaced or formerly nomadic people.

This further illustrates why an asistencia is a mission.--Lord Kinbote 19:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I agree that an asistencia did the work of a mission, with a small m. However, the common understanding is that there were 21 Missions with a large M, and this was not one of them. It was founded as a parish church, an iglesia. "La Iglesia de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles-the Church of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels"[6] --evrik (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this boil down to the difference between the name and the function of the place? If the building served the function for missionary work, in my opinion, it is a mission. This is more significant than, two centurys later, whether or not people apply the label Mission. Missions are defined by function, not arbitrary labels. BruceHallman 15:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may have functioned as a mission - we don't actually know because the sources are scant. But it almost certainly was not called a mission, and that is what matters for the purposes of naming the article. I propose that we follow the lead of the CMSA website and call the article "Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles". We can discuss the nature of asistencias in the text. -Will Beback · † · 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge/move to Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles.--Lord Kinbote 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The building has a proper name, and that is La Iglesia de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles. It would be like calling the White House by its function, the President's House. --evrik (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be no such thing. And yes, the current building is La Iglesia, not the original settlement.--Lord Kinbote 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That last sentence made no sense, but if I understand you correctly, you just said, ..."the current building is La Iglesia." This is what I have said all along. This is why the name of the article should be changed. --evrik (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evrik, would you support merging and moving it to Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles? We could have sections on the mission era and the Iglesia era, so to speak. The other two names could redirect there. -Will Beback · † · 18:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because I think that a single article on the building is necessary... and since it was never a big M mission. I would however support the an expansive discussion in the article titled Pueblo de Los Angeles to discuss the founding of the pueblo. -- evrik (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we're talking about, a single article that would contain information about the building. And yes, some of the info in this article now is more relevant to the pueblo. -Will Beback · † · 21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
all have the building type in the name ... La Iglesia de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles or The Church of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels are the most appropriate.

--evrik (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd support changing the name of the article to La Iglesia de Nuestra Señora la Reina de Los Angeles I'm a lifelong resident of California and a graduate of California schools, and Wikipedia is the ONLY place I've ever seen the Plaza Church referred to as a mission. It's always been called a parish church. I'll take the word of all my California State textbooks over that of a couple of Wikipedians. Whyaduck 14:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archdiocese[edit]

The Archdiocese website has some relevant information: [7] and [8]. -Will Beback · † · 06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: "Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church" [9]. That must be the result of a policy somewhere, one that we shouldn't follow here. -Will Beback · † · 06:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion redux[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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.

How do we feel today about changing the article name to something like Our Lady Queen of the Angels Catholic Church or La Iglesia de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles? --evrik (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, as per all of the opposition points above. I'd like to see someone with some authoritative background on the subject add to the discussion. Mdhennessey 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improper citation[edit]

La Iglesia de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles - founded in 1781

The artice text was changed erroneously to reflect a founding date of September 4, 1781, which is actually the founding date for the Pueblo of Los Angeles. The California Mission Studies Assn. web site was improperly referenced in this regard; the actual listings relative to this settlment are as follows:

Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Landmark 144
[Formerly an asistencia to Mission San Gabriel]
LOCATION: 535 N. Main St. near Macy St., Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles Plaza, Los Angeles County, Landmark 156
with La Iglesia de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles (Plaza Church), dating from 1822
LOCATION: El Pueblo de Los Angeles State Historical Monument
500 block of N. Main St., Los Angeles, CA

Mdhennessey 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The church was founded when the pubelo was founded. They were all part of the same ... "mission" to colonize the area. The 1822 date may be the date of the current building. --evrik (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation you cited above also documents that it wasn't a mission. --evrik (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments demonstrate specious reasoning at best; you provide nothing in the way of a proper citation as back-up for your POV. As for the "mission" issue, it's now properly designated an "asistencia." Mdhennessey 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referred to admin Will Beback for third-prty review. Mdhennessey 20:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not an asistencia. --evrik (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so certain of your position, then why not wait for admin review instead of continually restoring your POV edits? And actually, the cited sources do confirm it was an asistencia. Mdhennessey 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be my guest as to find someone. I'd also be open to mediation. --evrik (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

