Talk:Myrthen

Potential aim to be featured at WP:DYK on September 12

The Schumanns were married on September 12, 1840. I had noted the date when chatting with User:Gerda Arendt and the idea of marking the anniversary came up possibly as a DYK. User:Michael Bednarek then pointed out the existence of this draft of which. So SaryaniPaschtorr, as the main author so far what would you feel about going for a DYK listing on the date?

So far, I've only skimmed what is here. The one thing I've thought of as particularly needing to be stated is that Myrtles had a traditional association with marriage and weddings and that is why Schumann gave the song cycle that name. Dronkle (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I know from childhood that brides wear Myrthen in a wreath for the wedding, but will have to dig up a source. We should not publish this to Main space before 1 August, because DYK has rules, and one is that it should not be older than 6 weeks when appearing. Time in draftspace doesn't count. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

To do

The article looks promising!

• Not everything is translated yet, but perhaps not every detail is needed.
• European date format: 12 September 1848.
• I am sure that the further readings section - all offline and in German - should be much shorter for the English Wikipedia.
• For DYK, we absolutely need inline citations, - I'm willing to do that.

That's it for today. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The translation stops midway through itemising book 1. I last translated German prose into English in the exams I took when I was 15 in 1976. So it would be nice if someone else were able to do that roughly. I'm hwppy ot do copyediting/proofreading. I've done that a lot more recently.

Picking up the date point, I notice the article has both "On the 1st of August" and "on 12 September". We need to be consistent. I tend to prefer the longer form in text. What do others think. Dronkle (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Date formats should follow MOS:DATE, i.e. here "12 September" and "1 August". As Gerda wrote, the "Further reading" section needs to be trimmed. I don't understand why the original creator of this draft, User:SaryaniPaschtorr, didn't continue the translation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay I fixed the August date. I'll post on SP's user's talk in case they are unaware. Dronkle (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay I've messaged SP. They're a pretty new editor so may have simply lost enthusiasm, but we'll see if they reply. Dronkle (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I have left a note on my talk page for you (and also for Gerda and Michael). I've been less active on Wikipedia all round during the past couple of months, but this is a great idea and I'd be very happy to help. I plan to work through more of the translation now. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I come back to this having worked a bit more on the translation. Except for a bit I added back in June about Widmung, whose global importance to the repertoire I think the German article undersells, I have not been very editorial. I think much of the translated material will have to be changed/excised, not least because the song-by-song analysis often pontificates in a pretty uninformative way on the cycle’s nuptial theme and Schumann’s personal life (even when there are sources). There is plenty of good stuff there, but also a lot which could be altered for a more convincing account of the music and critical reaction to it. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

August

A few points:

• to my understanding, songs, including art songs, should be in quotation marks and not italics.
• what do you think of first the table, the what others thought of the structure?
• we need more inline citations if we want to go for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• I feel that two much and too detailed information about the poetry is currently in the table, and suggest to have a section on the texts and their authors, which can say who translated Burns once, instead of repetition in the table, also clarify that Schumann knew the Willemer poem as by Goethe. After that section, the table could just have surnames. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• We should probably link keys, at least once, and then where? Table or prose? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• I suggest to leave versions and arrangements for a later section, - Liszt is in the way of the transition from the first to the second song. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I quite like the presentation in a table, although it shouldn't be headed "Table of songs"; just "Songs" will do. But if others think that incorporating that information into prose is better, so be it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that I wasn't clear: I didn't mean to replace it, just have poets by simply last name (Burns, Goethe), while some prose to be written could explain first names, links, era, translation, number of songs here. It would avoid the repetition of "translated by ...", for example). - We should avoid linking the same topic too often. - The header is standard, I don't even know why. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds sensible Dronkle (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually one possibility is to split the table into 4 and include a part of it in the sections on each of the books. Then it no longer needs its own section header Dronkle (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

September

Today is the last day to nominate for a 12 September DYK. I guess we can try but only for a subset, leaving the details for later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We may nominate even when not yet perfect if we are willing to comply with the requirements within the next one or two days. It has to be in Main space to be nominated, so making it fit for that is the first goal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What I did:

• I added an infobox with an image. An image from the time of the wedding would be better, but this gives readers who may have no idea who these people were some kind of introduction to the period.
• I moved the inline ref from the lead to the body.
• I commented out the untranslated passage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• I made separate columns in the recordings for singers / pianist / year / notes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• I changed the image to one of her, for more authenticity. We could use a better source for the actual date of the wedding, and that should be mentioned in the body.
• The article is now in Main space and nominated. At present only the first two songs are covered, because for all others, the referencing is unclear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What should be done:

• Any image of the actual music would be good.
• There are direct links to the German Wikipedia in the references, - those are awful for blind readers. Best solution: write stubs about the people.
• Every paragraph has to end with an inline citation for the DYK process. I can't do that for the many offline sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• All recordings need a ref for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • done --GA
• Of the two refs for recordings given, I can't access DG. - I dropped it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• It would be nice to have a ref for the significance of myrtles for a bridal wreath. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Clara Wieck in 1839

• ... that Myrthen (Myrtles), a song cycle of 26 lieder in four books beginning with "Widmung" (Dedication), was a wedding gift by Robert Schumann to his bride Clara (pictured)? Source: several
  • Reviewed: Petite Mort (ballet)
  • Comment: The article has a tricky history, translated by SaryaniPaschtorr from de, and found by Dronkle to be suitable for 12 September, the wedding day in 1840, and Michael Bednarek also helped. There could be more detail for the individual songs but that needs more sources, and some is not even translated. I still believe that this is already a nice gift of information.

Moved to mainspace by SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 16:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Myrthen; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Most of the sources for ALT0 are here, if you use Google Translate.

• I recommend a cropped version of the above picture, such as the one on the right below, because it will show up better as a thumbnail.
• In case you get any hassle over ALT0 containing too much information, you can shorten it without harm with something like: "... that Myrthen (Myrtles), a song cycle of 26 lieder, was a wedding gift by Robert Schumann to his bride Clara (pictured)? This is because the bits that I have taken out can easily be found by readers, in the article, and the most important bit remains, i.e. that he dedicated the work to his wife, which is the hooky bit. So to prevent any obstruction of this nom, or rewrites in prep, I recommend an ALT1 something like that.

Otherwise everything is fine.

(Time-wasting diversion on the subject: I have done a lot of work in the past on Dichterliebe (which is part of the above work), because in 1951 Georgi Vinogradov recorded it as his last public work - in Russian, not because he was forced to, because he was using it as an allegory of his own love affair, disillusion and ultimate reconciliation with the Revolution. It was the finest recording he ever made, and a conscious goodbye to his public. I tracked it down and put it all on YouTube. Spot the one about the Terrors. Enjoy.). Storye book (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! What do you think of this, trying to still give an idea of how elaborate and special this gift was:

Clara Wieck in 1839

ALT0a ... that Myrthen (Myrtles), a song cycle of 26 lieder in four books, was a wedding gift by Robert Schumann to his bride Clara (pictured)?

(bringing your pic together with the ALT. I thought that Widmung would be something people might know and connect to, but understand that it may be too much. - The day would be today, but I think better with image than squeezed into the second set. Same for tomorrow, her birthday. Or a miracle? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. Good to go, with ALT0a and cropped image. Storye book (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Just noting here that this hook shouldn't be promoted with the image per WP:DYKIMG ("Try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article"). Nice hook, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

pulled on request. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Please provide a link to the request for retrial? Then we can do the retrial.

Also, aren't these nom templates supposed to be a vehicle for coming to some friendly agreement about the hook? I'm happy to accept minor changes in prep, but don't you think the change to a completely different hook here should have been discussed on the template, so that the creator could check that it represents the truth etc. etc.? Storye book (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, it was the "trimming" (away) of all said about the composition, on top of having been unavailable for the weekend until just now, which let me vote for postponing, first to tlc and then on ERRORS. The image was rejected as not directly related to the composition, so why should we have run a hook that is not directly related to the composition? The last version said "Myrthen and its 26 pieces" which I don't even understand language-wise. (What does the "and" mean? 26 pieces added to Myrthen?) Not even a hint at singing, which I find unacceptable. Schumann wrote these in his Year of Song, which might be mentioned in a hook. Or the many poets, some of whom wrote originally in English? Or the Freisinn = free spirit? - For the time being, I'd first like to see the article expanded (which I may have to do myself), and only then more thoughts about a hook. No rush because we missed the two dates that would have been highly relevant. Perhaps we should try next year, seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: OK, but could someone please explain to me how a delay until next year would work with respect to nom viability? If we delay this nom now, will we be allowed to leave the template here in sleep-mode and resurrect it next year when the article is not new? If the article had become a new GA next year, that would work? I don't mind what is decided - just want to know what happens next, for a smooth transition. Should I strike out my review above, and all the above hooks, so that we can start again next year?

