Jump to content

Talk:Market cross

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why specify best example in *Devon*--why not say, in all of Britain, or just say, "a fine example of a market cross" without specifying location? ~ Dpr 06:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After this much time and still no citations or explanations - I'm just going to delete the "Finest example." --ScientificBuccaneer (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger from Mercat cross

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed, after more than a month with no comments, little interest and no consensus -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Mercat is the Scottish way to say market. It appears to be the same thing.--Frozenport (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose While the terms market cross and mercat cross are linguistically interchangeable, the crosses themselves may not be culturally. Scottish crosses usually bear the royal unicorn, and so are quite distinctive. I would therefore plead that they retain their own page. Having two pages allows more to be displayed and will hopefully give the reader a feel for each country. Kim Traynor 18:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the article says "To this day several important announcements and proclamations are still ceremonially made at the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh, including the calling of general elections and the succession of new monarchs." The Mercat is far more important cultural in Scotland than any equivalent market cross in England. -- PBS (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The two can have distinctly different functions and architectural forms. Similarity of name or meaning is not alone a reason for a merger. I doubt that any academic source on the architecture of Scottish mercat crosses would choose to ignore the term "mercat cross" and use "market cross" instead. Meowy 19:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed merge with Mercat cross

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed, years with no comments, little interest and no consensus -- PBS (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly we need a central "market cross" article (say at market cross) covering the broad topic (globally), and if there are reasons to divide into subpages based on differences, regions, article size etc that's arguable at that point. A list article containing examples would arguably be a better way to split off excess examples and photos. I added a hatnote, and will tag for merge. Divisive arguments about nationalities should IMHO be avoided, we base articles on topics, not names.
  • As the mercat cross articles states - they are the market crosses in Scotland, and although they have a different similar name (wikt:mercat lists as "market"), cultural differences, arguably usage they are Scottish subtypes/examples of the scope of the global topic "market cross" (which has examples in England, Scotland, Wales and alludes to others).
  • As for merge from and to proposal, and a fairly recent merge discussion, mercat cross is a better article
  • I feel a wider consensus is needed than before, hence the relisting
  • previous discussions 2007 Talk:Mercat cross#Merge article with Market Cross, and above 2012 #Proposed merger from Mercat cross (ec) Widefox; talk 13:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had just finished writing the following comment before you moved your comment from the Mercat Cross Talkpage to the position above:- An article covering the broad topic, as you suggest, will amount to at most an introductory paragraph (or two), as exists on the present Market Cross article. If that article is then broken down into English and Scottish town crosses on the same page, it will result, in my opinion, in an overlengthy article made up of two very disproportionate sections which will make the whole seem unbalanced. (I am not aware of what other regions would be included, as the page deals with a British, not a global phenomenon). Please note that the information on English market crosses is at present unreferenced, whereas the article on Scottish mercat crosses is. The literature on the latter is extremely sparse; but does any literature exist at all on the subject of crosses in England? A book did appear a couple of years ago, but it was no more than a print-out of the two Wikipedia articles supplemented by other articles such as "Cruciform". It seems to be no longer in print. I would suggest that anyone supporting the merger of the market cross and mercat cross pages should first beef up the information on the English page with adequately sourced material. Then we can take a fresh look at what a page of combined information might look like. Scots will still feel that crosses north of the border are a subject in their own right (were, for example, English crosses places of execution?) and that the proposal to merge is, as two contributors have already stated on the mercat crosses talkpage, an example of anglocentrism. Kim Traynor | Talk 13:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all interested in an English vs Scottish narrative, this is not about crosses north vs south of the border (a false dichotomy in my opinion), market cross has Welsh places (as well as Scottish and others, but we don't have a Welsh article either and I guess we shouldn't) - but is only about article scope. I agree about WP:WEIGHT - non-Scottish prose is lacking. That is a lesser problem than separate articles on the same topic! Perspective indicates that differences are minor compared to the similarity - they are the same topic "market town crosses" (and arguably easily within Wikipedia:Broad-concept article). I came here from Coventry Cross where it details executions, yes. A weak market cross article is another point, and certainly a shame to readers who may not find the better content at mercat cross, so actually an argument to merge IMHO. Conversely, we don't have to wait for references or size as the lists can/should be split anyhow - they aren't big articles even with - so moot. I feel either they are actually different topics (and I'm not understanding why based on content or arguments so far) or there's a previous WP:localconsensus here that may benefit this time from wider participation. Widefox; talk 13:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for sources, a quick Google (rather than books etc) for "Scottish market cross" [1] [2] [3] [4] . Widefox; talk 16:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the new title message posted on the mercat cross page as it seems to suggest that there is a worldwide view of the subject that is not adequately recognised by the content of that page. In my view, that is a ridiculous addition, as I can't see it eliciting responses - what kind of response is expected? (I don't see anyone trying to create a page on a pan-European phenomenon to include French and German market fountains etc.) I have quoted from all the