Talk:Fünf Lieder, Op. 105 (Brahms)

Contrary-to-guidelines title
This article has an unnecessary qualifier. It's unnecessary because "Fünf Lieder, Op. 105" is unambiguous on Wikipedia. WP:PRECISION applies. In reverting the move, the edit comment trailed off with "there's some guideline about adding the comp..." What guideline is that? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll try to find it. If I don't, please ask Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Found it: Naming conventions (music), look for Opus number, quote "Also opus numbers can not be used as exclusive disambiguator, they're always followed by the last name of the composer in parentheses." - May we put a question mark behind your POV "bad title"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see the issue, since Fünf Lieder isn't ambiguous, so the opus number isn't a "disambiguator" (qualifier). Here, the opus number could be omitted as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Composers wrote Fünf Lieder (Five songs) more than once (even if so far without article(s)). What do you suggest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That we wait until there's ambiguity to disambiguate it. OTOH, that link may indicate that there is already Wikipedia ambiguity, in which case we should create the disambiguation page. And probably an engagement to the guidelines about adding the composer to the title: remind the editor to create a redirect from the unqualified title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, English is not my first language, I am not sure I get what you want. There should be no redirect from Fünf Lieder because it's a highly ambiguous thing. A redirect Fünf Lieder, Op. 105 is now there by your move. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of scenarios:
 * If the Brahms composition is normally referred to as "Fünf Lieder, Op. 105" and not just "Fünf Lieder":
 * The Brahms composition article would then be titled Fünf Lieder, Op. 105. The opus number is not being used as a "disambiguator" (qualifier).
 * If the Brahms article is the primary topic for "Fünf Lieder", Fünf Lieder should redirect here.
 * If the Brahms article is not the primary topic for "Fünf Lieder", Fünf Lieder should be created as a disambiguation page.
 * Or if the Brahms composition is normally referred to as "Fünf Lieder" without the opus number:
 * If the Brahms article is the primary topic for "Fünf Lieder", it should be moved to Fünf Lieder.
 * If the Brahms article is not the primary topic for "Fünf Lieder", it can apparently be left here, and Fünf Lieder should be created as a disambiguation page.
 * I can effect the moves needed and create the dab page. But I don't know which scenario is the right one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. It is never referred to by Fünf Lieder alone, some kind of distinction needs to be made, and catalogue numbers and opus numbers are the most common means to do that when there's no name such as Rückert-Lieder. Many composers wrote lieder on Rückert poems, but Mahler's are a primary topic. Fünf Lieder, Op. 105 would be fine with me alone, but now we have the above-mentioned guideline which requests the composer also. Please take it up with the guideline, because it's a more general question. I actually made titles as you request until I read it. It makes sense to me to aid the search function. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WOuld you create a dab page for red links, or wait until the second article arrives? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)