Talk:Fantasiestücke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fantasiestücke is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
	This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

I think Fantasiestücke, on the other hand, really should be Fantasiestücke (Schumann): this amount of information allows us more or less to know what piece it is, whereas many composers wrote Fantasiestücke. (Yes, Schumann also wrote Fantasiestücke for trio etc. also, - to go probably to Piano Trio (Fantasiestücke) (Schumann) or something more obvious (Fantasiestücke for Piano Trio (Schumann).) Best..Schissel : bowl listen 02:46, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Well, maybe neutrality isn't the best word, but it is certainly un-encyclopedic. It sounds a little like a blurb in a music catalog, and is vague in its praise. I don't mean to sound so horrible, but it certainly needs to be cleaned.P.L.A.R. 02:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, and I've revised it to something a bit less flowery. Exactly the previous wording appears in other sources on the Web, including [1] and [2]; whether they picked it up from Wikipedia or vice versa I don't know.

Drhoehl 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposals

The individual movements qualify for merging under the Wikipedia guidelines, to the best of my perception: there is significant overlap with this main article, to the point of redundancy among the individual articles; the description of each movement is brief and will likely remain so; and the context provided by this page is virtually necessary for understanding those of the individual movements. (Furthermore, the creator of these other articles has been compelled to amend the name of one of the movements, Fabel, presumably to avoid ambiguity; this is unnecessary, however, and potentially misleading.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.175.242 (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The articles should be merged. There certainly aren't any size problems. The movements of an individual work should not be individual articles. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)