Talk:Jean Sibelius/Archive 2

Major improvements needed for the 150th anniversary
In connection with the 150th anniversary of Sibelius' birth on 8 December, I am trying to coordinate improvements to this article. I think we should try to aim for GA over the next few weeks, possibly going for FAC later. In my opinion, the article needs far better sourcing (at the moment it seems to rely mainly on one published biography), better coverage of his music and musical style, and more information on the concerts and events to be held for his anniversary. , who has been a major contributor, has offered to help and I am trying to encourage others to help us along. I look forward to further suggestions here. A good start might be to compile a list of the main published biographies on which we can draw.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * - This recent work by the Finnish musicologist Tomi Mäkelä has been translated from the prize-winning German Poesie in der Luft. At first sight, it seems to contain a lot of useful information.--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In the work I have done on expanding The Oceanides and The Wood Nymph I have relied heavily upon biographies by Tawaststjerna (1976 v. 1, 1986 v. 2, 1997 v.3; translation to English by Robert Layton) and Andrew Barnett (2007). Goss (2009) is also quite good, as is Layton (1965, but updated significantly in the 1990s) and Gray (1931). I'm not as keen on Johnson (1959), but that's just my opinion. Here's the list I've used:
























 * The Hurwitz and Rickards are more minor treatments, and the Ringbom and Gray are a bit out of date. I have never found Ekman's account too particularly helpful, and Tawaststjerna in particular has challenged a number of his facts. I haven't read the book by Mäkelä (it's far too expensive for my tastes!). Hope this helps. Really, everything that comes after Tawaststjerna builds upon his seminal work; Layton and Barnett both acknowledge their debt to his careful research. Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue Plaque
Just my opinion here, but I think this "blue plaque" photo looks really tacky. It would suit me fine if it disappeared completely, but if it ultimately remains in the article I think a substantial size reduction is in order. At the present time the article seems to be overpopulated with photos anyway. Anyone agree with me on this? --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, no, I don't find it "tacky" at all. And a "substantial size reduction" would almost certainly render it useless clutter. I must say that I think all the images are useful and well-placed, including the one in which he bears an uncanny resemblance to Uncle Fester. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Although it would be much better if his 1909 residence in London was explained, however briefly, in the text?
 * The more I look at it I suppose it is fine. Uncle Fester, oh that's funny! I see the resemblance, too.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I kind of agree about the blue plague. Not really too relevant; seems odd to have a picture of this item and not one of Aino Sibelius, Ainola, Robert Kajanus, Martin Wegelius, Ferrucio Busoni, his grave, or the Sibelius Monument.
 * Sibelius à Ainola 1907.gif
 * Also, what about leading with this photo. I just love it (and his expression); classic Sibelius...haha :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting started
Maybe we can get started by deciding on an ideal article structure and rough proportions. "Life", "Works" (or "Music"), "Reception", "Legacy", with appropriate subheadings? To my eye the section on his music is quite underdeveloped; I think it should be at least as long as the section on his life, if not longer, with subsections for the major composition types (symphonies, tone poems, concerto, stage, choral, solo vocal, chamber ...) Looking around at other composer articles that have attained FA status I see some where the Life section is considerably longer than the discussion of Works (e.g. Edward Elgar) and others where the reverse is the case (Carl Nielsen), so obviously we have some flexibility. There's a lot to write about Sibelius' music. Antandrus (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with your suggestions. There are separate articles on some of S's compositions which need to be summarized in the main article. We also need an overall description of the characteristics of his musical style. I'll try to develop something on this soon. The current section on his style is not too bad but it needs far better sourcing and, if possible, a more concise assessment of what made his style so widely appreciated. Perhaps we could build on this: ?--Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just found an interesting quote by David Burnett James: "It is Sibelius's insight into the cold ferocity and antagonistic violence of Nature which gives his music its unique sound and its specifically modern significance." See The Musical 'Voice' of Sibelius: the Dark Vision.--Ipigott (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Bernard Holland, commenting on the Sixth Symphony in the New York Times, writes: " The symphony, his next to last, bears Sibelius's marks: winds in close harmony, the lonely oboe solos, the omnipresent timpani strokes." See MUSIC REVIEW; Sibelius, Blunt and Finally Austere.--Ipigott (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe the best way to start is for us to take attendance, see who's here and willing to contribute what, and then assign sections to an individual. Then, once everyone has finished their assignment, we can bring it all together and proof read and edit and make suggestions as a community? I've already offered to take a stab at the introduction, modeled on that of Carl Nielsen. As of now, I think there is some important information missing, and some information that is superfluous to the introduction (i.e., Masonic stuff). Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The introduction (or lead as Wikipedians call it) certainly needs substantial improvement. It would indeed be useful to draw on your work on the list of compositions at this stage. Nevertheless, in my experience, for GA and above the lead is expected to draw on all the essential facts in the article itslef and so it is usually one of the last items to be brushed up to standard. But interim improvements are always welcome as long as they are based on the body of the article. As for assigning sections to different individuals, my experience with Nielsen was that I had to do most of the basic work on all the sections myself. However in the case of Sibelius, it is obvious we need to put together a reasonable section on his music, broken down roughly into the kind of subsections you will find in the Nielsen article. Perhaps you would like to work on one or more of these. I would however suggest you make your additions as far as possible on the article itself rather than working in a sandbox over several days. It helps others to participate. For time being I am plowing through the history which I hope to complete (at least as an initial draft) over the next couple of weeks.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What I'm willing to do as of now
Hi, all. I'm thinking of where I can be instantly helpful, and I thought of two things. First, I think the introduction needs to be tighter (too many tiny paragraphs), and I'm happy to do it (for an example of how I write introductions, see The Oceanides; obviously the one for S should be longer, perhaps two or three paragraphs). Second, having worked A LOT on improving the orchestral sections of the list of compositions, I can immediately bring the section of SELECTED WORKS up to date. Right now, a few things are superfluous and they are not exactly the same as on the List of compositions by Jean Sibelius page. I suggest standardization. Having read a number of his biographies and such, I think I know pretty well what the 'major' contributions are.

