Talk:Romanticism

"even if they had to make do with Wales as a setting" ?

This seem rather opinionated, as well as derogatory to Wales. MFlet1 (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really - British paintings of the period are full of attempts to ramp Welsh hills or mountains up as the Alps or Apennines, with "fearful gulphs" and the like, but as we know they aren't like that, even in Snowdonia. This for example. For long periods until 1815 continental travel was difficult or impossible. There is more detail in Welsh art. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be rewritten in the manner Johnbod suggests. Even if they had to make do.... can be construed as pointy, though it is rather humorous. JNW (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I know im 13 years late to the party but i just went and fixed it now Gwyrllewtaf (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

England / Scotland

I'm confused why the 'Great Britain' section is split into England and Scotland - then the England section goes on at length about Walter Scott, a Scottish writer writing largely about Scotland. Someone who knows this topic needs to either merge the sections or move Scott out of the England section (please!) --Taras (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm - the Scottish section was added later, after the main article on that was written. For now, i've removed the "England" header, so we have "Great Britain" and a sub-section on more local Scottish stuff. I don't feel like disentangling Scott myself. We could have an Irish section too. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

66K of new text

User:BubbleBabis has added 66k (raw bytes) of text in the last couple of weeks. It is pretty much all about Marxist-Leninist reactions to R, R economics, and German R. It seems well-written, I hope contains no copyvio, but is rather wordy, and with many over-long quotes. Something will have to be done, as the article was already at the limits of acceptable length. I suggest forking some to Romanticism in Germany, Marxist-Leninist views on Romanticism, and perhaps Romanticism and Economics. What do others think (how I wish User:Jerome Kohl was still with us!)? Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Johnbod. The new text is an academic essay, not a Wikipedia article, is packed with opinions rather than verifiable facts, and needs to be shortened and reshaped. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree; most of the new content could be spun off into a more specialized article as Johnbod suggests. Ewulp (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree; I was wondering as to the relevance to the article...A more specific article or articles makes sense...Modernist (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The literature section desperately needs its own article; agree that the new stuff does as well, but the literature split seems more pertinent. Aza24 (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I would be more cautious. 1. It seems they are adding extracts from a PHD. 2. There is an essay-iness POV reminiscing of 2004 FAs, which is not how we do things anymore given crackdowns on SYNT, 3. we need to engage User:BubbleBabis (ping), but going point-by-point on such technical stuff is way above my pay grade. Ceoil (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, it can't stay where it is, & I think needs to shunted off to quieter locations for consideration. Now 96 k raw bytes added, btw. Any volunteers? Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've started. I don't really agree that "The literature section desperately needs its own article" as literature is the central artform of the movement. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've already found at least two phrases that were copy-pasted from an article dating back to the 1970s, without a citation. I was waiting for the user to finish before reverting back to the stable 14 June 2021‎ version. Coldcreation (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

BubbleBabis copy-pasted this text: "Romantic anti-capitalism was a wide spectrum of opposition to capitalism, ultimately tracing its roots back to the Romantic movement of the early 19th century, but acquiring a new impetus in the latter part of the 19th century" from here. Coldcreation (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering the three unquoted and unsourced copyright violations found so far, I have reverted back to revision as of 13:08, 14 June 2021 by Mcguy15. Coldcreation (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This is an impression only, but most of what had been added is all quotes, with precious little contextualising. I'm inclined to support the revert, in tandem with Johnbod's spinning out; at least with spin outs each chuck can be easier judged on its merits: eg re Marxist-Leninist views on Romanticism would cut everything post the 2nd para. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW I support the revert. I almost reverted the material myself a few days ago...Modernist (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• There are a lot of long attributed quotes. Without knowing much about these areas, I thought much of the other stuff looked quite good (as copyvios often will be). I support the reversion, & will leave the new sub-articles for people to do what they think best. Thanks all! Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

We might have a mixed blessing here. Anyho, welcome back from holidays! Hope it was somewhere nice. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Split?

