This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wow, all poets, and not one for romantic literature. Stbalbach 13:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Adding the third member of the French triumvirate to this template: Hugo, Delacroix, and Berlioz.
In the list of musicians, I strongly question the inclusion of Grieg and Puccini versus the omission of Mendelssohn, Brahms, Bruckner, and possibly Mahler, but I won't make these substitutions without first observing any debate on the subject here. In terms of 19th century music history: to make a gross generalisation, romanticism was characterised by two groups - we might call Mendelssohn, Schumann and Brahms the conservatives, who wrote new music but preserved old forms, and on the other hand the progressives such as Berlioz, Wagner, and Liszt wanted to widen or invent new musical forms for their music. This did not prevent members of one camp admiring those in the other (in contrast to the frequently alleged Brahms-Wagner controversy, which was pushed more by those carrying banners for their composers than the individuals themselves). Philip Legge phi1ip @ netscape·net 02:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The "Ossian" phenomenon was an important influence on Romanticism in general (despite being completely invented), so I have added a link to the Culture sub-section. Perhaps Macpherson himself should go in the Poetry section? Even though he was a fraud he exerted a huge influence over the Romantic movement; besides which the poems themselves are not without literary merit. 90.205.92.103 ( talk) 14:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If no one minds, I'm going to split the mighty handful into their own names: many of the "uninitiated" would not think to look for any one of them under that general banner.
Telos ( talk) 04:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Would those editing this template please note that it is about ' Romanticism' not about ' Romantic music'. It should not therefore include anyone whose music mas largely related to the period after 1848 or so. By all means set up another template for 'Romantic music' (if anyone wants to) but don't confuse the two - the two WP articles do their best to explain the differences. -- Smerus ( talk) 06:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Clara Schumann be included? Hertz1888 ( talk) 21:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
How about including Louis Spohr in this template? He was considered one of the leading romantic composers in his own lifetime. Urbandweller ( talk) 15:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Where are Manzoni, Foscolo? Manzoni is a great writer, he should be inserted in the template. Foscolo maybe is more preromantic than romantic, but also Blake (inserted in the template) is preromantic, therefore Foscolo should be inserted in the template. Schopenhauer lived in the romantic period, therefore he should be inserted in the template though he was an anti-idealist (he hated Hegel, Fichte and Schelling). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.67.204 ( talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I just added Ralph Waldo Emerson. Honestly I can't believe the father of romanticism wasn't on there before.-- Ashershow1 talk• contribs 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Coming to this template to add a link for Scottish Enlightenment, I was a bit surprised to find that there is no section for national movements. We could just add a section for national based articles, but it also strikes me that this template is pretty unusual (although definitely not unique), in largely listing the names of individuals. There are a lot of these and navigation is pretty difficult (imagine that you know nothing about the German Romanticism, picking out German sounding names in a large series of surnames is not very useful). There could also be a lot more names added of people of similar stature and debates about which figures should be included are probably inevitable with this format. My suggestion is that we should consider going over to wider themes, national or subject based and think about reducing or abandoning the names lists.-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
There are certain problems here. For example the article Scottish Enlightenment nowhere, as far as I can see, even mentions the word 'romanticism', and the only contact between it and the template is that they both feature Sir Walter Scott. I don't see that this gives sufficient justification for representing the article on the template. Your very radical proposal, which would transform the template completely, comes out of the blue without any complaints or comments having been received so far about the navigability or relevance of the template. There are presently six or seven movements on the template (under 'Culture') - what exactly would you propose to add to these? Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 11:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
OK I have taken on your part 1 and adapted the template accordingly. Let's see what (if anything) others say.-- Smerus ( talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The Decadent movement is a late 19th century literary movement that bridges Romanticism with Modernism; it belongs in the template as contextual, related information... Modernist ( talk) 16:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a serious problem here. The template is about Romanticism. Do read the heading to the template -
!-- PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE BEFORE ADDING NAMES. In particular, this template is about figures important in the Age of Romanticism, which ended around 1848. Artists, writers and composers active only in the latter half of the 19th century do not belong here. --
