Talk:Crucifix of San Marcello

Move proposal

I would suggest making either the San Marcello crucifix itself (as TonyBallioni suggested at AfD) or the confraternity set up to venerate it the primary topic (and title) of this article, with the 1522 plague procession as part of its history. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Confraternity would be interesting. Based on the sourcing I found it was one of the more significant ones of the time. Haven’t looked deeply for sourcing on it though, and I suspect it’d you’d run into what I refer to as “the Henry VIII issue” (there being little English sourcing on minor but notable topics in early modern Catholicism because Anglophones have historically been Protestant.) You likely could find a decent amount of Italian sourcing. I’m fine with a move to either but the crucifix might be easier right now. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• As I said on the AfD, I would oppose such a move. The plague procession is interesting and notable in its own right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing that it's interesting, but not a single one of the sources is primarily about the procession. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So notability primarily resides elsewhere, and it would be more appropriate to have an article there. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

To add another notable topic, there is quite a bit written on the motets and oratorios. Obviously content for the other article, but the impression i get is that the prominence of those in the confraternity attracted important composers and musicians. fiveby(zero) 14:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Smither, Howard E. (1977). History of the oratorio. Vol. 1. pp. 207–15.
• Alaleona, Domenico (1908). Studi su la storia dell'oratorio musicale in Italia. pp. 234–71.

Process

NightHeron Andreas Philopater Process is correct (it's a verb). "Processioning" is just awful! GPinkerton (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not write "processioned" but simply replaced processed by the correct and easily understood word walked. Of course "process" is a verb (used as a transitive verb all the time in computer science), but the particular usage "the people processed from point A to B" is highly non-standard. I have never heard it used that way, and that meaning is not given in dictionary.com. Perhaps the word is used that way in some English-speaking countries. According to WP:MOS, Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences. Please change it back. I really think we should not edit-war over what constitutes correct standard English. NightHeron (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Processing involves a more organised, coherent group movement than walking. I agree with GPinkerton and Andreas Philopater that this is idiomatic English usage. You can see other examples of "process" meaning "make a procession" here, here, here and here. Cheers, gnu57 23:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Webster's Dictionary online says that your usage is "chiefly British" [1], which may explain why I've never in my life heard it used that way. Wikipedia policy is to avoid Americanisms and Britishisms as much as possible. NightHeron (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking something like "carried in procession" might work, but looking at the lead paragraphs they actually provide quite a lot of redundant detail that is covered in the body anyway and could just be cut. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it could be cut, especially since the main topic of the article is now the crucifix rather than the procession. NightHeron (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I saw the word processioned at some point an assumed this was the contention. Webster's is a "chiefly American" dictionary so its focus on and recommendation of Americanisms is hardly surprising. Globally, the word procession is what happens when things process (or proceed). The other meaning of process is pronounced differently, with the stress on the other syllable. The OED gives meanings as "To go, walk, or march in procession." and "To lead or carry (a person, etc.) in procession; to go along or through (a street, an area) in procession." It calls both these meanings "colloquial" (in 2007) and well within the frequency range of everyday speech. The other meanings ("Originally Scottish") include "Chiefly Scottish and Irish English To institute a process or legal action against, to sue, prosecute; to obtain a process or summons against; to serve a process on. Now rare." and "To subject to or treat by a special process; to operate on mechanically or chemically; spec. to preserve or alter (food, a foodstuff, etc.) in this way. Also, more loosely: to deal with (something), esp. according to an established procedure. Also figurative" and "Originally U.S. To subject (a person) to a process, as of registration, examination, or analysis", so I'm not convinced it's rare or unsuitable. Dictionary.com is generally evidence of nothing other than poor lexicography in my view. GPinkerton (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I don't doubt that it's acceptable colloquial usage in Britain. Webster's, whether biased toward Americanisms or not, is most likely correct about identifying that usage as chiefly British. I am pretty sure that very few Americans are familiar with that usage, but I'm not sure about Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, or English-speaking Indians. As I said, WP policy is to avoid regional usage as much as possible. In any case, I'm mainly concerned about the lead (since it's more important for the lead to be understandable to everyone than for every section in the main body to be), and User:Andreas Philopater solved that problem by pointing out that a detailed description of the procession isn't needed in the lead at all. NightHeron (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: While the 2015 New Oxford American Dictionary (3 ed.), nor the 2004 Australian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed.), nor even the 2005 The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed.) mention anything at all about the word being peculiar to Britain nor anywhere else and The Chambers Dictionary, by contrast, refers to at least one of the other verb meanings of "process" as "(NAm.)", the Cambridge Dictionary does say it is "mainly UK formal". GPinkerton (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Roman authorities

The lead and article say processions were banned, but by who? The "city authorities" means what at this period? Were things not run by the papacy, and if not, how? Why was one particular cardinal able to grant permission and why did he? What was his role in the city hierarchy? GPinkerton (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Oratory of Santissimo Crocifisso - Interior.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)