Talk:Fantasiestücke, Op. 12

June 2005
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)

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  and ; whether they picked it up from Wikipedia or vice versa I don't know.

Drhoehl 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Merge. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just did the merge. Lots of duplicate information now.  Will trim that away over the next few days.DavidRF (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hoffmann the what?
This isn't right: "Fantasiestücke in Callots Manier by his favourite poet, E. T. A. Hoffmann". His favourite author? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.76.24 (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Title of this article should be Fantasiestücke Op. 12
I came to this page to see whether there was any information on Schumann's three Fantasiestücke, Op. 111. The Op. 12 were not his only Fantasiestücke.

Deschreiber (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Schumann's op. 111 is commonly known as Drei Fantasiestücke, so there is no need to change this title; if an article on op. 111 gets written, a hatnote will do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ten years later: Three Fantasiestücke, Op. 111 has now been written (as was Fantasiestücke, Op. 73, which leaves Phantasiestücke, Op. 88), but according the 1st edition, the title should be spelled Phantasiestücke, Op. 12. The same spelling concern applies to Opp. 73 and 111, both spelled with "Ph" in the 1st edition. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)