Talk:Eleven Chorale Preludes

	Classical music portal This article 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.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Pipe Organ Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pipe Organ, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pipe Organ 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.Pipe OrganWikipedia:WikiProject Pipe OrganTemplate:WikiProject Pipe OrganPipe organ articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article name edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I think this move 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)Reply

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. Graham87 07:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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. Graham87 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic