Talk:Piano Quartet (Schumann)

Untitled
I agree that this article needs to be expanded and sourced. However, the "notability" tag is absurd. This is a major work of the chamber repertoire, referenced in numerous other WP articles but until now with a dead, red link. I added this article so those links would point somewhere. I have removed that tag. mcoverdale (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Piano Quartet (Schumann) → Piano Quartet, Op. 47 – This was Schumann's second effort in the genre. Hopefully I'll get around soon to creating an article for the earlier quartet in C minor, and think that giving each work's Opus number in the title is a good way to disambiguate between two. There are three options besides Opus number as far as I can see: Would be interested to have people's thoughts. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Leaving this article where it is, and naming the new article "Piano Quartet in C minor (Schumann)"/"Piano Quartet, Op. WoO 32". There is an asymmetry here which seems potentially confusing to me.
 * 2) Naming both articles with numbers (e.g. "Piano Quartet No. 1 (Schumann)"). The trouble here is that numbering like this is not used frequently used in the literature, and so might be somewhat confusing.
 * 3) Naming both articles according to their keys ("Piano Quartet in E-flat major (Schumann)"). I can't see anything recommending this approach over using Opus numbers, but it is certainly more cumbersome.
 * Keeping this article here and naming the new article "Piano Quartet in C minor (Schumann)" would be standard practice, as we usually do not include opus numbers in the title if it can be avoided. There is an asymmetry, but that is warranted given that this work is more substantial than the earlier quartet (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). intforce (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Classical music has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Keep this more substantial quartet as it is, per Intforce. Symmetry is not needed for pieces of different weight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per intforce and Gerda. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * SaryaniPaschtorr having all the bad ideas. I'm starting to wonder if they are actually Francis Schonken or Chuckstreet. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * V funny. I don't buy that two substantial musical works may be of differing 'weight'. Is it that one is better known? Longer? Neither of those seems a fair comparison – and in any case the piano quartets are of about the same length. But if nobody sympathises I'll drop it. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know Shcumann's chamber music well enough to about the 'weight' but there's one piece that is generally reffered to as "Schumann's Piano Quartet" and another that's pretty obscure, then yeah it makes sense to keep it at this title. A good example of this is action is the very well known Cello Concerto (Dvořák) where Dvorak also wrote an early A minor concerto as well. But absolutely there needs to be a Schumann disambiguation, putting an Op. number is ridiculous. Having two articles each with key designations is doable though, but only if the other one actually needs an article in the first place AND the popular one isn't so overwhelmingly known. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)