Talk:Diana and Callisto (Bril)

oeuvre
As oeuvre indicates, its use for a work of art is not unambiguous. I would add that it also comes across as mildly pretentious. Are there any other English-speakers who would disagree with this? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I, an English-speaking editor born in Scotland, raised in an English speaking country and family, and currently living in Italy, the creator of this article, as well as all other articles of paintings by Paul Bril disagree with this Belgian user. The sentence is grammatical, the acceptation of the word recognized, and it may come across pretentious only in the head of an illiterate or biased person. This is an article on a work of art on an English encyclopedia. Some previous knowledge is required even to understand the language itself. That word was used in that instance because in that instance it sounded alright, and work would have been repetitive. This might be the only time I used that word. I reiterate my choice and, as the creator of this page. What is the point of even discussing it when the Oxford Dictionary of English itself recognizes that acceptation? Max9844419087 (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand the Auld Alliance may incline you to use a French loanword where "it" would do, but consider the other readers of the encyclopedia – Americans and so forth. Perhaps even Belgians (I imagine you think I'm Belgian myself because I happen to edit articles about Belgium; yet I have no problem imagining that you are not an artist despite your editing articles about art – the sympathetic imagination is a curious thing, n'est-ce pas?) The fact is, as you yourself admit, the meaning of oeuvre is not identical in different forms of English, and WP:MOS says quite unambiguously "Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences." --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your previous comment (whose original form will remain accessible forever to reviewers, editors and readers) evinces both your partiality and pretentiousness. You have sough out to grieve me with the speculative and uncalled for comment "yet I have no problem imagining that you are not an artist despite your editing articles about art", while my pointing out that being Belgian doesn't make you the better fit individual to tell an English speaker how to write English was a functional comment, and a fact. I won't engage in discussion with you anymore. Be careful on how you behave on this and any other similar websites. This is a joint effort to widen people's knowledge and help them out, there's no place far edit warring, cheap rhetoric and harassment. And that's it.--Max9844419087 (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * since you raise no substantive objection to WP:MOS, can I take it that you have dropped your opposition to applying it? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The current: "this oeuvre" is confusing, sounding to me like a plurality of works, not a single work. Either "it" (my preference, it's clear, simple and concise, why do we need more than this? ) or "the work" is better here. I'm going to change it to "it". Paul August &#9742; 16:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with the opinion of an administrator from Cambridge, Mass. But as far as harassment is concerned, the matter has been pursued, and it will be pursued further.--Max9844419087 (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)