This article is now at 142,063 bytes WP:SIZERULE. I suggest splitting off Literature, which would then allow room for that to be further expanded -or not. Manannan67 (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That's the crude bytes - what's the prose size? That's what WP:SIZERULE goes on. One would expect this article to be at the upper limits. I would rather trim than split, especially I'd rather NOT split off the literature, which is the main aspect of R. But some of the national sections are too long - eg the Portuguese one should be floated off, with a summary kept. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

If literature is the main aspect of Romanticism (and there are probably some who might disagree) then it's worth its own article. There are a number of developments, variations, and sub-categories that simply won't fit here as it's presently organized. Manannan67 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

There are a raft of "own articles" already - look at the category. Your last sentence is true, but no argument for splitting this. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

German romanticism

A much clearer distinction between the characteristics of German Sturm und Drang and specifically German Romanticism would be desirable. Motifs such as "romantische Ironie", "progressive Universalpoesie" and "Mischung der Gattungen" and "Sehnsucht" (all at least rudimentary featured in the German article "Romantik") and others are essential to understand German Romanticism, especially in contrast to Sturm und Drang but also in contrast to romantic movements in other countries. 2A02:3035:0:8758:614A:EE84:9F16:DE7C (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Etymology probably wrong

The etymology in this article completely ignores the obvious that any french student is taught from an early age. "Romantic" comes from "Rome Antique" which literally means "Ancient Rome". The author(s) also wrongly assume that the movement refered to medieval beauty and culture exclusively and not at all to the classical era. Well it leaned heavily on ruins from ancient Rome for its aesthetics, at the very least. I suggest some research be made on the French reference book on styles in literature for exemple, namely "Lagarde et Michard" for further reference. I find it disturbing that people might refer to this page and its enclosed information as an accurate depiction/definition of romanticism... Cheers and keep up the good work nonetheless 😊 37.173.158.114 (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's just not true that "Romantic" comes from "Rome Antique" which literally means "Ancient Rome". Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Good lord. Not true in this universe. French romantique is derived from obsolete romant (romance), from Old French romanz. Carlstak (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Missed Composers

I think there could be a few more composers in the music section such as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Ect. There could also be more mention of some of the more famous pieces by them Ex. Musical Moments No. 4 (Rachmaninoff) Isle of the Dead (Rachmaninoff) Etude in D# Minor (Scriabin) Etude in C# Minor (Scriabin) Waltz of the Flowers (Tchaikovsky) Ect. more unknown pieces would also be great though. Hoberspelicea (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The first para & the one two above the gallery explain why, but I agree they are odd omissions. The musicologist who wrote this section has very sadly died. User:Aza24, any chance of adding a couple of lines on the "modern school" nationalists? I don't think we want to get into works though - that is for the bios. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I can certainly put it on my list. Would agree the Russians are omissions, and something brief about programmatic music, and both philosophy and nationalism in music is probably needed. The section in general perhaps spends a bit too much time talking about the historiography of the concept, which might be more fitting for the Romantic music page. Aza24 (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Feminine section

It really needs a section of feminine aspects of Romanticism. scope_creep^Talk 15:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Paganism and Medievalism?

A line in the opening paragraph emphasizes the ‘Pagan’ elements of Romanticism, while immediately in the next sentence also it’s medievalism - I’m not so well versed, but to a layman like me that seems like a contradiction in terms. Wouldn’t ‘Classicism’ be a better term, seeing as that would be referring to the cultural aspect of Pagan cultures? 141.179.103.140 (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, nonsense had crept in there - now removed. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be very wonderful if an expert could add something describing what "medievalism" means.

It's used quite a lot, but it's meaning is not clear. The linked article also does not say.

There's clearly an epistemic quality to it, as it's compared with enlightenment and rationalism, but it's very strange what it's referring to other than "being emotional" which does not seem obviously "medieval" at all.

The suggestion could be that the romantics were opposed to science? But that sounds very odd, and googling it gives the first result challenging that very odd idea. CrickedBack (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 6

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dlstraughter05 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DoctorBeee (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Mass revert

@JohnBod @Johnbod I have already had several edits thanked and also positive talkpage messages by a WP:AFC patroller, no one before the WP:MASSR has taken issue.

A few things regarding WP:SPLIT:

• There are now 2 editors outspoken in favor of WP:SPLIT for Romantic literature, and also just split in general. Split is warranted under WP:SIZE and WP:SS.

• You argued WP:N, which is justification under WP:GNG. @Manannan67's point is correct: this argument is in favor of split. Insisting on no split when it's requested and justified goes against WP:CON.

• I'm not aware of anything in WP:PG that says that too many subarticles on a topic means splitting needs to be halted. Category bloat is a moot issue now anyway, because Category:Romanticism contains 17 subcategories and 11 articles at the time of writing.

Romanticism is WP:VA3, and WP:FA's that I've seen are always based on solid WP:SS principles when the topic is that broad. Making Romanticism § Literature long makes it harder to digest in the broader article. A lot is missing to approach WP:FA: Postromanticism, the sublime, debates about industrialization to name a few.

