Talk:Customary (liturgy)

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

Requested move 20 November 2022[edit]

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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by the nominator following action to improve disambiguation, as expressed below at 21:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Customary (liturgy) → Customary – Replacing redirect with article in alignment with Sacramentary and Antiphonary Pbritti (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The below threaded conversation started at WP:RMTR. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The requested new title, Customary, has been a redirect towards Convention (norm) since 2006 and has never changed from then to now (minus one few hour bit of vandalism). This isn't technical and probably isn't uncontroversial. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: Just to be sure, are you contesting this move or are you stating that it is likely to be contested? If the latter, I'll ensure a few WikiProjects related to both the original redirect target and the article to be renamed are notified. Thanks for getting the ball rolling! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbritti: Basically, it's to allow assessment of this move request ... and to allow/permit responses to assess it such as the response from In ictu oculi below. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Ping nominator to let them know the discussion moved here. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not the primary topic of customary In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @In ictu oculi: Redirecting to Convention (norm) means an adjective is redirecting to a noun. Custom would be a more appropriate redirect (but it is rightly a disambiguation page). "Customary" has to modify another word in order for it reference convention but, when it stands alone, refers almost exclusively to this type of book. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers cannot be expected to only look for noun meanings. (And there is nothing wrong with redirecting some terms to disambiguation pages.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BarrelProof: If you think swapping Customary from a redirect to a disambiguation page, I think that's a thoroughly good proposal, especially since a couple have expressed opposition to the general move and there doesn't seem to be any topic that relies exclusively on "Customary". ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the Customary redirect to target the Custom disambiguation page, and have expanded the list of topics provided on that page. I think that should suffice. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your BOLD on tidying up the redirects and disambiguations is a great option. I don't know how to do it, but seeing as I agree with this alternative and others opposed my original proposal, I think we can close this! Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would expect Customary to redirect to an article about social customs, e.g. "it's customary to eat several meals per day". The many different meanings appearing at Custom, and the fact that this is an adjective form of many of them, demonstrates that the liturgical meaning isn't primary for this word and shouldn't be moved to the un-disambiguated title. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A liturgical customary isn't even the primary ecclesiastical book meaning of "customary" which more typically refers to a monastic customary, the supplement to a rule for a particular religious house or community. Jahaza (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jahaza: Historians describe monastic and liturgical customaries as one and the same (per the cited Oxford history, the Pfaff book from CUP, and the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church). The article already addresses this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the precise details in medieval customaries have allowed historians to reconstruct since-lost buildings? Source: Driscoll, Michael S. (2006). "The Conversation of Nations". In Wainwright, Geoffrey; Westerfield Tucker, Karen B. (eds.). The Oxford History of Christian Worship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 204-205.

5x expanded by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 18:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Review

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - I can't readily access the source but it seems plausible. But the relevant sentence isn't directly cited.
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Not sure why there's no picture being suggested but the immediate issue is the expansion ratio. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I'm not entirely clear how you came up with that incredibly off ratio; this tool suggests that the last version pre-expansion had about 380 characters of prose (which excludes "categories, references, lists, and tables" per the eligibility criteria) before deleting characters used for links. The same tool suggests that the current article has over 5000 characters of prose even after deleting any character used only to link to other articles. Also, I've never had to provide the sentence for an offline source–typically this is understood to be a AGF matter–but since you want it: "Often processions are described in wonderful detail, to such an extent that historians of architecture have been able to reconstruct abbatial churches..." (pg. 205). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As to the image issue, I opted against it solely on the basis that the sourcing I have failed to identify specific elements of specific churches that had been reconstructed. Additionally, none of the sources I have used identify a surviving manuscript with an image available and suitable for the main page. I would have liked to introduce one but the only customaries that have images available are rather lame text-only ones or have illustrations in parts of the manuscript considered to not be part of customary proper. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@Pbritti:
I used WP:DYKCHECK which currently reports
Prose size (text only): 5112 characters (740 words) "readable prose size"
Article created by Oceanbourne on October 21, 2005
Article is classified as a stub
Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 39 edits ago on July 12, 2006
Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (5976 days)
But it is counting the pre-expansion version you point to as 2303 characters and so seems confused. Making a manual check by counting lines I reckon the expansion is 10x and so that's ok.
But we have some niggles. On neutrality, I wonder whether the article neglects the topic in other places such as other European countries. Not a big deal but that's why I didn't pass that aspect immediately.
We need a citation for the sentence which is the basis of the hook. Having a citation nearby is usually not considered enough.
As the article has a picture, I was wondering why we're not using it but it's your call.
So, we're getting there. Ok?
Andrew🐉(talk) 23:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: That's perfectly ok; a visual inspection is almost always better than a tool. As to neutrality, this topic is (almost) exclusively European. Glad you checked, but that's the sum of it. My including of "European Medieval period" per sourcing is meant to guide the reader to understand this. This is a subject that only comes up in the contexts of Western liturgies and, prior to the 20th century, the customary was wholly constrained to Europe. I would have liked to include more material on the Episcopal Church's use of customaries but the only work with non-primary source material on this is cited to its fullest extent already. Your citation request was initially unclear; it should be fixed now but I would ask you just double-check. I do appreciate your willingness to approve images, though, and there are too few like you who are willing to do that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-checked the various issues discussed above and they are now either resolved or are not show-stoppers. So, we're good to go. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown word[edit]

What on earth does "architectural historians have leveraged the detail" mean ? Did they use crow-bars or something on thge pages ? Is this word some sort of American colloquialism ? Not known or understood by most UK people, I imagine. Please replace something from standard English -- I would but I don't know what this peculiar expression means. अनाम गुमनाम 00:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anam Gumnam: A simple Google search will reveal the term but, to spell it out, "leverage" here is in its verb form. "To leverage" refers to using something for its potential. For example: "The stock trader leveraged insider knowledge to avoid a loss in his investments." It's not a colloquialism, though perhaps more common on this side of the pond. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your elucidation. My understanding is that it was originally jargon from the US financial world, as your example well illustrates. What makes it even more bizarre to UK English speakers here is the odd pronunciation. Starting from "lever" rhyming with "fever", we would say *"leeverage" rather than rhyme with it with *"feather-age" based, I presume on the US pronunciation of "lever", not rhyming with "fever". According to the context here and your definition, what would be wrong with "[they] made use of their detail" ? What additional nuance is added by using (or "leveraging" as you might say) this odd US word. I thought Wiki tried to be international in outreach. अनाम गुमनाम 00:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anam Gumnam: English Wikipedia tends to have articles written for general international consumption, but there is nothing that suggests "leverage" is less familiar to British English speakers. Even if there were, this article is written in American English. Additionally, while the term is best explained in business terms as they offer the best examples, it is often used in many other contexts (such as an army general leveraging numerical superiority to win a battle or a criminal leveraging photos for blackmail). Indeed, in this occasion, I have leveraged "leverage" to describe the relationship between customaries and architectural historians. Here, your personal unfamiliarity with a common word does not constitute the need for a change; a similar standard applies if you encounter the same issue on other articles. However, I would have steered clear from using "leverage" had this been Simple English Wikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your reply. Yes, of course I realize that the article is written in the US dialect of English and I did not seriously expect any changes to be made to an otherwise interesting article. Actually I am quite familiar with the word "leverage" but have never really found any source (apart from your good self) that clarifies the meaning satisfactorily. I would suggest very few of our English speakers would have any idea what it means -- though it is making insiduous inroads via ever so clever journalists. You may not have realized that US English is currently going through a phase of prolific neologism generation -- these tend to be unnecessary and jar on our ears -- they are also generally otiose. Perhaps the effects of 4 years of Twitter and Trump. Anyway, over and out. अनाम गुमनाम 21:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I live in the UK and I think that most well-educated British people are familiar with the word 'leveraged' and its meaning - although it is normally only used in specialised contexts, for example in finance. It would never have occurred to me to question this particular example on the grounds of clarity, even though I think it's pretty horrible stylistically and the same thing could be said more simply and elegantly. Sbishop (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Customary_(liturgy)&oldid=1206850979"