First, please stop going back and forth in the article. Just reverting each other doesn't get us anywhere. Second, it appears that we're picking up where we left off last fall. Like many topics on Wikipedia, this is a complex issue. Not only do we have to pick a name, but there isn't even agreement about the date of founding. Names are hard because an article can only have one. But the other details don't need to be decided. Rather than pick one right answer we should summarize all the major viewpoints. So if one sources says it was founded in 1781 and another says 1784 we should include both dates and try to explain the dispute. Third, plaques and signs are notoriously inaccurate and I wouldn't regard any as authoritative. (Witness the fact that they've pried off the word "Mission" from above the gate). Fourth, we know that the structure at the plaza has been built and rebuilt several times, and has had different roles (and so possibly different names). We can try to describe each of those incarnations in one article, or we can have separate articles about each. Lastly, since we all know that the name is in dispute we should not mo ve the article to a new name until there's a consensus. Because the name was changed without consensus I'm going to move it back. Anyone who wants to move the article to a new name should follow the page move procedures described at WP:RM ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey gang, let's talk about this and try to sort things out. Let me suggest two alternative plans:
  • A) Name the article ambiguously: "Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles", and include sections on each phase of the site's history.
  • B) Have two separate articles: "Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles Asistencia" and "Iglesia Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles". The former would cover the first buildings on the sites, while the buildings after the Mission era would be in the latter article.
  • C) I think we've already discarded the option of "Mis(s)ion Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles" because it was objectively not a mission nor is it called that in most sources. (If we were writing this decades ago another option would be "Old Plaza Church", but that usage seems to have waned.)
What do you think? We could put it to a vote but we should just try to agree. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be content with option A. --evrik (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't accept option B. This whole discussion (for me) is about the title of the page. It is 'La Iglesia Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles whether or not it may have functioned as an asistencia is unimportant to me, and be discussed ad nauseum in the article. We already have an article for Pueblo de Los Angeles. I think the split in option B is unncessary. --evrik (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm for option "B" which better disambiguates the intent and functions of the asistencia vs. the iglesia. Founding dates, etc. will be more clearly expressed under this scenario. Mdhennessey 00:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is "what's important to you" a criteria for deciding anything in Wikipedia? The Pueblo de Los Angeles article has nothing to do with the asistencia, any more than it does with the Plaza Church. There are dozens of other articles in WP about missions and related settlements, and all are titled and categorized based on the original incarnation (La Asistencia). Your ignorance of the subject matter is what is keeping this issue from coming to a conclusion and merely prolongs the confusion. Will Beback, where do you stand on all of this? Mdhennessey 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your ignorance of the subject matter is a violation of WP:Civil. As for importance, I will repeat what i said before, I care less about the content than making sure the article has the correct title. The church was not founded as an Asistencia. It may have functioned as an asistencia, but was an iglesia, a church for the pueblo.[10][11]

NO. 144 NUESTRA SEÑORA LA REINA DE LOS ANGELES - La Iglesia de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles-the Church of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels-was dedicated on December 8, 1822 during California's Mexican era. Originally known as La Iglesia de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles, the church was the only Catholic church for the pueblo. Today it primarily serves the Hispanic population of Los Angeles. Location: 535 N Main St near Macy St, Los Angeles[12]

The church in Los Angeles (the official name was Iglesia de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles) was founded in 1784 as an asistencia (or sub-mission) to Mission San Gabriel. [13]

I'm fine with option A or La Iglesia de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles.--evrik (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no violation of WP:CIVIL; your own citations prove my point, the settlement started out as an asistencia. The article [14] you improperly reverted gave citations for the founding of the asistencia in 1784, the original church in 1814, and the current structure in 1822. And no, as an asistencia its function was to proselytize the native population, and not serve the Spanish settlers of the Pueblo. None of the citations you list alter these facts. Again, option "B" disambiguates the issue. Mdhennessey 06:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not haggling over the substance of the article, but its title. This article is about the building - the church - la iglesia. --evrik (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is truly your position, then you have no valid reason to oppose option "B" -- two separate articles. Q.E.D. The reasonable solution is to do that and move on. Mdhennessey 15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a problem with B because there is not enough separate history to justfy a separate article. The facts about the function of the asistencia should either be part of the Iglesia article, or part of the Pueblo article. Again, I don't care where those facts go, I'm concerned that article about the building is properly titled. --evrik (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You "don't care where those facts go," yet you deleted properly-cited, relevant data regarding the asistencia, and replaced data in the mission infobox with information about the Plaza Church. There's also a reason that the "stub" category exists on Wikipedia. If there is to be one article, then the title should be "La Asistencia" as the settlement was originally founded as such, in keeping with the other mission-related articles. Mdhennessey 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is first about the building, then about the settlement (the pueblo). The settlement was meant to be a civil pueblo and the building was founded as part of that. The fact that it may have been an assistencia to the SGM does not affect the title of the building, nor the title of the article. If you want to add a section about the function of the asistencia, okay by me. This article should still be La Iglesia Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles or more plainly Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles. --evrik (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement[edit]

I don't see much agreement here. Shall we flip a coin? Alternatively, perhaps we could start by developing the "asistencia" material within the current article then move it to its own article when it's sufficiently sourced. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm okay with that. I think we have agreed that the article shouldn't be titled Mission. What will the title be: La Iglesia Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles or more plainly Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles? --evrik (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to the generic Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles and have reorganized the article on that basis, as has been suggested above. Will, do you want to do the honors? Mdhennessey 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I completed the split. --evrik (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third times the charm[edit]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 Move.

If you read the section above you'll see the agreement. I will support either Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles or Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles Asistencia. --evrik (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, let's go with Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles Asistencia for naming consistency. Mdhennessey 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Precontact section should be a separate article[edit]

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Spanish missions in California. Mdhennessey (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuestra_Señora_Reina_de_los_Ángeles_Asistencia&oldid=1204359902"