Talk:Michelangelo
Add topicLatest comment: 10 months ago by This, that and the other in topic RFD discussion: December 2023–January 2024
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
"A painting by Michelangelo." See "Talk:Constable". — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reason I gave at Talk:Constable. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 01:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- On a balance, delete. Any artist's name can be used this way (see also: "a Beethoven and a Musard"). Although this sense can pluralize more readily than the artist's name can, the same is true of other things we've decided to delete, like selah#Noun or that#Noun "an instance of the word 'that'" as in "there were three thats and two thises in her sentence". But as pointed out on Talk:Constable, we have similar senses in several other entries which we should also delete. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I tend to think we should indicate the plurals of proper nouns, as there are many, many circumstances where they can be used, both in the literal sense of the proper noun ("There will never be any more Michelangelos born in this world", "I had lunch with the Rutherfords", "The men were the David Attenboroughs of their respective countries"), as well as metonymies like the impugned sense here. This is even more problematic in inflected languages; compare WT:RFVI#Oediporum. This, that and the other (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with that, and add the plurals of given names and surnames and placenames whenever I can find cites. - -sche (discuss) 13:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think any and all uses like the above should be kept. (And the second quote in the Proper Name section implies that there is a non-literal meaning for this name.) CitationsFreak (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- OK, maybe not the Rutherford quote. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- I tend to think we should indicate the plurals of proper nouns, as there are many, many circumstances where they can be used, both in the literal sense of the proper noun ("There will never be any more Michelangelos born in this world", "I had lunch with the Rutherfords", "The men were the David Attenboroughs of their respective countries"), as well as metonymies like the impugned sense here. This is even more problematic in inflected languages; compare WT:RFVI#Oediporum. This, that and the other (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm leaning towards keep. The plural certainly occurs, and it can apply to sculptures too, "some Michelangelos", as well as people who imitate Michelangelo, "budding Michelangelos". DonnanZ (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Rfd-sense of the "a work by..." sense; for rationale, see above. I'm listing these others here so we can discuss them all at once, rather than one at a time. The only other entry in this vein that I was able to find is Plutarch#Noun, which seems more closely related to the distinct (but also IMO deletable!) phenomenon of authors' works being referred to by the others names, like "I'm reading Cicero", "I have a copy of Tolstoy on my shelf", etc. I still think, on a balance, that we should delete these, although I'm not 100% sure. - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all of such senses, as they are just a form of metonymy infinitely extendable to the name of any creator, as I mentioned in this discussion archived at "Talk:Constable". — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all per the above. PUC – 17:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all. Re: author's works, that seems even more of a grammatical phenomenon to me. It's just referring to the author's writings as a corpus rather than a specific work. "Plutarch" is both the author and the sum total of the author's writings. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, since it's obviously just a colloquialism and doesn't belong in a formal definition. AP295 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? What does being colloquial have to do with anything? CitationsFreak (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's a better argument in favor of deletion than yes it's attestable but we've chosen to delete other similar senses in the past and it could be applied to lots of other artists anyway. Isn't this exactly why it should be deleted? I suppose that's more a rhetorical question than anything else. Wiktionary enforces strict descriptivism, which sometimes results in absurd inclusions like this which really ought to be deleted but nobody can actually say why without contradicting dogma. If no exception to descriptivism is allowed then I would have to say this sense must be kept. AP295 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Almost everyone here is in favor of deletion. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- As am I, for the reason stated. AP295 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- @AP295: we’re on the same page but for different reasons. I feel that “it applies to lots of artists anyway”, as you put it, is a good reason for deletion because this is simply an example of one of the ways the English language works. The same feature applies to the name of any creator of a work, so it is a redundant sense. As has been pointed out above, we made a similar decision with respect to senses like “an occurrence of the word the” (for example, “there are two thes in that sentence”), otherwise we’d have to add that sense to every entry in the dictionary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly though "A Michelangelo", "A Rembrandt", etc. are salient uses and one wouldn't use the phrase to refer to the work of any ordinary artist. It's easier to justify the deletion if it can be dismissed as a colloquialism. That's the most obvious and sensible reason but doesn't quite jibe with descriptivism in the strictest sense. Frankly I think most other colloquialisms and slang should be jettisoned as well, perhaps with a few exceptions in cases that really merit inclusion for some or other reason. AP295 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Why? Slang and colloquialisms are a part of our language, and excluding a term because it's "slang" or "colloquial" feels wrong to me. CitationsFreak (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- They've been permanently banned, but it's probably worth pointing out (for the benefit of those who aren't aware) that they were just being a snob. Theknightwho (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Good thing we have actual criteria of inclusion in place so your opinion as to what should or should not be included is irrelevant. lattermint (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Why? Slang and colloquialisms are a part of our language, and excluding a term because it's "slang" or "colloquial" feels wrong to me. CitationsFreak (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly though "A Michelangelo", "A Rembrandt", etc. are salient uses and one wouldn't use the phrase to refer to the work of any ordinary artist. It's easier to justify the deletion if it can be dismissed as a colloquialism. That's the most obvious and sensible reason but doesn't quite jibe with descriptivism in the strictest sense. Frankly I think most other colloquialisms and slang should be jettisoned as well, perhaps with a few exceptions in cases that really merit inclusion for some or other reason. AP295 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- @AP295: we’re on the same page but for different reasons. I feel that “it applies to lots of artists anyway”, as you put it, is a good reason for deletion because this is simply an example of one of the ways the English language works. The same feature applies to the name of any creator of a work, so it is a redundant sense. As has been pointed out above, we made a similar decision with respect to senses like “an occurrence of the word the” (for example, “there are two thes in that sentence”), otherwise we’d have to add that sense to every entry in the dictionary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- As am I, for the reason stated. AP295 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Almost everyone here is in favor of deletion. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's a better argument in favor of deletion than yes it's attestable but we've chosen to delete other similar senses in the past and it could be applied to lots of other artists anyway. Isn't this exactly why it should be deleted? I suppose that's more a rhetorical question than anything else. Wiktionary enforces strict descriptivism, which sometimes results in absurd inclusions like this which really ought to be deleted but nobody can actually say why without contradicting dogma. If no exception to descriptivism is allowed then I would have to say this sense must be kept. AP295 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? What does being colloquial have to do with anything? CitationsFreak (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete the rest of these per my vote on Michelangelo above. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 22:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
RFD-deleted This, that and the other (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)