Talk:Eleven Chorale Preludes

Article name
I think was unnecessary; disambiguators should only be added when needed. The subsequent edits which bypassed the REDIRECT were even less necessary; see WP:NOTBROKEN. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought that the title needed to be more specific about who composed the eleven chorale preludes; I was also thinking about the remote possibility that someone, somewhere, had composed another set of eleven chorale preludes. There are precedents for titles like the current one (with the composer in brackets after the title), such as at Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach) and, arguably, Symphony No. 104 (Haydn). Counterexamples are at Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes and Goldberg Variations. The latter two are specific titles that can only ever apply to one work, perhaps. I'm not sure why those titles feel OK to me, whereas a title of just "Eleven Chorale Preludes" doesn't.


 * Re: bypassing redirects, I know that policy normally dictates against it, but I like to keep the what links here list clean where possible. The what links here list is ordered by page ID, which usually gives a rough indication of when an article was started; however when a page is deleted then undeleted, it gets a new page ID. I only bypassed one redirect at Johannes Brahms, so I didn't think it'd be a big issue. Graham 87 07:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether other articles have appropriate titles is neither here nor there. The purpose of disambiguators is not to add lexical specifics to an entry, but to disambiguate among the current set of articles. A future composition of this name will have a disambiguator added and this page will receive a hatnote. If that other composition becomes more famous than this one, then this page will get a disambiguator and the plain title will become a REDIRECT to that more famous piece. Until then, no disambiguator is needed.


 * While these lines may sound terse and brusque, I have no strong position in this case and will not pursue it any further. I only wanted to caution against the liberal use of disambiguators. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand your position now. I've moved the article back to the original title. I will bypass the redirects so they'll take up less space in the editing window in most cases. Graham 87 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)