A few other immediate suggestions: Freemasonry should NOT be it's own section; rather it should be under Life as a subsection, if that. Similarly, I would probably make NATURE a subsection under MUSICAL STYLE. Second, we need to find a image of S's signature, as Wiki has done for most other composers. Third, I really think the Carl Nielsen page is spectacular and that it should serve as our guide both in terms of content and sections. That's all I have for now. I'll hold off on the introduction fine-tuning until I hear from the community, but I can get to work straight away on the SELECTED WORKS. Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, on second thought, maybe it is best to eliminate the section on Selected Works, as most pages for other composers don't do this. Rather, they appear to develop subsections on the various forms the composer contributed to. I thus endorse the earlier suggestion to do this. Seems like Symphonies, Symphonic Poems, Incidental Music, Concerti, and Opera are the most important ones; maybe something on Songs, Piano, Chamber, too, if there's time; but these should obviously be less important than the orchestral ones. Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all these useful suggestions and for your sandbox work on the lead. I have made a few changes to the lead in the main article on the basis of your rewrite but I think it is a bit premature to include everything at this stage, particularly comparisons with other composers as these have not been developed in the main article. What I would suggest is that you adapt (and perhaps enlarge on) some of your sandbox material in the (as yet unwritten) Music section (cf Musical style in the Nieslen article), adding all the necessary inline references). As you suggest, musical style should also refer to his interest in nature. See also may suggestions under Getting started (above). I don't know whether the quote about "winds in close harmony, the lonely oboe solos, the omnipresent timpani strokes" is a good description of S's music but something along these lines is needed.


 * As the article progresses, we can then pick out some of the more important items for the lead as we approach GA. BTW, I see you have been using your basic sandbox for everything you prepare. It is easy to create new sandboxes as you go along so that you can work on more than one item in different user articles at the same time. I have taken the liberty of copying your lead proposal into User:Sgvrfjs/Sibelius lead. I think you will find it easier to work on it there rather than mixing it with your development of the List of works, etc.


 * Thanks for your compliments on the Carl Nielsen page. It also draws on the biographies of other composers. I have been working slowly through the Sibelius article and was intending to use something similar to the Nielsen approach for the music section. I don't think we really need to develop an independent section on Selected works which can be included in the various subsections on Music. As in the Nielsen article, a link to the Sibelius list of works should be sufficient. I think there also needs to be a section on songs and choral music, even though his songs are virtually unknown outside Finland and Sweden. Chamber is obviously important, especially in relation to his earlier works. Perhaps for Sibelius, a subsection on Tone poems (maybe under Orchestral music) would also be helpful. The symphonies, particularly the way they progress down the line, require special attention as they are by far the most popular items for international concerts (and also in recordings). Maybe you have other suggestions here?


