Talk:Oeuvre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move (2012)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Oeuvre (disambiguation) → Oeuvre – The redirect of Oeuvre to Work of art does not adequately account for the equally popular alternate definition, i.e. a complete body of work. This sense of the word has no main article, so the Wiktionary link/Set index article combo will provide better navigation than a redirect. I thus request that Oeuvre (disambiguation) be moved to the main title Oeuvre. The dab page can then be deleted (and a third page, Œuvre, can be changed from Œuvre → Work of art to Œuvre → Oeuvre). SteveStrummer (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done. Thanks, Ponyo. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree SteveStrummer This isn't a good SIA, or dab. I've formatted back as a dab (it still has the dab Oeuvre (disambiguation) redir targeting it, and a dab proj template on this talk). Widefox; talk 2:03 pm, 19 July 2015, Sunday (8 months, 22 days ago) (UTC+1)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Undo Move (2015)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There's clearly a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Work of art (bold defined in the lede, see also body of work). The plural Œuvres also redirs to that PT. Suggest undoing the above move to restore the PT. i.e.

 Done. Hatnotes done. Widefox; talk 13:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Suggested move over Oeuvre at Redirects for Discussion (2016)[edit]

There is an open Redirect for Discussion of Oeuvre at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_7#Oeuvre. It has been suggested to move Oeuvre (disambiguation) over the redirect. The discussion is likely to remain open for a week, at least. Si Trew (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Oeuvre (April 2016)[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus that there is no primary topic here. Jenks24 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Oeuvre → Oeuvre – Oeuvre in English has two meanings: one work of art, or a collection of works of art. We have a disambiguation page that lists thise meanings. It should not boldly pressgang people into Work of art which only has a WP:DICDEF (in two places) saying that it may mean the life's work or collection of work.Si Trew (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look up oeuvre in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 1#Oeuvre, closed as suggesting a requested move. I am thus doing. Si Trew (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – The word oeuvre should not be redirecting to work of art. It has a primary definition which is quite different in meaning, and has no corresponding article. Rather than create a gratuitous dicdef article, the most useful action would be to point the term to the dab page. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Widefox specifically ruled him or herself out of this discussion, at the bottom of the RfD (unless "don't ping me" has some other meaning). I've let Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation know. Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move of dab page to base name - the redirect is plain wrong, "Work of art" is not a good target for it. PamD 11:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:PamD, do you have OED access (I don't today) as the target is imperfect but covers both meanings (see below - it is in fact a spectrum of meanings covered by the scope of the target, however imperfectly). Isn't it similar to, but not the same, as a redirect from plural? We have Chef d'œuvre -> Masterpiece. Oeuvre -> Work of art. We have no body of work article (the closest is The Complete Works). Widefox; talk 08:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have the complete OED, the major French dictionaries, and the major Hungarian dictionaries. Only in woodware. A reference to me means running to my bookshelves not online, sorry. Si Trew (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)*[reply]

Comment. I rolled back Widefox' three edits over the last few days (10 to 15 April 2016) to as it was when I listed this at RfD, because it is hard to hit a moving target. Those edits might be valid or not, but with an edit summary of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it is suggested, as Widefox has done throughout, that Work of art is the primary topic for oeuvre (I don't think it's in dispute that the primary topic for a work of art or Works of art is Work of art). Since this is exactly what we are discussing, I have boldly reverted those changes per WP:BRD. If Widefox does not wish to participate in the discussion, I can do no more. Si Trew (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(revert pinged me here): As per RfD, I'm not suggesting it currently has a primary topic, but stating the fact that it does - as shown by "(disambiguation)" in the title. I reverted to the last good version per WP:MOSDAB. The styling was not per MOSDAB for a dab with no primary topic either. Why remove all the changes suggested at the RfD anyhow? The requested move (as of now) is nonsensical per Bkonrad (although I'm assuming a typo for removing the primary topic). Setting this as an WP:SIA is also incorrect per Bkonrad's undo. Widefox; talk 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment. Pinging User:WikkanWitch, in the history of this page, for comment. Si Trew (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this request appears to be nonsensical or malformed as there is no change in title requested. The request as currently presented is for Oeuvre → Oeuvre. older ≠ wiser 17:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikt:oeuvre has: "A work of art", "The complete body of an artist's work." the current primary topic has an unusual scope of both. Widefox; talk 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite correct - Collins also gives as definition 1. (I'm not saying I agree with it). If wiktionary is wrong, pls fix, but the fix isn't to remove the second definition... OED [1], Collins [2] and wikt:oeuvre agree there's two meanings. (For anyone Googling it [3] both are defined.) The French is similar wikt:œuvre, with one being masculine, one feminine which makes the difference cystal clear. After all, this is just "work/works" (and agree emphasis on the plural from the original Latin opera plural of opus) but for me the giveaway is wikt:œuvre "The complete body of an artist's work, or their works in a particular category." so usage is a whole spectrum from all->category->single work. Singular usage is shown in words like wikt:chef-d'œuvre. Widefox; talk 07:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Widefox, I wasn't trying to include you out but maybe took your words a little literally when you said "don't ping me" and did my best not only not to ping you but not to mention your username in conversations. This was, of course, in no way to go behind your back – and I am glad you are in the discussion! – but if someone says don't talk to me I don't talk to them, that is just being a gentleman.
I think the alternative is well enough served by the DAB as it stands. That can be a WP:DABCONCEPT if you want, but we are not discussing that, my nomination is to move the DAB over the redirect. I have absolutely no problem of Widefox or anyone then improving that DAB, but I think it should be a DAB; there are continuing discussions at Talk:Body of Work and Talk:Body of work. One I think recently closed at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A dabconcept is not a dab but an article. My point is I think readers will be better served with a dabconcept at the basename, and then the dab moves yet again, which is why I'm mentioning it here and now, as that is my current plan.
At least one of the current dab entries are posthumously published so it's not clear to me if that one, and possibly others, are more of a The Complete Works rather than a title conceived as Oeuvre by the author, my point being that I believe there's an article to be written here per dabconcept. Widefox; talk 08:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it's the primary topic, a redirect, per WP:MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 08:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, piling on to consensus based on the above support arguments—otherwise would have closed this myself. Agree with Amakuru's additions. czar 14:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oeuvre&oldid=1076381617"