Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Robert Schumann

Criteria for inclusion

What do other editors think the criteria for inclusion should be? I was thinking that only pieces that have been assigned an Op. or WoO (Hofmann/Keil?) number, or have entered the piano repertoire. Herr Beethoven (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well you think wrong. This is supposed to be an objective comprehensive list, not a subjective selective one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why it has to be a complete listing, especially given the manual of style guidelines, but I have no objections. Herr Beethoven (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The only problem I can foresee is finding sources for a complete list of piano works. The only source I know of that lists all of Schumann's works is the extremely pricy Robert Schumann: Thematisch-Bibliographisches Werkverzeichnis compiled by Margit L. McCorkle. Herr Beethoven (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The /goal/ is completeness. It's not a big deal if it takes a while. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Needless duplication

This list is linked from List of compositions by Robert Schumann, but it is duplicated there. In fact, the list there includes some items that are not shown here, such as WoO20 and five Posth. works.

I see no great purpose in keeping the piano works separate from his other compositions. The list of piano works is not so long that that it requires such treatment. Why create opportunities for these sorts of problems, when we have the capacity to simply eliminate the very possibility of them ever occurring in the first place, by having one list of piano works, not two. I'd like to see this article merged into the main list.

But if we're going to keep them separate, then we must make sure:

• (a) that this piano-only list is as complete as possible, and
• (b) that we do not duplicate it anywhere else, particularly not in the place from which we link to this article. The piano section of the full list should contain just the link to this article, and not a further listing of the works themselves. That is just doing double the amount of work that anyone needs. Plus, it's just inviting inconsistency and inaccuracy, like the works I mentioned that are in one list but not the other. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I never understood the need to spin out selections like this, and I know there's a lot of composers where the piano music is separate -- probably the work of one or two editors who are mainly interested in piano music. In my view all works lists should be complete unless they are utterly huge (like with Liszt or Schubert, the former having a very good way of separating into two anyway). Alternatively, making a full fledged article like in Faure's case is also an option. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am replying after over ten years, but I agree that needless duplication is no good (incidentally why are there so many duplicate lists for Schubert's compositions?!) I think a separate list for the piano works offers greater potential for detailed commentary, especially on works without their own articles, but then there is no reason for an identical (or inferior) list to clutter up the list of all compositions.

A fully fledged article like the Fauré one, with detailed prose on everything Schumann ever wrote for piano, is probably too ambitious. Schumann was arguably the nineteenth century's most prolific composer for the instrument, even including Beethoven. But a prose article on Schumann's pianistic style and the circumstances of the composition and publication of his piano works would be welcome in addition to a list.

In any case I think this list would benefit from the addition of more detail. I have added publication information and restructured the list so that it includes all known piano works, published and unpublished, according to the very well-researched Thematisch-Bibliographisches Werkverzeichnis. Now if the article misses anything important, it's a breakdown into individual movements for each work. Maybe abandoning the table format is a sensible option in order to achieve this? SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)