Talk:Erlkönig (Schubert)

Context for readers
The first three entries below are copied from the respective editors' talk pages.

Sorry, I reverted your addition. The lead (introduction, summary) should summarize what's below. I am not sure a short version of the plot is a good idea which is better in the linked article about the poem. IF, please don't make the Erl King a fairy which I think suggest a female character. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Our goal here is to have an encyclopedia readable by ordinary people. When people who are unfamiliar with the song/poem arrive, they need a basic understanding of the characters/plot in order to read the article — otherwise all our references to the 'Erlking', the horse, the 'daemonic presence' will be unintelligible. It's not reasonable to expect them to go read ANOTHER wikipedia article just to begin understanding this one! :) Doops | talk 19:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and then you tell them about the background of Schubert, and Goethe ... - the wonderful thing in Wikipedia is that we have links, and don't have to repeat what the poem is about for those who know it by heart. - Doops, this article (not by me) appeared already on the Main page for hundreds of readers. None of them had your concern. - If you disagree, you can write a summary of the poem's content, but please 1) sourced, 2) not in the beginning but a plot section, 3) not saying fairy, 4) not overly simplyfied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm really at a loss here to understand your objections. This song, like many songs, has words; it seems absurd to pretend that it doesn't. Sure, not every wikipedia article can explain everything about everything; that's why we have links. But the poem's plot is CENTRAL not only to this song but to all the analysis of the song throughout the article, which constantly assumes that the reader is familiar with the poem. Most readers aren't.
 * Secondly, I'm at a loss to understand why you keep reverting me instead of constructively engaging with my edits. If you don't like my wording, then substitute preferred wording of your own instead of just reverting me. (As you can see, my second version engaged with your comments by substituting 'supernatural being' for 'fairy'.) Doops | talk 19:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that I wrote my second comment before I saw, which IS better than , but still doesn't belong in the lead, and should not be overly simple - which I said before. Now please wait and listen to what others may have to say. I write about music set to words a lot, and I write about texts when they have no article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The other question, why I keep reverting: because you - when reverted, should go to talk page discussion instead of bringing it back. (WP:BRD in case you really don't know) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Argh, I just don't see any effort by you to constructively engage with my desire to improve this article. This sort of 'hands-off' reaction is what drives occasional wikipedia editors away. Nonetheless I'll start a new section below (this one's gotten indented too far). Doops | talk 20:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that the plot should have an appropriate summary in the beginning of the "Structure and musical analysis" section, perhaps two or three sentences, but not as detailed as on Erlkönig. Then we can add an even more concise summary in the lead, similar to what Doops proposed. intforce (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Where does textual content belong?
If I understand you correctly, Gerda Arendt, you think that it's somehow inappropriate to have a short/brief glance at the poem's text in the introductory section. Instead, you seem to argue that any overview of the text should be a lengthy and in-depth plot summary, getting its own section.

That seems like overkill to me. As you correctly note, the wikipedia is full of links to other articles, so anybody who wants a lengthy/in-depth plot summary can get it from the Erlkönig article. I don't think that it's necessary to include that in the article about the song; all that's necessary is a brief glance so that we know what the song is about (not every little thing that happens in it) and who on earth this 'Erlkönig' guy is (given that most English-speakers worldwide have never heard of him). Doops | talk 20:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Gerda, your edit here seems a little impulsive, though I'm not sure Doops wording is ideal. I've tried something, maybe it works better...? Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I like what you wrote, Aza, but I don't like all of that in the lead. As you say in the edit summary, the lead should be a summary, - the detailed content is NOT in the article. I suggest you move it their, and leave in the lead only the four characters, - with links to the poem and to the figure. The lead should focus on what Schubert did, not the story, in my opinion. I think I said something like it in my first revert edit summary, after which I expected this discussion. Sorry if that came across as impulsive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to shorten the 'plot' in the intro which will hopefully be at least a small improvement from your point of view, Gerda. Doops | talk 18:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Doops' alterations seem to address this. My view on including at least base plot info is that saying a singer represents four characters is highly unusual, so a tiny bit of context for what they're acting out may be beneficial. Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Tangent regarding fairies
Incidentally, a quick response to Gerda's assumption that 'fairy' would suggest a female character. This is a bit of a tangent, since I agree that the specific word 'fairy' isn't necessary for this article and I'm happy to use another word instead; but I thought it might be useful to point out that Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream features the male fairy Puck as well as Oberon, the fairy king — so, at least traditionally, fairies were understood as coming in both sexes. Doops | talk 18:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)