Talk:Magnum opus (disambiguation)
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cuchullain in topic Requested move 30 October 2016
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 30 October 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: Move. Cúchullain t/c 18:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Magnum opus → Magnum opus (disambiguation) – The page Magnum opus should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Masterpiece, as the primary topic. The more minor uses of the term should remain listed at the dab page. Then a {{redirect}} hatnote should be placed at Masterpiece. There was an AFD that resulted in the reverse move; however, the issue there was an article on "magnum opus", not the dab page. — Gorthian (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support Masterpiece is clearly the article for the primary meaning of the term and Magnum opus should redirect there. MrStoofer (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support – A magnum opus is a masterpiece and there's clearly a primary topic here. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
*Oppose. Not the same meaning. A writer, painter or sculptor may produce several masterpieces during a lifetime of creative endeavor. The choice, however, of a single one of such works as the creator's magnum opus, meaning chief work or greatest work, may not be amenable to consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Roman Spinner: There are nuances of meaning, yes. But the first sentence of masterpiece explicitly says:
...a creation that has been given much critical praise, especially one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career...
(emphasis mine). I believe this accurately represents the way the word "masterpiece" is used: "That building was her masterpiece." — Gorthian (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Roman Spinner: There are nuances of meaning, yes. But the first sentence of masterpiece explicitly says:
- @Gorthian: As you point out, there are nuances. Both "masterpiece" and "magnum opus" may be "considered the greatest work of a person's career", but these terms are not synonymous and must be taken in context. Numerous examples may be presented — no one will argue that In Search of Lost Time is Proust's magnum opus and his masterpiece. However, when the names of other creative geniuses are invoked, the choices become less clear. Two of the most obvious examples, da Vinci and Michelangelo, created a number of masterpieces, but is Mona Lisa da Vinci's magnum opus, while The Last Supper is a masterpiece, but not his magnum opus? Is the Sistine Chapel ceiling Michelangelo's magnum opus, while The Last Judgment, David and Pietà are his secondary masterpieces? Does the term "magnum opus" permit the inclusion of more than a single work and wouldn't such an inclusion contradict its very meaning? All of these indeterminacies need to be examined before arriving at a consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Roman Spinner: Deciding which masterpiece is Michelangelo's or Da Vinci's magnum opus is, thankfully, not our job. What's important here is what's good for the encyclopedia. When an article links to the phrase "magnum opus" (and there are many that do), should the link go to this dab page and then have to be disambiguated (most likely with a pipe to masterpiece), or should the link go directly to that article, thereby saving editors' time and energy? Or should magnum opus be a stand-alone article? That was tried in the past, but the article was deleted partly because it was too repetitive of masterpiece. — Gorthian (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Gorthian: I appreciate the encyclopedic Wiki-dilemma you have delineated — there are separate Magnum opus and Masterpiece (disambiguation) pages, but an article only for Masterpiece. Ideally, the term "Magnum opus" should then be expected to rely upon its Wiktionary definition, which lists "masterpiece" as a synonym, but it would be excessive to expect that most editors would make such a link. Accordingly, I will strikeover my "Oppose" vote and cast a "Support" vote. Perhaps the finer distinctions between the two terms may be touched upon at some point in the Masterpiece article. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Roman Spinner: Deciding which masterpiece is Michelangelo's or Da Vinci's magnum opus is, thankfully, not our job. What's important here is what's good for the encyclopedia. When an article links to the phrase "magnum opus" (and there are many that do), should the link go to this dab page and then have to be disambiguated (most likely with a pipe to masterpiece), or should the link go directly to that article, thereby saving editors' time and energy? Or should magnum opus be a stand-alone article? That was tried in the past, but the article was deleted partly because it was too repetitive of masterpiece. — Gorthian (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Gorthian: As you point out, there are nuances. Both "masterpiece" and "magnum opus" may be "considered the greatest work of a person's career", but these terms are not synonymous and must be taken in context. Numerous examples may be presented — no one will argue that In Search of Lost Time is Proust's magnum opus and his masterpiece. However, when the names of other creative geniuses are invoked, the choices become less clear. Two of the most obvious examples, da Vinci and Michelangelo, created a number of masterpieces, but is Mona Lisa da Vinci's magnum opus, while The Last Supper is a masterpiece, but not his magnum opus? Is the Sistine Chapel ceiling Michelangelo's magnum opus, while The Last Judgment, David and Pietà are his secondary masterpieces? Does the term "magnum opus" permit the inclusion of more than a single work and wouldn't such an inclusion contradict its very meaning? All of these indeterminacies need to be examined before arriving at a consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- 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.