NB: "and its 26 pieces": I think that is probably intended to be in line with the common British English type of phrase, e.g. one might exclaim, "You and your kind heart!", to a generous person. That doesn't mean that the heart is separate from the person; the expression means, "you with (=containing) your kind heart". Same for "the Bible and its four Gospels". The Bible contains four Gospels, they are not being considered separately on this occasion - because it means "the Bible with (=containing) its four Gospels". However that expression is a bit slangy, and hooks usually need fairly formal language, so that everyone can understand. Hope that helps. Storye book (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Helped, thank you! - For a DYK next year, I'd withdraw this one, bring the article to GA, and nom again. However, as I'd probably fail once more to do it in time - you can't believe how furious I am at myself that I didn't manage this time - it may be safer to just let it appear sometime this year. - Is there any advantage in saying "and", vs. "with", if "with" is what you mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "and" versus "with": in British English, the idiom is "you and your kind heart", if used as an exclamation. But in a situation where an aspect of a person or thing is being used, then it's usually "with", as in "Liszt, with his big hands, found it easier to play very large intervals on the piano than most other pianists", or "Hey you, with your great height - please help me reach the high shelf"? But all that is idiomatic, and probably not suitable for formal usage.

Next year and a GA sounds good. I shall not strike any of the above review or hooks, unless I am asked to, so as to give you and others more control when decisions are made. Storye book (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, let's close this nom and have Gerda submit a second one when the article reaches GA. We usually don't hold noms indefinitely for that purpose. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I have not decided, - had little time over the weekend, and am still just catching up. We set out to make this a wedding day present, three people (see talk). Now I feel deserted, alone, and without sources, and think that bringing it to GA by myself might 1) take up too much of my limited time, 2) be a kind of procrastination. Please give me today to think it over, - leaning towards not waiting for next year right now. - What I would want to discuss: why would the image be regarded off-topic when Clara was the cause and inspiration of all this giant effort, and the dedicatee, and it would supply a good idea of the period for those who really don't know when the Schumanns lived? - The prospect of an image would change things for me, - remembering Berit Lindholm, or: who cares about hook wording when a great woman is pictured ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have looked into the sources more, added a few and will add some more. We have now about 10 of the 26 songs covered with a source. I'll do a bit more and then come up with a hook or two. The GA option looks like very hard work, so I'll pursue it only if this doesn't succeed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Back, and two more sources added, one of which has this:

• ALT1: ... that when the song collection Myrthen (Myrtles) was dedicated by Robert Schumann to Clara (pictured), Eric Sams asked, "what bride ever had a finer wedding gift?"

This is too long, - ideas of shortening an rephrasing welcome. I believe that the image has much to do with both the dedication and the topics of the songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: It has 150 characters, and you are allowed max 200. But if you want it clear, concise and to the point, I think you need to ditch something. There is a guidelines-issue with the Clara pic, because she is not the primary subject of the bolded article, and she didn't create the bolded article primary subject herself. Her husband did that. I think that the most elegant way to shorten the hook, and to make it work as a hook, is to ditch Clara and her pic Then you'll get something on the lines of "... that Robert Schumann created the song collection Myrthen (Myrtle) as a wedding gift to his wife?" - and a pic of Schumann if you want a pic. Storye book (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been thinking more about this, Gerda. Are there any sources which state in so many words that some or all of the songs are about Clara? In that case, maybe we could bring back the picture, and say something like, "... Some of the lyrics in Robert Schumann's song collection, Myrthen (Myrtle), are about his bride, Clara (pictured)?" Storye book (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking but I really like the quote (from a musicologist with an article) which makes it stand out as something unique, not just some little wedding gift. No, not all songs are "about her", - take Freisinn (Free spirit). Most are related to relationship. All poetry was already extant without the poets knowing her. - I made her article GA, not his, so am biased ;) - I think he wanted all glamour on her not himself, no?

ALT1a: ... that "what bride ever had a finer wedding gift?" was asked by Eric Sams about the song collection Myrthen (Myrtles) that Robert Schumann dedicated to Clara (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt.