Overarching discussion of the movement is what Romanticism should be in my opinion, every element needs to be "quick, and move on" for the article to be effective. Too much detail on any single subtopic will crowd the rest out. Erroramong (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to be referring to discussions I'm not aware of. Where was "You argued WP:N", or "I'm not aware of anything in WP:PG that says that too many subarticles on a topic means splitting needs to be halted", or "There are now 2 editors outspoken in favor of WP:SPLIT for Romantic literature, and also just split in general..". The only relevant section I can see on this page is where I successfully argued for the removal of large WP:UNDUE additions some years ago - I think that turned out to be a sockpuppet. Plus a very short one 4 years ago. I'm not against reductions and new sub-articles, but they must be done competently, and with consensus. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You argued WP:N in Talk:Romanticism § Split?:

I would rather trim than split, especially I'd rather NOT split off the literature, which is the main aspect of R.

You also made a bad argument against splitting in Talk:Romanticism § Split?:

There are a raft of "own articles" already - look at the category. Your last sentence is true, but no argument for splitting this.

There are 2 editors in favor of WP:SPLIT, those editors are @Manannan67 and me. Consensus is not required for me to initiate a bold split. My edits are WP:GF, and the burden is on the reverter to WP:PARTR. WP:MASSR with no WP:REVEXP is against WP:CON.

I'll address the assessment of my competence in response to @Triptothecottage. The info about the Portuguese poet was cut-paste from "Romanticism § Literature § Portugal" that remains in the current revision that you reinstated. Erroramong (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There were 4 editors against splitting in this older section above. I made no "claim that you added info about a Portuguese poet" at all. In fact I have cut that section as off-topic - see the next section; my point below was thart you had kept this dubiously relevant para, while chucking out core content. For someone with an edit history stretching back only a matter of days, you know an awful lot of policy shortcuts - is there something we should be told? As for "Consensus is *not* required for me to initiate a split" - no, nor for me to revert it. You see WP:BOLD, & don't moan about it. Now we should proceed by discussion and consensus. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEWSTART. § Length is old, but admittedly so is § Split?... on to § Proposals on size. Erroramong (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW the article I patrolled was Romantic literature. Clearly independently notable; met basic standards for NPP; I did some cleanup and attribution and asked @Erroramong to do so in future.

@Johnbod: I don’t think the accusation of a lack of competence was reasonable in your edit summary. Considering there has been previous consensus to split this page at similar sizes I think Erroramong acted reasonably in performing a bold split. This is not a content area I edit in so don’t have a strong opinion now it has come to a discussion. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

All his edits are riddled with issues, where he isn't just cutting and pasting. The 2 introductory sections he added to his split-off Romantic art are just terrible from every point of view. These were largely the same as the entire section he left for Romantic art in his version. No refs, no names, just a few paras of vague homework padding, plus a dubious para on an obscure Portuguese Renaissance poet. He didn't take over the most frequently used ref (Novotny) to his new version. I haven't looked at what he's done, and left behind, for literature. Plus eg he can't even get my username right (above), & obviously didn't check his edit over. If you edit boldly, you should not be surprised to be reverted. Notability is not an issue - I never mentioned it, & can't understand why he is going on about it above. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Responses:

• Yes the summary sections for the splits are temporary placeholders. I was getting to it.
• The paragraph on the Portuguese poet is copy-paste.
• I apologize for getting your name wrong, was not intentional. That mistake is not a condemnation of my competence though.
• I was planning on cleaning refs, now that's on hold because of content forks.

If you edit boldly, you should not be surprised to be reverted.

Yes but I do not expect hours and days of work to be undone with mass revert. Romanticism § Literature was converted to WP:SUMMARY April 18, with two weeks of WP:SILENCE before further work.

I haven't been adding, it was all cut-paste moves to unite interleaved content under new h3s. You say it's bad content, fine but step 1 in my opinion is to split to manage size, step 2 is to reorganize content (even bad content) under the same headings. Then we are in better position to assess each subtopic individually and see what needs to be trimmed. Erroramong (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

See above on several of these points. Before planning massive changes, you should always propose on talk. If you don't, your time may indeed be wasted. I was abroad on holiday on 18 April - you can't expect everyone to work to your timetable. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Isabella di Morra

I've cut "Some authors cite 16th-century poet Isabella di Morra as an early precursor of Romantic literature. Her lyrics covering themes of isolation and loneliness, which reflected the tragic events of her life, are considered "an impressive prefigurement of Romanticism", differing from the Petrarchist fashion of the time based on the philosophy of love."