 * On Sibelius' vs Sibelius's, I prefer Sibelius's as that is the way I say it (Sibeliusses) -- but Sibelius' is also perfectly correct. As long as you keep to one form throughout a given article, it's fine. In the main article, we have been using Sibelius's. Hope I've covered everything you brought up. If not, let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * On Sibelius's signature, there's a reasonable sample here if one of the image experts like can remove it from the print.--Ipigott (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * All great points, Ipigott! I am in complete agreement with everything you have said and thank you for creating the extra sandbox for me. Let's see, I am happy to, in the coming weeks, work on the MUSIC section, as well as the SYMPHONIES, TONE POEMS, and INCIDENTAL MUSIC subsections in my free time. I have exams coming up, so my progress might be a bit slower over the next few weeks. I have no taste, or skill, at writing HISTORY of composer's childhoods and life, so I leave that happily and gratefully in your able hands. My only pet peeve is when sources portray S as some sort of hermit; in reality, he traveled to Germany, Austria, the UK, and Italy numerous times and had close friendships with Stenhammar, Busoni, and Bantock. He was also well aware of the experiments of Debussy and Schoenberg in his time. Anyway, if you want to let me have stab at these aforementioned sections/subsections (History excepted), then I'm happy to do so. Cheers! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I really look forward to your collaboration. It's great to have someone on board who shows a real interest in the music. Maybe you can start with a short introduction on S's musical style and then create subsections as time permits. There's no rush. Just contribute when you feel you can devote a bit of time to it all.--Ipigott (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Jean sibelius.jpg
Suggestion: Replace with image created from TIFF at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ggb2006014279/ - much better documented. Evidence from the pre-extant page will go to prove publication, and Finland's liberal copyright laws will deal with any lingering issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also a scan of the original photo by Daniel Nyblin here but the large scan requires payment. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Sibélius as a schoolboy.jpg
This image is on an embossed carte de visite mount. "Unknown" really won't cut it for author. Can't find larger. While carte de visite is usually a good sign of publication, this is a schoolboy photo, and, unlike the Nielsen image where the carte de visite image had proof it was being handed out right on it, this one's pristine. Finland's copyright law helps us, but I'd like to have some evidence of distribution to make the American copyright status more obvious.

Suggestion: Document.

File:Sibélius_1889-90.gif
No source, no author. We can possibly improve the image:

A larger version is available at:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=sbdiqvoyB1_5INflnwv6EM$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYtc54w8p0KdCMPyWlS2GTwLWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

Which is found at http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-11-09/arts/ear-supply-the-sap-is-rising/ by clicking on the smaller image.

An author would be useful, as well as evidence of publication. Could upload the bigger JPEG, but do we have a name for the photographer/proof of early publication?

Again, Finland's copyright law helps, but I suspect we'll want better at FAC.

Suggestion: Do not use


 * According to the biography by Erkki Salmenhaara (p. 30), this photograph comes from the 1880s and is by anonymous. There is a page-wide reproduction, showing more than the Seattle Weekly version. Over 120 years old, this photograph is certainly free of copyright. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Jean Sibelius 15 Gloucester Walk blue plaque.jpg
Fine.

File:Sibelius 1891.jpg
Partially documented, but no photographer, and no evidence of publication. Finland's copyright law helps but it's likely to be challenged at FAC.

Suggestion: Document/Don't use


 * This is, again, by Daniel Nyblin from 1891. Partial scan here. I see it as a publicity photograph with no copyright issues. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Jean Sibelius 1923.gif
Same issues as everything else.