Good to go, with ALT1 or ALT1a, with picture. Storye book (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI @Gerda Arendt and Storye book: as I think I noted before I first promoted, the hook won't be in the image slot per WP:DYKIMG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't think I understand the language: "what bride ..." - and she is the bride, and the piece was for her, - how is that not related? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be an odd hook indeed if it included something unrelated in it, Gerda Arendt. The point is that DYK wants to highlight the bolded article, because they're the nominated ones; including the picture would likely draw a lot of readers towards the other article, which has already been on DYK. Twice as many picture hooks are nominated than can fit at DYK, so its in the interest of all that the most high-priority slot is filled with the best hook for the job. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reasoning (instead of a link to a guideline). I don't see, though, how more people would click on a five-letter word at the end of the hook, if they get a bold 8-letter word. - I remember my disappointment, when my first image suggestion ever (in 2010) was not taken, of this palace, a festival venue, and we had some grapes instead. At least grapes are the logo of the festival ;) - Such is DYK, I came to accept it. - When you read this nomination, you see that the image illustrates not only the dedicatee, who was on the composer's mind for this large work, but also the period, so if it's not taken, we should probably add "in 1840" to the hook. We don't have (yet) an image of a title page, and if we had one, it would be rejected as not showing well in small size. This was the title page of Liebesfrühling (Spring of love), the Schumann's joint venture as a married couple, - we can try that for their next wedding anniversary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, the only objection here is to the picture. The rest of the hook is still OK. So I'll restate the hook on its own. At least, this way, we'll get the hook through.

Good to go, with ALT1 or ALT1a. Storye book (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

pulled on request. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the problem this time? Storye book (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ask to pull, but not to have this right following a pin-up image, text still besides that. Look. It could have been moved within that set, or to a later set. I also objected to the term "fiancée", which was added by the promoter. Discussed there, - language edification welcome. I don't know why we won't get a link to a request, here or at least on the talk page of this nom. No rush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The discussion which led to this nom being pulled is here. I agree with Gerda that the word, "fiancèe" should not be added to this hook, and certainly not without the agreement of the creator of the article, who is familiar with historical German cultural practices concerning engagement and marriage. In my country (UK) a groom may send or give a gift to his bride on the eve of their wedding, one common example of that practice being the bridal bouquet. As I understand it, the same practice is not unusual in the US, where most of our readers live.

Changing hooks after promotion used to be limited to spelling or punctuation corrections, or inserting a missing piece, for example "(pictured)" .- that is to say, minor matters. But now people unfamiliar with article content are changing language to the extent of changing meaning. and that can lead to untruths being published on the main page. I recommend that this matter is discussed, and a guideline made, so that if drastic changes of language and possibly meaning are made, then they should be made on the nom template so that the new content can be checked.

Now, please can we start again. To those with an interest in this matter: please write below

• whether you still support ALT1 or ALT1a, or
• give us one or more of the many ALTs which were suggested while in prep, if you prefer those, or
• give us a new ALT.

This has gone on long enough. Storye book (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, Storye book, "ruthlessly" changing content has been part of the DYK instructions since 2008. As I noted to Gerda Arendt on my talk, the word fiancée was in the second sentence of the article, which I had thought, perhaps erroneously, she might have looked at since it was added three months ago. No matter, my mistake. On the topic of the hook, I will add ALT1a to another prep and not alter it, but if others attempt to simplify it in prep/at DYK talk, I will not object. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk, the word was introduced in July by Dronkle, and it was not even wrong in a way, describing her while the pieces were composed. The hook, however, speaks about the dedication at the time of their wedding. Any description of her status at the time is redundant to "bride" in the quote. We have no rush. - In general, I am not opposed to changes of hooks, - others see things I don't, and they know English better. They are now monitored on the nomination's talk, and that's a good idea. - I was so happy to work with Dronkle again after more than 10 years of absence, and now feel he's gone again. - I still have not been taught if we can call a woman "fiancée" without a formal engagement. - I would be thankful for expanding the lead to explain (shortly) how unwelcome the groom was to the bride's father (who didn't see his daughter for two years after the wedding). - I also understand that we need a word about her status in the first sentence of the lead, or rephrasing, to clarify that the wedding was Robert Schumann's own, - this could be some other couple (for those who don't know). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ps: I didn't know "ruthlessly changing" was in the guidelines since 2008, but experienced for about 10 years that it practically didn't happen. Hooks were taken as discussed in the nominations. If this old-fashioned guideline is to stay, can we please avoid the word "ruthless"? I would like to see DYK return to a project dominated by assuming good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, AirshipJungleman29 and Gerda Arendt. For promoters: here it is again, then.

Good to go, with ALT1a. Storye book (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)