Archived talk:Alma redemptoris mater (Orlando di Lasso)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Support for deleting this disambiguation page
Good idea to delete this page, IMO.
- I've restored this page since I think this is a test case for disambiguation policy on CPDL. Whilst it may well be deleted in the future, I think it's necessary to have it available for those who will engage in the discussion.
- Category:Disambiguation currently contains composer and lyricist surname disambigs and other disambig pages related to score pages. Why should this score page disambig page be deleted and not others? --Bobnotts talk 22:46, 10 September 2008 (PDT)
- Nobody else has engaged in the discussion as far as I can see. Was there discussion elsewhere?
- This type of disambiguation applies when the searcher already knows the composer name. The composer's two settings of the same text appear on the composer's page (usually consecutively or on the same screen with it obvious to the person if pieces are not sorted alphabetically), so can be found easily.
- If we consistently create a disambiguation page for each composer for every title that composer has two or more settings of, CPDL will get very cluttered. The Renaissance itself is enough to doom it. Disambiguation pages are great when a name like Mundy gets you different results, but is not needed for pieces with the same title that sort consecutively on the composer page when you know the composer name. Also, we do not have the labor to create a disambiguation page for every such instance; so people couldn't rely on disambiguation pages anyway (not that they esp. need to). Best to be consistent and avoid this type of disambiguation pages which have only the most marginal utility.
- So, given that this does not scale and there is an easy work-around, I propose not having disambiguation pages just because a composer did two settings with the same title. --Vaarky 10:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Update: Chuck posted to my talk page that he may feel differently. I've referred him to this discussion and await his response. --Vaarky 19:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
|Archived discussion 2009-02-22.|