 * This appears to be from a series by Henry B. Goodwin: another one scanned here. I see no copyright issues. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3c22946/
Good image. Despite the LoC giving a range of 1890-1920, it also says it comes from "Illus. from: Die Musik, 1902-1903, supplement." - so c. 1902 would be more accurate. Could replace one of the images we're losing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Adam for going into this so quickly and in so much detail. I hadn't really examined the images yet as there is still an enormous amount of work to do on the text of the article. But it's great to have all this feedback now. It will allow us to research more suitable illustrations over the next few weeks.--Ipigott (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I rather figured so. I think I could get you that first, LoC image fairly soon, which should be a start. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the LoC image would certainly be more acceptable for copyright. With your enhancements, it should be good. When I get back to Denmark in early July I'll also research some of the early biographies and encyclopedia articles which often demonstrate early publication of the photographs. The Finnish Museum of Photography have apparently exhibited a range of photos of Sibelius at Helsinki Airport and at other key locations but they are not posting info on sources, etc. I'll look into it. See also this.--Ipigott (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * See for example one, two, three, four, five good portraits not to mention other family pictures and photographs of other people mentioned in the JS article. Don't know whether the Flickr "No known copyright restrictions" is valid for Wikimedia Commons? See also further explanations here which make specific mention of Sibelius.--Ipigott (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That's a good question. It's a museum saying it - an excellent sign. It would be nice to show it was published - I've linked the Finnish copyright template a few times; it would be good to show Finnish publication before 1966, just to get the URAA that bit firmer. I'd imagine that won't be too hard. The photos are good, though I think it's possible to over-illustrate the man himself: I'd like to mix in some illustrations for his works and life. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All the photos linked here are regarded as artwork. They will be copyright free after 70 years of the author's death. --Gwafton (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to disagree about them counting as works of art: A lot of them are very basic poses. See commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory - it takes a fair bit to count as works of art under Finnish law. One or two might, but certainly not all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The most relevant para. in the Finnish copyright law for these photographs appears to be (49a) "The right to a photographic picture shall be in force until 50 years have elapsed from the end of the year during which the photographic picture was made." This applies even to artwork photographs. But maybe evidence of publication is required for the US?--Ipigott (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that some evidence of publication wouldn't hurt for FA. From the descriptions, it looks rather like they were published in one of Santeri Levas's books, probably either Jean Sibelius and His Home or the two-volume biography. (On which subject: File:Päivän postia selvitellään. Valokuvaaja, Sibeliuksen yksityissihteeri, Santeri Levas, Jean Sibelius Ainolan kirjastossa, 1940-1945, (d2005 167 6 97) Suomen valokuvataiteen museo.jpg would be great if we could clear it)
 * Note: It is entirely possible that Santeri Levas donated his materials (and their rights) to the Finnish Museum of Photography. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review. I think we need to find a picture of Sibelius' signature. Also, maybe we could find this image, since the scuplture is so beautiful. https://www.flickr.com/photos/archer10/4039769499 Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The original for this is, again, by Daniel Nyblin, ca. 1900. A large scan (1535 × 2469) requires payment. This is free of copyright. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Citation
I recommend changing the citation of Burnett James's name in the article. Although he himself confused the matter by sometimes using the by-line "David Burnett James", which could be mistaken for a double-barrelled surname, it is actually a double-barrelled given name: he was "Mr James", and is so referred to in The Musical Times and Music & Letters. (I know the designer of the cover of his Sibelius book fell into the trap and even gave him a hyphen, but it was a mistake.)  Tim riley  talk    13:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds very sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion
Great to see someone improving this article, and best of luck with the GA! I have a minor suggestion regarding this paragraph:

''From the beginning of 1917, Sibelius started drinking again, triggering arguments with Aino. Their relationship improved with the excitement resulting from the start of the Russian revolution. By the end of the year, Sibelius had composed his Jäger March. The piece proved particularly popular after the Finnish parliament accepted the Senate's declaration of independence from Russia in December 1917. The Jäger March, first played on 19 January 1918, delighted the Helsinki elite for a short time until the Finnish Red Guard, supporting the Russians, seized power in Helsinki on 28 January. When the Red Guards had been defeated by Gustaf Mannerheim, Sibelius conducted the march in Helsinki, reinforcing his image as a national hero.''

I think it would be good to provide a link to the Finnish Civil War as readers with very little knowledge of Finnish history might have trouble with this otherwise. While the Finnish Red Guard certainly supported the Russians and received support from them, to my knowledge they were separate entities; I think this paragraph might give the impression that the Finnish Reds were simply a Finnish sector of the Bolsheviks or even a foreign presence, especially when the paragraph ends with this line "When the Red Guards had been defeated by Gustaf Mannerheim, Sibelius conducted the march in Helsinki, reinforcing his image as a national hero". The thing is, the majority of the Finnish Red Guard were Finnish themselves and hence even after defeat, they did not vanish to the Soviet Union. The civil war created a very divided nation, and hence I think it might be appropriate to tweak this section a bit — those who had supported the Reds (a significant number of Finnish people) definitely would not have seen Sibelius as a national hero, so it might be good to be more specific. I'm sure you know all of this already, but yeah — it's just a suggestion :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * I squeezed the link in,- more elegance will be needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if you need help with Finnish/Swedish translations etc., please don't hesitate to contact me (I'm under the impression that the article currently has no Finnish/Swedish contributors?) :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * Please go right to Jäger March, - I added two sources which might shed more light on the composition in the context of the politics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Father's death
It says Sibelius' father died from typhus. Actually, he he died from typhoid. (Lavantauti = typhoid fever in Finnish.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Fifth Symphony
I personally think the lede should give special mention to Sibelius's enormously well-known Fifth Symphony (rather than, or in addition to, lumping all of his symphonies together). To me it's equally as well-known as, or rather more well known than (and more performed and more broadcast), his most iconic work Finlandia. In fact, when many or most people hear the Fifth Symphony on the radio, they think it is Finlandia, because it's so familiar, and has such iconic Finnish motifs -- and they keep waiting for the "song" part to come along (which of course never does, so people finally realize it isn't Finlandia). Softlavender (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Other works
It would be helpful if the article would mention all works from the navbox

