Talk:Statues of Junípero Serra (Ventura, California)

Controversy section Off topic

The embedded list of Serra statues that have been vandalized at other locales is off-topic because these statues have no relation to the Ventura statues. The section name, Controversy, doesn't impart much information. A better title would be "Vandalism." – Lionel^(talk) 09:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agree in part; section titled changed to Controversy and vandalism

Once you open the can of worms vis-a-vis non-Ventura statues then per NPOV you have to talk about the hundreds of statues which have not been vandalized and even start adding positions from from Serra apologists.– Lionel^(talk) 03:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the Serra statues in Ventura. At your prodding, I greatly abbreviated the discussion of vandalism at other locations. However, there is a clear connection between the vandalism of Serra statues at nearby California locations; there is a concerted effort by some to vandalize Serra statuary up and down the California coast, and this effort drew considerable press attention that ultimately led the local paper here in Ventura County to call for removal of our Ventura statuary. Condensing is fine, but completely eliminating the other acts of vandalism would remove important context. Cbl62 (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I plan to turn my attention soon to Ventura's Father Serra cross, which is another important Ventura landmark (VHL #5) that became entangled in controversy when a group of objectors threatened to sue and reached a settlement requiring the city to sell the land where the cross is situated. Cbl62 (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mercury News says "The Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation, which has its roots on the Central Coast, decried the damage to the mission at the time." Will you add Native American support for the statues?– Lionel^(talk) 03:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

My goal is to present a factual history of Ventura's Serra statues as important historic landmarks. Whether one agrees or disagrees with protesters, vandalism and controversy are part of that history, but the article should not become a forum for discussing the merits of Father Serra. Cbl62 (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, didn't know he had a cross in Ventura. Recently I undertook a major reorganization of Mount_Soledad_Cross_lawsuits. And I created the attorney for the cross proponents Charles_LiMandri. I nominated the latter for DYK, and it made it onto the Main page, but it got pulled off the page on a trumped up POV objection lmao. – Lionel^(talk) 04:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Serra cross above downtown Ventura was put in place in 1790s (it had been replaced two or three times but remains in the same location). In the early 20th century, the land on which it sat was acquired by the city and became a city park. The cross was brightly illuminated for many years and was a major landmark in Ventura. As a result of the 2003 litigation, the city not only sold the property (to a conservancy established to maintain it), but also agreed to permanent restrictions on the illumination of the cross. The park has been closed this year following the Thomas Fire, but the site remains a popular spot for weddings and an annual Easter pilgrimmage. Cbl62 (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Move

Just a quick note - the page was previously moved without a discussion to Father Serra statue (Ventura, California). This move was requested to be reverted and granted. If that move is still desired, please open an official move discussion. Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 16:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to Statues of Junípero Serra (Ventura, California). - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Father Serra statue → Statue of Junípero Serra (Ventura, California) – Per WP:VAMOS (see "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo"...) and consistency with other entries in Category:Statues of Junípero Serra. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I am ok with the move if consensus supports with two caveats. First, it should be plural "Statues ..." as the article covers (a) the concrete sculpture that was displayed for several decades, (b) the wooden replica displayed for years in city hall, and (c) the bronze statue that was taken down in 2020 (fate unknown). Second, I have a question. Now that Serra has been canonized, this article and the others should now be named as "Statues of St. Junipero Serra"? In this particular case, the rename should be to "Statues of St. Junipero Serra (Ventura, California)". Cbl62 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to make up a longer name as the statue has a name which needs no disambiguation. WP:VAMOS ends with the exception "If the sculpture has a distinct common name". There is no need to use a made up title that has no historical context for these piece. Several of the other statues are by the same sculpture which required disambiguation. Making the name plural is confusing since many sculptures have required a model for casting and the artist did not intend to produce a series as this implies. The "replica" contention is part of the history and an interesting aspect that is clearly explained. No need to add to the title. There is no need to update the title for sainthood since how that impacted the history of the piece is already included in the article. Lengthening an article title is usually discouraged without there being a problem with the current name. Let's respect the artist and the historical identity of this art piece by retaining the long-time common name. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The plural is necessary and even essential IMO. This is not simply a situation where the sculptor created a model for casting. The cement statue was the original, and it was displayed for decades. After it deteriorated with exposure to the elements, a bronze version was created and thereafter displayed, also for decades. The creation of the bronze was subject to much fanfare at the time of its creation. Cbl62 (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the article originally had a plural title when I created it. It was later moved without a requested move discussion like this one. Cbl62 (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The current title follows Wikipedia's naming conventions by using the common name of the subject. Any of the proposed changes would make it overprecise. The article telling this compelling story was started in April 2018, involving several statues but the common name applies to each iteration. While this is a unique story, that doesn't suggest making the common name plural as many statues use a similar method or have multiple copies even in different materials. In a little over a week after the article was started, the effort was joined by other editors. There have been multiple editors involved during active editing who could have objected during the evolution of the title. In early May, the Ventura disambiguation was deleted from the title. Active editing ceased for over a year in September. After active editing had resumed, I requested the current title in June 2020. In July the city disambiguation was added again which was immediately undone at my request. When an article at the time of title change has several active editors involved, a formal move process is not used since the article had not reached a stable consensus. Adding disambiguation to the title in order to create a link or index with other works is not appropriate. Hatnotes are available for that purpose. After a consensus of a couple of years, nothing has changed that the common name of the art work needs to change. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The sources cited in the article have lots of variations and, at least in the online ones not behind a paywall (of which there are 33 by my count), the form "Father Serra statue" is only in five – so it doesn't have the "prevalence in a significant majority" of sources mentioned at WP:COMMONNAME. If the current title "needs no disambiguation", how would it not apply to the seven other works at Category:Statues of Junípero Serra? And it's unnecessary to reflect Serra's canonization as these article names for statues usually stick close to the form used for the article on the person commemorated – in this case Junípero Serra, which follows MOS:SAINT by omitting "St." or "Saint". Ham II (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Thanks for pointing out that this appears to be the only article in the Category:Statues of Junípero Serra that has not fallen in line with using a standard description (with a required disambiguation making it even longer) instead of a common name. The Ventura statue does have a common name for which one has to read the history within the article, the local newspaper (possibly behind paywall), and other authoritative sources specific to this statue. The statue did have its 15 minutes of fame during the protests so more distant media coverage was not in-depth and would skew a simple search of references. The proposed titles appears to reject the concept of commonly used names which are easily recognizable. If you look at other articles in Category:Statues of Junípero Serra, they are start class or stubs so they have not reached stability or a consensus on the title. This article is a more serious work and is the same size of all the other articles if they were combined. It has the highest readership and has been rated a B class. The article has been stable which demonstrates a long term consensus among editors. There is nothing that warrants using a description of the subject of the work as the title. Cheers Fettlemap (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support the move and disambiguation, though as noted above the destination should be "Statues of St. Junipero Serra (Ventura, California)". Other statutes should similarly be renamed to correspond with Serra's formal post-canonization name. Cbl62 (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.