Talk:Customary (liturgy)

Requested move 20 November 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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by the nominator following action to improve disambiguation, as expressed below at 21:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)  —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Customary (liturgy) → Customary – Replacing redirect with article in alignment with Sacramentary and Antiphonary&#32;Pbritti (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The below threaded conversation started at WP:RMTR. Steel1943  (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Basically, it's to allow assessment of this move request ... and to allow/permit responses to assess it such as the response from below.  Steel1943  (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ping nominator to let them know the discussion moved here. Steel1943  (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose not the primary topic of customary In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I have changed the redirect to target the  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)
 * There may be some overlap and/or confusion between, and . I also disambiguated the term , since it can apparently refer to at least two of those topics. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Unknown word
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)