Editors, including myself, have gone to some length to limit it to the period. If you allow Decadent movement as part of the template as 'bridging Romanticism with Modernism' (which would appear to be an unsubstantiated piece of unsubtantiated WP:OR on your part at present), then there is no bar to including any of those associated with the decadent movement, or any post romantic movements and/or their adherents ( the post-Romanticism composers, etc., etc.) The template then becomes meaningless. If you think it vital to include a reference I suggest you could add another class 'see also' - but at the moment you are suggesting to the uninformed reader that the decadent movement is part of Romanticism - which it wasn't; this risks misleading readers, and thereby undermining the principles of WP. I have once more reverted the Decadent Movement entry and suggest that we (and others who may be interested) engage in a discussion here before proceeding further. Thanks, -- Smerus ( talk) 17:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
From the article : 'Romanticism (or the Romantic era/Period) was an artistic, literary, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe toward the end of the 18th century and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1840.' Please explain why editing the main article to any or no extent impedes the rights of editors of the template; I am somewhat mystified by this. It's not my own disclaimer btw - it was there long bewfore I started looking at the template. I have no problems with removing the disclaimer as it is if you think it inappropriate, but you should at least replace it with some guidelines for future editors to avoid future problems. Thanks.-- Smerus ( talk) 19:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. If you feel it qualifies me by the way, I have contributed extensively to many of the articles on musicians in the template......but you don't want to spend your life reading edit histories, surely.......-- Smerus ( talk) 21:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Jorge Isaacs to the list of Romantic writers Aramose3696 ( talk) 15:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Trakking: I don't want to engage in an edit war, so I'll start this talk-page discussion. You recently reverted my removal of Leigh Hunt from Philosophers in the Romanticism template. Just being an "intellectual" does not qualify someone as a philosopher. He certainly had no notability whatever as a philosopher. His article says absolutely nothing about Leigh Hunt's being a philosopher. I consider myself to be an intellectual. Does that mean if I had lived in the Romantic age I could be listed as a philosopher? I don't think so. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? -- Alan W ( talk) 00:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I propose his removal, as he came to prominence with The French Revolution in 1837, the year of Victoria's ascension, and died in 1881. His only relationship to Romanticism was the early German influence on him, particularly Goethe who was a Classicist, and which Carlyle largely discarded by the 1840s. Seeing as how Ruskin is not included in the template, I don't see why Carlyle should be either, as their philosophies are nearly identical in their approach to their respective fields. Nor is William Morris included, for whom Carlyle and Ruskin were both equally decisive influences.
Carlyle's relationship to Romanticism is contentious, to say the least. Sinopecynic ( talk) 10:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This template lists 249 (96%) men and 11 (4%) women. That seems disproportionate, and disregards the academic interest shown in women and romanticism over the last few decades. Here are some suggestions for possible additions:
What do others think? Dsp13 ( talk) 18:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Alexander Pushkin to Writers, Russian Jkrick77 ( talk) 14:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wow, all poets, and not one for romantic literature. Stbalbach 13:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Adding the third member of the French triumvirate to this template: Hugo, Delacroix, and Berlioz.
In the list of musicians, I strongly question the inclusion of Grieg and Puccini versus the omission of Mendelssohn, Brahms, Bruckner, and possibly Mahler, but I won't make these substitutions without first observing any debate on the subject here. In terms of 19th century music history: to make a gross generalisation, romanticism was characterised by two groups - we might call Mendelssohn, Schumann and Brahms the conservatives, who wrote new music but preserved old forms, and on the other hand the progressives such as Berlioz, Wagner, and Liszt wanted to widen or invent new musical forms for their music. This did not prevent members of one camp admiring those in the other (in contrast to the frequently alleged Brahms-Wagner controversy, which was pushed more by those carrying banners for their composers than the individuals themselves). Philip Legge phi1ip @ netscape·net 02:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The "Ossian" phenomenon was an important influence on Romanticism in general (despite being completely invented), so I have added a link to the Culture sub-section. Perhaps Macpherson himself should go in the Poetry section? Even though he was a fraud he exerted a huge influence over the Romantic movement; besides which the poems themselves are not without literary merit. 90.205.92.103 ( talk) 14:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If no one minds, I'm going to split the mighty handful into their own names: many of the "uninitiated" would not think to look for any one of them under that general banner.
