Talk:Crucifer

Untitled

"(particularly the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, as well as on occasions such as Lent and/or Easter, Lutherans)"

Is the above intended to imply that Catholics and Anglicans have a crucifer in their services routinely, but Lutherans only during Lent and/or Easter? The phrasing is far from clear. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 15:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Crucifer is often (in the Anglican church at least) used at the gospel. I know. The one I carry is heavy, especially when the gospel is 40 verses long... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.234.41 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of that - ours is only used as processional cross at the beginning and end of the service, although the cross is always present, at the end of the choir. -Tpacw (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 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: Not moved. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Crucifer → Cross-bearer – "Crucifer" is also the common term for plants in the family Brassicaceae (or Cruciferae), and there's no primary topic between those two meanings (see for example the results in the two sets of web searches [1][2] vs. [3][4]). My proposal is for Crucifer to become a disambiguation page with entries for cross bearer, the plant (linked via the redirect Crucifer (plant)), and Crucifer, Tennessee. I'm less sure about the new title of this article: is "Cross-bearer" common enough for WP:NATDIS? If yes, do we have with or without the hyphen? If not, then an alternative is something Crucifer (Christianity) or Crucifer (church service). – Uanfala (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Primary topic for this word. Solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the plant exists, the WP:PTOPIC appears to be the individual who carries the crucifix. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I've had a look further, and from google searches and ngrams I can infer that "crucifer" is probably somewhere about twice as common a name for the church topic as "cross-bearer". In my view, this indicates we should go for the more common term and therefore move the article to, say, Crucifer (Christianity) (though in many other people's understanding of NATDIS, "half as common" is still common enough to be preferable over a parenthetically disambiguated title). – Uanfala (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think the liturgical meaning is primary. People typically say "Cruciferous vegetables" or "Cruciferae" for the plants.--Jahaza (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  People say "Cruciferae" (or, more commonly these days, "Brassicaceae") when they want to refer to the family as a taxon. "Cruciferous vegetable" is used for those few members of the family which are vegetables. "Crucifer" refers to any species in the family (whether used as a vegetable or not). Its plural – "crucifers" – is also used to refer to the family as whole, which is a handy way to opt for a common English word that spares you the need to switch into Latin mode. This is widely used: Worldcat has over 500 books with "crucifer(s)" in the title [5] (I've checked the first 40 records: all but 3 of them the term is used in the botanical meaning). If the liturgical meaning is indeed primary, no evidence for that has been presented so far. The books on Worldcat point the plant as primary, while the web searches I linked to in the nomination indicate the absence of a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  A list of library books though is not a reliable corpus for measuring common usage of words though, as it's going to be vastly overrun by scientific literature usages given publishing incentives, whereas many (most?) people never use botanical names of plants at all. Additionally, the liturgical role of the crucifer is minor enough that it's not likely to be used in the titles and subjects, but that doesn't mean the word isn't used in general.--Jahaza (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  That's what the web searches were for: to get a handle on common usage. The internet isn't similarly overrun by scientific literature, is it? – Uanfala (talk) 21:47, 30 June 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.