This article is a current
featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to
meet the criteria. Please feel free to After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ Article history}} template when the FAC closes. |
Robert Schumann ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 10 June 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Robert Schumann article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Three of the references cited for the paragraph on auditory hallucinations/hearing a single note did not mention hallucination or tinnitus but only discussed the bipolar theory and emotional disturbance. One mentioned Schumann only in passing. Removed source that did not discuss Schumann and moved the other two sources to cite statement in previous paragraph about Schumann possibly having bipolar disorder. Also added missing archive url and fixed formatting. Livin270 ( talk) 19:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Re this series of edits by RandomCanadian in response to my edit there: I'm not an expert on Schumann by any means but I know quite a bit about classical music and can defend/justify many of the categories you removed:
I'll change the article accordingly and mention this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Graham 87 18:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
was a German composer, pianist, and influential music critic.So the important things are "German"; "composer"; "pianist" and "music critic". One can add "19th-century" for good measure as a temporal demarkation, but that's about it. I'd argue that
he left to study law at the University of Leipzig under family pressure. But in Leipzig Schumann instead focused on improvisation, song composition, and writing novels.That hardly seems like a DEFCAT to me.
browse sets of related pages, not grouping articles by random characteristics which might be true but are not DEFCAT.
The guidelines you cite are much more often used to justify deletions/merging there than they are to justify which categories belong in an article. I've never encountered an approach to categories quite like this in my time of editing.This is plainly inconsistent with existing policy.
A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article.WP:DEFCAT is specifically what determines which specific categories should be included in an article, as in the given example (which I've closely mirrored here). You might be confusing with WP:OVERCAT.
Composing an opera is a mammoth undertaking, and attempts to do so (or not) can have a huge effect on a composer's lifeUnless we have reliable sources describing how this was a significant ("defining") undertaking for Schumann in particular, whether it was a significant undertaking for others does not make it defining here. Unlike, say, Mozart or Händel, for whom the status as opera composer is certainly a significant part of both their musical career and their posthumous fame, this is nowhere near the case for Schumann.
Also see the opening text at Category:Opera composers, which describes it and its subcategories as all-inclusiveThis is plainly at odds with WP:DEFCAT and has been removed per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, since there is no justification for one single page to be at odds with wider policy. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I would argue Dichterliebe should be included here. 139.60.27.38 ( talk) 03:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I am hoping to revise the article to get it up to FA standard, prior to a peer review and then FA candidacy. If there is any existing material in the text, whether cited or not, which the contributor is keen to keep, please let me know here. Suggestions for improvements will also be gladly received here. Tim riley talk 13:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is a current
featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to
meet the criteria. Please feel free to After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ Article history}} template when the FAC closes. |
Robert Schumann ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 10 June 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Robert Schumann article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Three of the references cited for the paragraph on auditory hallucinations/hearing a single note did not mention hallucination or tinnitus but only discussed the bipolar theory and emotional disturbance. One mentioned Schumann only in passing. Removed source that did not discuss Schumann and moved the other two sources to cite statement in previous paragraph about Schumann possibly having bipolar disorder. Also added missing archive url and fixed formatting. Livin270 ( talk) 19:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Re this series of edits by RandomCanadian in response to my edit there: I'm not an expert on Schumann by any means but I know quite a bit about classical music and can defend/justify many of the categories you removed:
I'll change the article accordingly and mention this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Graham 87 18:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
was a German composer, pianist, and influential music critic.So the important things are "German"; "composer"; "pianist" and "music critic". One can add "19th-century" for good measure as a temporal demarkation, but that's about it. I'd argue that
he left to study law at the University of Leipzig under family pressure. But in Leipzig Schumann instead focused on improvisation, song composition, and writing novels.That hardly seems like a DEFCAT to me.
browse sets of related pages, not grouping articles by random characteristics which might be true but are not DEFCAT.
The guidelines you cite are much more often used to justify deletions/merging there than they are to justify which categories belong in an article. I've never encountered an approach to categories quite like this in my time of editing.This is plainly inconsistent with existing policy.
A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article.WP:DEFCAT is specifically what determines which specific categories should be included in an article, as in the given example (which I've closely mirrored here). You might be confusing with WP:OVERCAT.
Composing an opera is a mammoth undertaking, and attempts to do so (or not) can have a huge effect on a composer's lifeUnless we have reliable sources describing how this was a significant ("defining") undertaking for Schumann in particular, whether it was a significant undertaking for others does not make it defining here. Unlike, say, Mozart or Händel, for whom the status as opera composer is certainly a significant part of both their musical career and their posthumous fame, this is nowhere near the case for Schumann.
Also see the opening text at Category:Opera composers, which describes it and its subcategories as all-inclusiveThis is plainly at odds with WP:DEFCAT and has been removed per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, since there is no justification for one single page to be at odds with wider policy. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I would argue Dichterliebe should be included here. 139.60.27.38 ( talk) 03:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I am hoping to revise the article to get it up to FA standard, prior to a peer review and then FA candidacy. If there is any existing material in the text, whether cited or not, which the contributor is keen to keep, please let me know here. Suggestions for improvements will also be gladly received here. Tim riley talk 13:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)