Talk:Sanctus

message: "Sanctus is also a Roman cognomen derived from the Latin word for "holy"." Even one example of Sanctus used as a cognomen might make this clearer. Perhaps someone will expand this reference and return it to the text.For instance, what time frame are we talking about here?  --Wetman 19:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any Roman with that cognomen Lostcaesar 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sanctus was found as cognomen in an inscription found on Aventin, person name Latinius Sanctus. Source: https://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/edh/inschrift/HD032438&lang=en.Daniel Robert Sum (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: How does this relate to the trihagion article?
:Try trisagion — Gareth Hughes 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the trisagion relate more strongly to the Agnus Dei? Reverend Mommy 18:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And see this.  Esoglou (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Trihagion

message: What is the Greek Orthodox term for the "Sanctus" prayer? (After the Anaphora.) Is it also considered a Trisagion prayer? 118.165.204.116 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to your question is here.  Esoglou (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q 

message: Recently an editor removed a large portion of this article, mainly translations. Is there some good reason for this that you can articulate? Otherwise I am inclined to restore it as an important part. Not everyone can understand Latin, and at least one translation helps vastly with the understanding of this topic.
:I can articulate yes, thanks anyway. Verbatum reproduction of text, not to mind translations, is discouraged here, its not the job of an encyclopedia, we are more interested in context and overview. External links do that job well enough. The same principal applies to poetry or musical articles;  we do not just slap down the text, all of it, but quote selected passages within an analysis. Ceoil 23:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the guideline Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, the guiding principle is whether or not the text is copyrighted. In my opinion, it is quite small enough to include the full text (viz. Gettysburg Address) but we need to ascertain the copyright status of each translation. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Come back to me so on copyrighted text. Ceoil 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I agree with Elizium23, and should say that this biblical/prayer copyright issue has been debated on many talk pages and unfortunately resulted in the loss of good editors when the debate overboiled. So please do take it easy on this, as a start. And in general many prayers, are quoted in Wikipedia and it is not at all clear how a thousand year old prayer can be copyrighted by 20 different books at once. It is best to have the prayer in this page because it helps the reader. History2007 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did more searches and I put an English version back. This prayer appears in many, many books and is in such widespread use that clearly none of those books can claim a copyright to it. History2007 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not so much dealing with misc. translations as with texts approved for worship.   ICEL seems only concerned with unauthorized hymnals; the US bishops have been more zealous in guarding copyright on the forthcoming texts, but since their Sanctus is identical with an earlier translation establishing a fair-use rational is moot.    I've put back the PD-US versions in full and sketched in some context to suggest the lines on which I think the article should be developed. Sparafucil (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but what was the problem with the "normal/usual" English version I had which said high instead of hyge etc. The ones you added I would not recognize.... The Sanctus I am used to does not appear on the page now! I added it back. It is amazing how much time is getting wasted here due to the initial deletion, with no serious improvement to content. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It is amazing, just amazing how time gets wasted on these talk pages via discussions that do little for the benefit of the readers. Now, if some poor user clicks to find out what the Sanctus is, should he/she not see the main English version on this page? I certainly think so. The reader needs to be informed what this prayer is. The 15th century versions should go away, for they do nothing, absolutely nothing for 90% of the readers. History2007 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Who decides what the "main English version" is? If we're only going to show the ICEL version, we should at least label it as such and source it. And a whole lot of English-speaking Christians still use 17th-century language in their liturgy. (Not 15th century, which would precede the Reformation.) Pais (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like the ICEL version that "sounds like modern English" and is used by over 50 million people in the US every week would be the main version. The problem now is that someone who hears "God of power and might" and wants to relate that to Sanctus is not being helped. This is a REALLY easy issue and just having the modern English version plus Latin will resolve the nightmares here. By the time we end this debate ICEL may have a new version anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for removing the translations?

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Gregorian chant.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: Wrong. It's also called Epinikios Hymnos.
Case in point the following sample of links simply found by googling (search for epinikios if a pdf or similar):
1
2
3
4
5
Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore restored. Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Better not ... you just started the discussion.  Wait at least a couple of days for discussion to reach consensus.  DP 00:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't start a discussion. I'm sick of discussions.... I just created a new section here to provide links explaning and then to point to this at the edit summary...P.S. For some strange reason undoing my work without explanation or justification (let alone that this undoing is evidently factually wrong) isn't a problem but my factual and explained actions are; I have to talk; something which in any case, worked really great, served me very well last time... ;-)  Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I spent an hour going over your contributions to this article.  I can't say that I've found a single one that actually improves it.  Are you sure you're putting your energy on the right areas of this project?  This one might not be your forté DP 00:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to reply politely (You're testing me. Really really testing me. Really really really testing my patience and self-control...):Look harder... ;-) Explicit examples of major hereto  additions by me have been given in the various discussions above. It's not so hard to locate them... Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really be bothered to go through everybody's edits, but -- despite everything -- this article seems to be better off than it was before Thanatos got involved. — lfdder 01:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx. Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes it obliously should.  A propos, I had long ago created a redirection of Epinikios Hymnos to Sanctus. Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Note: the last word of Epinikios Hymnos redirecting page single edit summary, should read disambiguation instead of redirection; I still remembering realising the mistake a microsecond after clicking on the button... :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Well, Sanctus is inclusive; epinikios hymnos is used to refer only to the Greek version of it (some of the time). What do we do in such cases? Do we treat it as if it were a synonym? Anyway, I don't really feel strongly about it. — lfdder 01:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting hairs is meaningless (if the naming convention-distinction was indeed this(link?), this itself could be mentioned though); synonym, identical(again let's not split hairs) reference, common logic. Thinking laterally or more broadly might also help. And then more complex logic could also help: If Epinikios Hymnos is the name of only the form in Greek (which one btw?!?!?! :D) and Sanctus of the one in Latin, then what is the reference of Sources: "As Enrico Mazza writes:..."?!?!?!? ;-)PS Splitting hairs similarly , one could argue that Sanctus isn't or wasn't or hadn't been always the name of the hymn in English... :)Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're happy with the opening para and nobody else objects either then I think we can probably move on. — lfdder 02:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the lead phrase. I'm not happy at all with the rest of the lead section. To understand my logic and where I'd wish (and planned) we'd go towards, read e.g. the 4th comment in this section, i.e. "Exactly because..." (parts of the lead would, following this rationale, get moved to other sections). But I won't be doing any such thing any time soon; especially now, after what happened.... Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw thinking out loud (originating from the googling I did before), but if someone knows the answer...:This perplexes me: ...englische Lobgesang...?!?!? What am I missing? What does the poet want to say (Greek phrase; the Greeks will get it)? Why are they citing the English of the hymn, in fact calling it English? Are they using the English form of the hymn as a reference? Was the English form of the hymn so important, so central to Germans (or was it the only one they knew)? Din't, don't Germans have an analogous form of the hymn? Not even the German Catholics?!?!?! O.o? Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You will recover from your perplexity when you recall that in this context "englisch" means "angelic".  "Non Angli sed angeli." Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanx Esoglou. I should have first slept, recover my brain functions, and then think out loud; now your reply seems obvious. Thanx. :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in English