If not all then at least his mature string quartet Voces intimae, and Snöfrid. More articles to come, to fill the red links, 7 as I write this, - any help welcome. The recipe is easy: copy a short one such as Scaramouche, just replace the names, dates and references, and you have a decent stub with two refs, the score and the recordings from AllMusic, - to be expanded of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I made this a separate thread, because my thread above re: the Fifth Symphony is only about the lede (specifically the second paragraph), not the entire article. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Images
I found it useful to show Sibelius at different age for compositions at different times. Note to self:

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Picture caption
Sibelius celebrating? It looks more like a group of people in the grip of terminal depression who have engaged an axe murderer to put them out out of their misery rather than just jumping off a cliff. How about using ironic quotes (Sibelius 'celebrating')? To my mind the finished painting  is a much better picture than the cartoon, although any sense of joy is similarly conspicuous by its absence. A number of other points:
 * 1) The use of née in  Borg makes it seem as if my graphics card is about to fail: née is a perfectly good loanword like attaché; for those unfamiliar with the development of the English language, you could use née, but that might look like an affectation.
 * 2) Kullervo, Op. 7, is scored for orchestra, mezzo-soprano, baritone and men's chorus. Attempting to describe this wandering and ill-focused beast of a piece ('choral symphony' etc.) is probably unhelpful in a general article about Sibelius.  "Even less successful were three more performances of Kullervo in March which one critic found was incomprehensible and lacking in vitality." Is there a source for this well-founded and accurate statement? How about this, sourced from the Kullervo article: "Kullervo is at the same time a masterpiece and a baggy monster of a work"..
 * 3) Re infoboxen: a plague on both your houses! :>MinorProphet (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Did someone mention axe murderer?? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oeuvre
I think it is the "mot juste" for the overall work of a composer. It was used in the second para of the lead "The core of his oeuvre is his set of seven symphonies..." but was changed by to "works" (which now appears twice in the same sentence). I tried to restore the term but was reverted. If other editors believe "works" is a better choice, then the first or first two sentences of the paragraph will need to be rewritten. Any views?--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reverted myself, simplification is no excuse for ugly English. The article was stable before I changed it, so I would prefer it to remain stable. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How would people feel if I linked the word oeuvre to the relevant wikipedia page? That would normally be an easy choice for a term that isn't understood by everyone, however in this case it is complicated by the fact that the ouevre link, goes to a redirect page and ends up on the "work of art" article. Perhaps a better link would be to the disambiguation page ? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oeuvre_(disambiguation) - does anyone have a preference, because while I don't want to disrupt a stable article, I am of the opinion that a reasonably large proportion of readers are unfamiliar with the word oeuvre. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A link seems reasonable to me (as oeuvre is the most precise term, without exact synonym). What is current policy on linking to Wiktionary, e.g. the second definition here? Antandrus (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the real solution here would be to create a new Wikipedia article on "oeuvre" which in my opinion is not equivalent to "work of art" in modern English usage. As explained in the Work of art article, "The term oeuvre is used to describe the complete body of work completed by an artist throughout a career." This should form the basis of a separate article.--Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The redirect does not give an accurate explanation of the meaning, although I'm not sure if there would be enough content to warrant an article. One line on the work of art article, is not something easily linked to and the mention of oeuvre could easily be overlooked. A link to wikitionary also seems unsuitable, as the description there is rather bare. I'm starting to feel that the best option would be to expand on the work of art article, with a separate section devoted to the term oeuvre that has more content, is easily linked to and is less likely to be overlooked. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)