Talk:Lisztomania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Lisztomania is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Article name and related move[edit]

I think moving the article for the film Lisztomania to Lisztomania (movie) was ill advised: Lisztomania was the article's name since March 2006, and it has a large number of links to it, all of which intend to link to the film. Minor quibble: the disambiguartor "(movie)" is not in line with usual practice which uses the term "(film)".

As mentioned at Talk:Franz Liszt#New article - Lisztomania, I will move this page to Lisztomania (condition), and then move the film article back to Lisztomania, which may require administrative assistance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"(condition)"? How about "(fad)" instead, or maybe "(history)"? Circéus (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we have Listzomania be a disambigution page, which can point people to the right terms and then fix the links as we go? But if you want to move it back, that is okay with me. Remember (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no need for a disambiguation page for two or three items; a hatnote will do. For more, a page Lisztomania (disambiguation) can be used. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise of this argument, which seems to suggest that articles should never be renamed because other articles may link to them! Here, even if the film is more popular, it seems to me that Lisztomania the phenomenon (and it's awkward to call it "(condition)", don't you think?) is the primary topic, and even the film is about it — so it is this article, not the film, which should reside at Lisztomania. Links from other articles can be fixed quite easily; that should never be a criterion in deciding page names. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Notwithstanding this edit, I don't quite see how it is simple to change incoming links after the event. I agree that "condition" is awkward; feel free to move the page further. As to primary topic: The film existed under this article name since March 2006, the article on the condition was written a few days ago.
BTW, the main discussion is at Talk:Lisztomania (movie)#Requested move. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Good to have a main place for the discussion. Thanks for mentioning it. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Name[edit]

This article's 15 minutes of fame (or six hours) is over, but it would still be an improvement to have a less silly name. I propose Lisztomania (phenomenon). If no one objects, I'll move it there eventually. (Other alternatives that have been suggested are Lisztomania (fad) and Lisztomania (history).) Shreevatsa (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"(fad)" seems too colloqial to me, "(history)" could be misunderstood. That leaves "(phenomenon)". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I would choose phenomenon. Remember (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, done. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2011[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lisztomania (phenomenon)Lisztomania — The phenomenon is clearly the primary topic. All other uses of the term can be listed on the Lisztomania (disambiguation) page. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Moved from requested moves where it was listed as uncontroversial as given the previous discussions I'm not sure it is. Dpmuk (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence presented that this is the primary topic. Previous discussion decided the film was. A disambiguation page seems a sensible compromise. Tassedethe (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose No justification is given as to why the phenomenon is clearly the primary topic. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, The phenomenon is clearly the primary topic, the phenomenon documented by Heinrich Heine in *1844* (as Lisztomanie). All items in the list clearly relate to the phenomenon, i.e. to Franz Liszt. (E-Kartoffel (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 8 June 2015[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


– The previous discussion 4 years ago clearly came to the wrong result. To see if the Liszt fandom is primary, let's look at the competition - Lisztomania (film) is a film about Liszt's popularity. Lisztomania (album) is a soundtrack album to a film about his popularity. Lisztomania (song) is a song about Liszt popularity (the video shows the band in a Liszt museum). Plus, every single one of these articles links to the Liszt phenomenon in explaining their titles. Since every single reference we have to this term is a reference to Liszt, clear Liszt's fans is the primary topic here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, the article about the film was created four years before the article about Liszt's fans. The current title never really had consensus, as can be seen above. And, per User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle, no one would seriously be arguing to change it back if you did the move requested. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose if there is a primary topic, it is the film. Per the other discussion from 2010 at the film article. This is a minor topic, affecting few, and over a century agao, while the film is much more widely known. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, as four years ago. It's "primary" in the sense that all others refer to it, - keep simple, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I changed my mind. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose situation is good the way it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, clearly the primary topic. The rest is derived from it. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • That doesn't make it the primary topic (derivatives), otherwise Boston, Lincolnshire would be the primary topic, but it isn't, even though Boston, Massachusetts is derivative. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
      • No it wouldn't, since everything on the Boston disambiguation page that isn't a placename is named for the US city, not the English one. Everything is derived from the US city, most probably named by people who didn't even know the English town existed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lisztomania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Offline 05:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)