Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Michelangelo. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Michelangelo, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Michelangelo in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Michelangelo you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Michelangelo will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Michelangelo, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
On a balance, delete. Any artist's name can be used this way (see also: "a Beethoven and aMusard"). 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