available printed evidence on mercat crosses held by the National Library of Scotland. What equivalent exists for England? We don't need google references for more individual crosses in Scotland. We need google references for the subject of market crosses in England. As I suggested before, let someone add the English information that the market cross page is lacking and until then leave the Scottish content alone. It is a page dealing with a distinct subject. You say it's not about an English-Scottish difference. I disagree. This is where our mentalities diverge - it's the age-old English-Scottish problem, namely the English desire to subsume cultural diversity on this island into an overall English view. The erection of town crosses is common to both countries, but where is the English equivalent of Scottish royal burghs or baronial burghs? They had a bearing on the iconography of the Scottish crosses and what they signified, e.g. are there English crosses signifying that their towns had a monopoly of foreign trade? Kim Traynor | Talk 18:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose such a merger. Coming from Devon and living in Scotland I feel that I appreciate and recognise the distinctive differences as outlined above. If the Market Cross article had been thoroughly researched these practical differences would be apparent. Combining the articles would just confuse the issue. The attachment of jougs, etc originally led me to this Scottish phenomenon of Mercat Crosses. A suggestion to make this a global article is perhaps a little unrealistic and lacks focus on the cultural significance and traditions involved. I feel that the proposer should permit these articles to keep their individual identities without further adverse pressure. Rosser Gruffydd 10:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't care for the Scotland-England narrative - please don't ignore crosses in Wales and elsewhere. This is the English language wikipedia. I've yet to be convinced that this isn't a WP:CFORK based on Scots word, rather than English (we're talking words derived from Latin wikt:mercat after all, a dictionary difference not an encyclopedic one). We base articles on topics, so what's the difference? Instead of talking about other editors mentalities, and that of WP:OWN (I can edit whichever articles I desire, and will seek further opinion on this) please WP:AGF just say what the difference is. I (currently) would say the same topic - crosses in market towns. Arguments about the small and poor market town is an argument for merger. The article scope is unrelated to the language of the title, so just because a Scots word is used, doesn't mean that the topic only covers Scottish market crosses, in fact, it needs justifying why it isn't a redirect (per above). Widefox; talk 13:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're beginning to bamboozle me. You believe that there is only one topic involved, namely market crosses. What prevents you recognising Scottish mercat crosses as constituting a topic in their own right? In my opinion, it is if one defines it as such, whether that be culturally or geographically. Someone could create a page on the topic "church" (as in buildings), but that surely wouldn't rule out separate pages being created on French or Spanish or German churches (or wherever) if there was something worth saying about them, would it? Kim Traynor | Talk 01:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Scots translates to market crosses, so yes, market crosses. The main article isn't big enough for WP:summary style with breakout for market crosses in different regions. Lack of evidence (so far) that they are different topics, seems that it is hanging on the Scots word, per above. The decision to breakout church into different regions would be, as said, based on size etc. I take it you agree they are crosses in market towns? That's a lot less diverse than a broad concept article, so fine IMHO. Widefox; talk 12:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the erroneous translation of the word has become a sticking point. The Bible has translated from Greek to Latin to English and so on with all sorts of confused meanings lost along the way because the cultural context has been lost. It's the purpose that is important - a Mercat Cross is far more than a Market Cross. We have a Market Cross in Kilmaurs for instance - Scotland - it isn't a Mercat Cross. Rosser Gruffydd 12:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support merge (again). I've just read mercat cross which is of course much better, but fails to indicate any way in which Scottish crosses are distinctive from those in England, or, I would imagine, the rest of Western Europe. Note I was not one of those canvassed to appear here. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per my previous comments above. For a little academic insight, read this article on Scottish Market Crosses (sic) on the Robert Gordon University website. So it should be perfectly acceptable to have a WP article called Market Cross that covers all the Scottish aspects of the subject. Any particularly notable mercat/market crosses (wherever they are) should deserve their own article on merit. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC) n.b. I should have added that although the cited article does point out that Scottish market crosses have distinctive features, the academic author does not feel it necessary to give them a different name. Furthermore, the reference list of the RGU article includes a work entitled "Scottish mercat croces ..." This demonstrates two things; (1) mercat crosses aren't necessarily Scottish, and (2) Scots spelling isn't standardised, and therefore difficult to accommodate here. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On reading Robert Gordon University website far from supporting your merge idea I think it shows that there are national differences that justify a Scottish article. Whether that is called market cross (Scotland) or mercat cross is a matter of choice (as is made clear in the sources cited in that paper) but that is separate from the issue of merging the articles into one. For example we have articles on Restoration (England) Restoration (Scotland) and Restoration (Ireland) precisely because the restoration had different affects on the three nations. There could be one article on all three, but clarity makes it easier to have three as someone interested in the English restoration is unlikely to be interested in the details of the Restoration in Scotland. -- PBS (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making a distinction between these articles because a reader is expected to be interested in one geographical region or one historical period does make logical sense, and particularly if having a single article would make it excessively large. Are you suggesting that a merged article would be excessively long? If so, I suggest an additional list article (or perhaps one for each region?) and a stripped down gallery. Wikiwayman (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge for the same reasons that I did before. It seems to me that the crosses in Scotland have played a more significant part in Scottish society than those in England. This is exemplified by the role that the Mercat Cross, Edinburgh has played in national politics in Scotland. AFAICT there has never been cross in London that has anything like the significance of the Edinburgh cross. For another example see the Wellington Declaration -- if the market cross had been as significant as those in Scotland why did Charles I choose to give such a deceleration outside the town and not Wellington's market cross? Earlier this year I merged the articles village pound and pinfold into animal pound because I could not see any significant difference in the literature between village pound and pinfold (they seem to be dialect expressions), but in this case I think there is a significant difference. I think that the best way forward would be to expand the market cross article until the English section is large enough to spin it off in to a subsidiary article at which point the article market cross article would become a summary style article. I do not see the point of merging the article mercat cross into market cross only to have to split it out again later while in the meantime taking an article that is well supported with citations and merging it into one that is not. -- PBS (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any justification for Market crosses in England, ever. Instead, we should aim to de-parochialize coverage of what was a European phenomenon, which unfortunately the most easily available sources in English treat in a resolutely parochial fashion. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think is the best source to support the your assertion that market crosses are homogeneous across Europe? -- PBS (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, and I don't quite say that. The very few other language articles are little help, just being translations of the English, but that is not untypical of wiki-ways. The High cross tradition is largely Insular, but England was part of a "multi-national" state for a crucial period in the MA, and few features of medieval life are genuinely distinctive to the British Isles, although you would often not guess so from reading British sources. The Breton Calvary (sculpture) is one well-known regional variant, probably related to the high cross, and like them not always located by a market. Probably the British, and still more Scottish, emphasis on these is partly because there are so few other traces of medieval town life surviving, apart from street names. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting that the two articles are merged, not based on sources but on your hunch. I think you are missing several points. The first is that most of the interest in a mercat cross is post medieval which in practice means from the reformation. Since the reformation the imagery and significance of crosses outside consecrated churches and churchyards is different in Roman Catholic and Protestant countries.In England (and presumably Scotland) many high cross and other types of praying-stations outside churchyards were destroyed along with many other perceived idolatrous symbols -- did you know that the minister and regicide, Hugh Peters, when passing Stonehenge tried to persuade the regiment of soldiers to whom he was chaplain to destroy that "monument of heathenness" (but failed because the colonel of the regiment had a war to fight and could not spare the time)? Clearly the Scottish and English protestants did not view market crosses as primarily religious (as are high crosses), or zealots like Peters would have had them destroyed. Even if the the article market cross is developed as a pan European article (for which you have yet to find sources), that is no reason to merge in the content of one about Scotland. -- PBS (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the issues here. I don't know what you mean by "most of the interest in a mercat cross is post medieval" - they are a phenomenon of medieval origin, with most reworked, or added later. I was objecting to the idea that an English article should be hived off. No-one, here or in the article, has yet demonstrated why the tradition of Scottish crosses is sufficiently distinct from those in England to deserve their own article. The level of destruction, removal of the actual cross, or replacement in the Reformation was in fact very high in both countries (see the articles), but sometimes slightly reduced because they were civic not church property. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think I am confusing anything! "most of the interest in a mercat cross is post medieval" See for example the article on Mercat Cross, Edinburgh. -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which demonstrates what, exactly? WP editors may be mainly interested in the post medieval period, and the source documentation is no doubt fuller. Here as elsewhere WP readers have to take what they are given. What and whose is "the interest" supposed to be? Using your way of thinking one might say that the "main interest" in Scotland as a whole is football (and transport) since those are the best-covered areas on WP. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny what a difficult medium this can be to explain a point. I was not expecting you to read the Wikipedia article as proof of anything, what I was hoping that you would do was check out the sources to see if the references validate the statement. The references used in that article -- particular the ones that have the cross as their main subject -- demonstrate that the post medieval period is that which the references cover. [I wrote a lot more here on historiography but decided to cut it out]. You write "Using your way of thinking one ...", as you are presumably drawing an inference from what I have written, and I made no such case, I infer you are missing my point. I clearly have not convinced you to change you opinion on the merge, and as you have not presented any reliable source to back up your assertion that market crosses are homogeneous across Europem(you have not given me any reason to change mine), I guess we will have to agree do differ on whether a merge would be beneficial.-- PBS (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but I never asserted, nor would assert, that "market crosses are homogeneous across Europe", as I have had to point out before. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Completely ignores the subtle distinctions involved in mercat crosses. I would echo many of Kim Traynor's statements above. In my experience when such articles are merged/assimilated, the Scottish content often completely disappears.--MacRùsgail (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Market cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Market cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Market_cross&oldid=1203893520"