It is clear from her article that she was forgotten until 1901, & while she may have been one of various people who can be considered "precursors" of a Romantic sensibility, she had no real influence during the Romantic period. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposals on size

Thoughts:

• reduce "Romantic nationalism", which has a long-established sub article with the same name; much of the content seems identical - eg the long Polish bit.
• Split off up the long lists of writers & maybe scholars
• Reduce the see-alsos
• Consider retaining (but improving) the split-off Romantic literature but with proper sections here.

Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

How about definition list with hatnotes for individual countries. This trims length and TOC, but granularity by country is still there. Keep each summary to max 150 words (preferably 100). Current rev is only a starting point to convey the idea, not meant to be final. Erroramong (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean here; it doesn't sound like wp's usual style. But I think I would rather trim by moving material to direct to national (by language) articles ("Foo literature") than set up an intermediate Romantic literature. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

How about change article name of Romance (prose fiction) to Romantic fiction for naming consistency, then merge current literature content with Romantic fiction and Romantic poetry? Erroramong (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That wouldn't work - they are 3 different things! Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following — literature consists of fiction, prose, and drama. So dividing Romantic literature into Romantic fiction and Romantic poetry would be a way to restore Romantic literature to redirect, as I currently do not see any coverage of theatre drama.

If you are alluding to the fact that Romance (Prose fiction) also covers Romance novels, this is actually problematic because Romanticism is unrelated to the genre of the Romance novel. So the article is relating two topics that should not be grouped together. Erroramong (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The article Romance (prose fiction) doesn't cover Romance novels, it covers a different genre. It is not synonymous with literature of the Romantic movement, just as Chivalric romance predates the Romantic movement even though it has the word 'romance' in the name. MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So you're referring to a genre that only encompasses Chivalric romance, Scientific romance etc.? If that concept unrelated to both Romance novels and Romanticism, would you agree that the Romantic/Romance novel content should be moved or removed from Romance (prose fiction)? Erroramong (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I am referring to what is described at Romance (prose fiction). Have you read that article thoroughly? MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Or at least, what was there before you deleted some of it for poorly explained reasons. MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie: The following is not meant to be accusatory in any way. You said:

The article Romance (prose fiction) doesn't cover Romance novels.

Here is from Romance novel (first sentence):

A romance novel or romantic novel is a genre fiction novel that primary [SIC] focuses on the relationship and romantic love between two people

And from Romance (prose fiction) (second paragraph first sentence):

There is [SIC] second type of romance where the primary focus is on "romance", in the sense of love and marriage.

How am I supposed to reconcile your claim with the content of the articles? Is "relationship and romantic love" distinct from "love and marriage"?

Romance (prose fiction) also mentions Jane Austen (second paragraph second sentence):

Jane Austen wrote this type of romance.

Austen wasn't a romantic relationship writer, she was a literary realist who wrote social commentary that included secondary elements of love and relationships. This is common, widespread misinformation that has been debunked.

I'll let this go as it's a distraction from consensus on Romanticism. My edits are WP:GF, I've been punched in the face with revert notes a couple times now. I'm not perfect, I try to be easy to get along with. Erroramong (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Romance novels are (arguably) a subtype of Romances (in the Walter Scott sense). These things are related, but are not a 1-to-1 match. You should not remove the parts of these commonly confused articles that attempt to explain how these overlapping but not identical concepts relate to each other. Similarly, Romance (prose fiction) might overlap a bit with prose written during the Romantic era, but not entirely, so a merge or rename should not be done. (MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. What is in this article here is "Romantic lit" with "Romantic" essentially as a period marker, not a genre marker as in the others. Of course there is overlap, but not enough for merging. If you think this is confusing (which it is), at least English doesn't use a word with the same root for "novel", as many other languages do. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I understand now, see new lead at Romance (prose fiction). Please consider additions to body independent of lead rewrite. Erroramong (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

How about: move Romantic literature to Romantic fiction "Romantic literary fiction" for the time being, refine "Romantic literary fiction" to distinguish and compare with Romantic poetry and theatre. Eventually create a "Romantic theatre" page when the content is there.

