Jump to content

Talk:Spanish missions in California

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 3 September 2015 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Spanish missions in California/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

misleading name

The name of this article is confusing as hell. If you are going to call it "Spanish missions in California" you should cover Alta and Baja. You have a "Spanish missions in Baja California". Or is there some f**ed up policy to use modern day place names? Then could you say "Spanish missions in Modern Day California" or "Spanish missions in California (US State)" or some thing? "Spanish missions in California" when I wanted to know about "Spanish missions in Baja California" damn confusing... should it be "Spanish missions in the Baja California Peninsula" or "Spanish missions in Baja California and Baja California Sur" because it covers both modern day states using the historical name so make this one say "Alta" or merge the two into one story please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.125.117 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think this article's title is "misleading", let alone "confusing as hell". But to address the issue of California missions v. Alta California missions, I have created a redirect so that anyone searching for Spanish missions in Alta California will be directed to this article. --anietor (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Statehood

In the "california statehood"-section, it says that the president was negotiating treaties with indians. But it doesn't say about what. Land? Property? Their acceptance of the white government? Does somebody know? --PaterMcFly talk contribs 19:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protect the page?

Maybe you should somehow protect the page against vandals:

http://www.chainsawsuit.com/20091202.shtml

91.156.150.117 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Father" as a priest-title is unacceptable in Wikipedia

In Wikipedia, the names of priests should not be preceded by the title Father. Note this guideline concerning use of Father as a title:

Father

Use the Rev. in first reference before the names of Episcopal, Orthodox and Roman Catholic priests. On second reference use only the cleric’s last name. Use Father before a name only in direct quotations.

(Religious titles | Religion Stylebook -- http://religionstylebook.com/entries/category/religion-and-culture/titles) Mksword (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term Father or Father-Presidentes in this case is historic. During the time of the Californa Missions existence Father was the proper term. Notice in the section itself individuals are references as The Rev.. I would argue that the first entry is actually wrong because here in California we are taught and we allways say Father Junípero Serra never Reverend Junípero Serra.

Robert.Harker (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]