Talk:Études-Tableaux, Op. 39

message: I don't like that the page was moved without discussion. I separated the pages because eventually, they must be two, and starting now makes navigation and redirects easier for everyone. ALTON .ıl 05:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page merge 

message: I don't think it's a good idea to split the article. If it got split, there would probably be two short stubs. Now it's an article which even needs ampliation, so we'd better leave it this way. In case of being a matter of increasing the number of articles of the English wikipedia, there's no need to do so. English wikipedia should now concentrate on improving the quality of the hundreds of short stubs it has (more than on creating new articles, which is also useful, of course). Kadellar (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, there wouldn't be a right link to the article's other languages, which don't divide 33 and 39. Kadellar (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt there would be stubs, but two stubs together makes not an article. They are two distinct groups of works and deserve their own articles. They both need to be expanded, yes, but so do Piano Sonata No. 1 (Rachmaninoff) and Piano Sonata No. 2 (Rachmaninoff), and they shouldn't be put at Piano sonatas (Rachmaninoff). Completed 6 years apart and published 6 opus numbers apart, they are distinct woks in all but the name. Our preludes articles are also at different locations for these reasons (op. 23 and op. 32). ALTON .ıl 00:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally on the split. Opp. 33 and 39 are related in name and composer only; their styles are extraordinarily different and should be discussed in detail separately. Jonyungk (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Frankly, I would rather see a compare and contrast approach taken to the two sets, which do have a very strong connection in that the composer intended both sets of etudes to paint a scene, even if he didn't specify the scene to be evoked.  Splitting the article would make such an approach, which I think would be very helpful, impossible.PhilipvanLidth (talk) 7:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about keeping this page the one that does a comparison and overview, while linking to the two other opus, which should have their own sovereign pages? ALTON .ıl 04:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A good suggestion, but it seems there would be very little to be said about comparison and overview. Op 33 is more like the preludes in style, though they are technically more difficult. Op 39, on the other hand, inhabits a much more adventurous universe, compositionally speaking. Jonyungk (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division 

message: Apart from the obvious problems with this article which I have just tagged (unreferenced and unencyclopaedic content close-paraphrased from this source, an unidentified essay that shows no sign of being a reliable source), there seems to be something well adrift with the references. There are four citations of a work by "Harrison", but the only source provided is a book by Geoffrey Norris. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: A majority of this seems to be written in a list format, with a considerable amount of biased content with little reference. Should this section be reformatted and written in paragraphs? If so, should it be completely rewritten or simply edited to make the existing content more encyclopaedic?
dot >:3   talk! 21:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  List styling