Under this proposed arrangement, the article space will have two unique breakdowns of literature. The individual countries are a "vertical slice" and the individual literature forms are a "horizontal slice". Erroramong (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We have to hew to what sources tell us rather than move pages around for some other reason. Romantic literature is the literature of the Romantic period. Romantic fiction is what it says - fiction about romantic situations - sometimes quite spicy as they say - and is published right now in 2024, whereas Romantic literature is the definition of literature written during a specific period. Victoria (tk) 19:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Victoria: see revision (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I just realized that Romantic literature has been split from this article without consensus. We can't do that, there are incoming links for one thing, and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia needs to be adhered to. Most importantly, a split needs talk page discussion and consensus. My suggestion would be to put it all back to the version Johnbod reverted to. Then, rather than back (which is basically edit warring) and hollowing out the article, discuss as BRD tells us to. If and when a decision is made to split, then a decision re how to name literature article should be made. Victoria (tk) 21:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a straight back revision, it was a new edit that incorporated @Johnbod's concerns related to indexing by country. @Johnbod did a WP:MASSR, which not only undid the Romantic literature split from two weeks ago but also all of the other edits. Erroramong (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I reverted all the changes to this article, but not the undiscussed split-offs of Romantic art and Romantic literature (were there others?), which I left. So we now have masses of duplicated text, which can't be a permanent solution. I've yet to be convinced that either split is a good idea, which is why I'm proposing trims to this main article instead. But the question remains live, as far as I'm concerned. You shouldn't be doing further massive cuts at this stage. I missed your latest huge one, but you need to get consensus before removing 73k bytes. It's in the history now, so people can see it, but I've reverted it. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the rationale for massive cuts here? The article is not so long as to be unnavigable; many articles longer than this one are not only tolerated but promoted to FA (e.g. Han Dynasty, Tyrannosaurus, Madagascar, Joan of Arc, Charles Darwin, Cleopatra, Vincent van Gogh, Amphetamine, many more). Ewulp (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I support at least significant trimming, as the article has accumulated barnacle text over the years, but the case remains to be made for just cutting major aspects to leave stubby summaries. Can anyone work out what the "usable prose size" is (or whatever the term is). The article has remained largely the same since an expansion over ten years ago, and still gets approaching 4,000 views a day. So we must be doing something right. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Current version is 12,300ish words. Before last nights re-revert, this version was 3100ish words. 3000 is too short for a high level article like this. 12,000 is longish but judicious trimming could easily get it in the 8000-9000 range. I'm not in favor of wholesale hollowing out and/or removing sections to new articles. Romantic art should be converted to a redirect for now. Victoria (tk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for those! Sounds like a plan. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about capitalization of "romanticism"

Why are all instances of "romanticism" and "romantic" capitalized in this article? In other similar articles (most notably, realism), this doesn't occur. I just want to know what the exception is so I know how to treat other articles covering artistic movements. For context, the Wikipedia style guide for capital letters states: "Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines use lower case unless the name derives from a proper name (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper name (republican, a system of political thought; Republican, a political party)".Thanks! Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This is an old question, but I'll answer it anyways (if it may be helpful for you/anyone else in the future). "Romantic" and "romantic" have two distinct meanings and the capitalization helps distinguish between the two. For example a "Romantic poem" is a poem written during the Romantic period, whereas a "romantic poem" is a poem about romance. Capitalizing "Romantic" in this article distinguishes between the two, as it could otherwise be confusing. The article on Realism as a movement is Realism (art movement), rather than the one you linked to. 8Stars8 (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Confusing tangent inserted into the first paragraph

I'll paste the full introductory paragraph here for the sake of documentation, because I found the tangent in the second half of the paragraph pretty cryptic and interesting. I will simply delete it, I hope no one minds.

"Romanticism (also known as the Romantic movement or Romantic era) was an artistic and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century. The purpose of the movement was to advocate for the importance of subjectivity, imagination, and appreciation of nature in society and culture in response to the Age of Enlightenment -(To murder a human being more generally, more broadly, is an art of this kind, this and that, that is, where it murders, primarily, love in a human being, the sexual disposition of the two human sexes differently, in other words,and that means,-Age of Enlightenment - )- and the Industrial Revolution." Glormp (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems like other edits were made by the same user on August 22. It might be a good idea to look over the other changes and see if any revisions need to be made. I don't think I'm the right person for the task, so I'll leave it to someone who's more informed on the subject. Glormp (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Romantic art - lead help

So remember that text Erroramong left behind in 2024 (discussed above)? Yeah that was AI slop, and it stuck around on Romantic art for over 2 years.

I wrote an extremely brief phoning-in of a lead because there had to be something there but it is very much not ideal; unfortunately it's been years since I took any art history related courses so I don't feel like I am the best person to write a lead given that this is a very important topic. If anyone has any suggestions that'd be great.

Currently going through to see if any more surprises have been left behind. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2026 (UTC)