Talk:Use of Sarum

message: The Latin name for Salisbury is not "Sarum", it is Salisburium. Sarum is the abbreviation that was used on maps. It became common to use Sarum in reference to Salisbury.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementissime (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. The Latin name for Salisbury was Sorviodunum. Even if you're talking medieval dog/ecclesiastical Latin, you're looking at Serisberia & al. Sarum's not only a perfectly set alt Latin name for the place (albeit born out of scribal errors well before anyone was drawing maps), it was the official name in English until 2009 and remains the name for the original settlement at Old Sarum. — LlywelynII 09:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Printed sources from the 1490s to the 1530s use the topographical adjective “sarisburiensis, -ense”.  This would imply that the contemporary toponym was “Sarisburium / Salisburium”, but I don’t recall ever seeing that word in any primary source.  It does appear in some of the Victorian scholarship. The story about deriving the name “Sarum” from maps is not true. MonteGargano (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarum Rite 

message: Could somebody write more on the influence on the Book of Common Prayer? You already mention the Advent propers and the counting of Sundays after Trinity; another influence I know about is the Lord's Prayer and the Collect of Purity at the beginning of the Mass. Anything more?--130.133.155.69 (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Common Prayer 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sarum Rite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060716045416/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk:80/Petroc/sarum.htm to http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/sarum.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 05:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The term “rite” or “ritus” or any variation thereof is not found in the surviving Customaries or Ordinals of Sarum Use, anywhere.  The only terms—used over and over and over again, for CENTURIES—are “secundum usum sarum” “ad usum sarum”, i.e., “according to the Use of Sarum”, or “in the Sarum Use”.  A “made-up phrase”?  Ludicrous. Given the abundance of information available online for this topic, including numerous transcriptions and translations of primary sources, it boggles the mind that hearsay, rumor, and innuendo were the best anyone could provide when discussing this name change.  One article from a Catholic encyclopdia from 100 years is sad bit of evidence when faced with so much legitimate scholarship.
Start here for ALL of the surviving Customaries: http://www.sarumcustomary.org.uk/.  
Then go here for the (so-far) only full transcription of the so-called Old Ordinal: sarum-chant.ca, tab ‘More Documents’, ‘Ordinale Sarisburiensis’.  MonteGargano (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I'm not following. What are you asking?--Cúchullain t/c 18:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am referring to the decision NOT to change the name of this article, hence the title of the section, "Request Move Redux".  I have placed a “Move Review” on your page. MonteGargano (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: MonteGargano, this is not what Wikipedia:Move review is intended for. The previous discussion did not result in consensus in favor of a move, so no move was made. The interpretation of the discussion when it was closed was correct. However, that was quite a while ago, so if you want to try to initiate another normal Wikipedia:Requested move and have another discussion, please do so. I'd suggest withdrawing the request for a move review. Dekimasuよ! 19:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per your suggestion, I have re-submitted the move request, which incorporates the points I raised here.  MonteGargano (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Move Redux