Telos ( talk) 04:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Would those editing this template please note that it is about ' Romanticism' not about ' Romantic music'. It should not therefore include anyone whose music mas largely related to the period after 1848 or so. By all means set up another template for 'Romantic music' (if anyone wants to) but don't confuse the two - the two WP articles do their best to explain the differences. -- Smerus ( talk) 06:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Clara Schumann be included? Hertz1888 ( talk) 21:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
How about including Louis Spohr in this template? He was considered one of the leading romantic composers in his own lifetime. Urbandweller ( talk) 15:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Where are Manzoni, Foscolo? Manzoni is a great writer, he should be inserted in the template. Foscolo maybe is more preromantic than romantic, but also Blake (inserted in the template) is preromantic, therefore Foscolo should be inserted in the template. Schopenhauer lived in the romantic period, therefore he should be inserted in the template though he was an anti-idealist (he hated Hegel, Fichte and Schelling). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.67.204 ( talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I just added Ralph Waldo Emerson. Honestly I can't believe the father of romanticism wasn't on there before.-- Ashershow1 talk• contribs 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Coming to this template to add a link for Scottish Enlightenment, I was a bit surprised to find that there is no section for national movements. We could just add a section for national based articles, but it also strikes me that this template is pretty unusual (although definitely not unique), in largely listing the names of individuals. There are a lot of these and navigation is pretty difficult (imagine that you know nothing about the German Romanticism, picking out German sounding names in a large series of surnames is not very useful). There could also be a lot more names added of people of similar stature and debates about which figures should be included are probably inevitable with this format. My suggestion is that we should consider going over to wider themes, national or subject based and think about reducing or abandoning the names lists.-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
There are certain problems here. For example the article Scottish Enlightenment nowhere, as far as I can see, even mentions the word 'romanticism', and the only contact between it and the template is that they both feature Sir Walter Scott. I don't see that this gives sufficient justification for representing the article on the template. Your very radical proposal, which would transform the template completely, comes out of the blue without any complaints or comments having been received so far about the navigability or relevance of the template. There are presently six or seven movements on the template (under 'Culture') - what exactly would you propose to add to these? Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 11:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
OK I have taken on your part 1 and adapted the template accordingly. Let's see what (if anything) others say.-- Smerus ( talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The Decadent movement is a late 19th century literary movement that bridges Romanticism with Modernism; it belongs in the template as contextual, related information... Modernist ( talk) 16:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a serious problem here. The template is about Romanticism. Do read the heading to the template -
!-- PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE BEFORE ADDING NAMES. In particular, this template is about figures important in the Age of Romanticism, which ended around 1848. Artists, writers and composers active only in the latter half of the 19th century do not belong here. --
Editors, including myself, have gone to some length to limit it to the period. If you allow Decadent movement as part of the template as 'bridging Romanticism with Modernism' (which would appear to be an unsubstantiated piece of unsubtantiated WP:OR on your part at present), then there is no bar to including any of those associated with the decadent movement, or any post romantic movements and/or their adherents ( the post-Romanticism composers, etc., etc.) The template then becomes meaningless. If you think it vital to include a reference I suggest you could add another class 'see also' - but at the moment you are suggesting to the uninformed reader that the decadent movement is part of Romanticism - which it wasn't; this risks misleading readers, and thereby undermining the principles of WP. I have once more reverted the Decadent Movement entry and suggest that we (and others who may be interested) engage in a discussion here before proceeding further. Thanks, -- Smerus ( talk) 17:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
From the article : 'Romanticism (or the Romantic era/Period) was an artistic, literary, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe toward the end of the 18th century and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1840.' Please explain why editing the main article to any or no extent impedes the rights of editors of the template; I am somewhat mystified by this. It's not my own disclaimer btw - it was there long bewfore I started looking at the template. I have no problems with removing the disclaimer as it is if you think it inappropriate, but you should at least replace it with some guidelines for future editors to avoid future problems. Thanks.-- Smerus ( talk) 19:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. If you feel it qualifies me by the way, I have contributed extensively to many of the articles on musicians in the template......but you don't want to spend your life reading edit histories, surely.......-- Smerus ( talk) 21:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Jorge Isaacs to the list of Romantic writers Aramose3696 ( talk) 15:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Trakking: I don't want to engage in an edit war, so I'll start this talk-page discussion. You recently reverted my removal of Leigh Hunt from Philosophers in the Romanticism template. Just being an "intellectual" does not qualify someone as a philosopher. He certainly had no notability whatever as a philosopher. His article says absolutely nothing about Leigh Hunt's being a philosopher. I consider myself to be an intellectual. Does that mean if I had lived in the Romantic age I could be listed as a philosopher? I don't think so. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? -- Alan W ( talk) 00:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I propose his removal, as he came to prominence with The French Revolution in 1837, the year of Victoria's ascension, and died in 1881. His only relationship to Romanticism was the early German influence on him, particularly Goethe who was a Classicist, and which Carlyle largely discarded by the 1840s. Seeing as how Ruskin is not included in the template, I don't see why Carlyle should be either, as their philosophies are nearly identical in their approach to their respective fields. Nor is William Morris included, for whom Carlyle and Ruskin were both equally decisive influences.
Carlyle's relationship to Romanticism is contentious, to say the least. Sinopecynic ( talk) 10:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This template lists 249 (96%) men and 11 (4%) women. That seems disproportionate, and disregards the academic interest shown in women and romanticism over the last few decades. Here are some suggestions for possible additions:
What do others think? Dsp13 ( talk) 18:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Alexander Pushkin to Writers, Russian Jkrick77 ( talk) 14:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)