Talk:Liederkreis, Op. 24 (Schumann)

	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.

On 14 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Liederkreis, Op. 24. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 14 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works ping me! 20:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liederkreis, Op. 24 (Schumann) → Liederkreis, Op. 24 – The Opus number is perfectly sufficient for disambiguation. No need to clutter up the title! SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title guidelines from Classical music request that the composer is to be given for pieces disambiguated by opus number. BWV is clearly Bach, K. is clearly Mozart, but op. could be anybody. Please discuss with the project if the guideline should be changed, not for individual articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt What would be wrong with eg. "Liederkreis (Heine)", "Liederkreis nach Heine", "Heine-Liederkreis" etc.? SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By which sources is any of those the common name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that their standing in literature, album listings, etc. is roughly equal, and that each of them occurs at least as frequently as "Liederkreis, Op. 24" or "Op. 24 Liederkreis" – i.e. that there is no single common name. This is hard to prove! But so is the opposite, and then maybe the parsimony consideration kicks in. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article would be much better if you'd add some of these sources. To name any composition after the writer of the text is unusual in the English Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? Unusual, or deprecated for some reason? I intend to make improvements to this article at some point soon, though I'm working on a couple of other things at the moment. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the guideline Gerda refers to recommends, "Disambiguation by catalogue number is usually avoided", so this title, and Liederkreis, Op. 39 (Schumann), should remain. As for your proposed alternatives (Heine), AFAICS there are no precedents in Wikipedia that use such a disambiguator. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per both above. Certainly oppose disam by lyricist. Did Heine ever call the collection Liederkreis? If so, "Liederkreis (Heine)" would be the title for the texts alone. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all three above. No benefit to readers In ictu oculi (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is all fine, and the discussion can be closed as it stands if absolutely nobody agrees with me. But to try to answer these points...

Allowing that I think rules of this sort can often have pretty foolish consequences when observed to the letter, I am not sure that a situation like this is what the guideline Michael Bednarek cites is trying to avoid. It is not right that Brahms's and Schumann's requiems should be disambiguated by Opus number. But no other composer wrote works very commonly called "Liederkreis" in English, even if it is a generic term in German, and so any Opus number disambiguation can only be amongst the Heine and Eichendorff cycles; the word "(Schumann)" serves no real function.

As for disambiguation by librettist, I am not sure I am all too worried about Wikipedia precedent. What is supposed to set the precedent if not Wikipedians deciding how to title real articles? The cycle more often than not is cited by a title containing the word "Heine", and for good reason: Heine's name gives infinitely greater insight into which cycle is being talked about than an Opus number.

By the way Heine certainly did not call these poems "Liederkreis", mostly because the poems set in this cycle are linked principally by nothing but the fact that they were selected by Schumann from a much larger collection of poems, Heine's "Junge Leiden" of 1822. SaryaniPaschtorr (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, you know all that, but how many of our readers do? So absolutely nobody agrees with you, so let's close this. Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

<What would be wrong with eg. "Liederkreis (Heine)", "Liederkreis nach Heine", "Heine-Liederkreis" etc.?

None having any claim over the other two, I think that question answers itself. In my own circle of Lieder-heads the half italicized "Heine Liederkreis" and "Opus 24" have about equal currency. Sparafucil (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. It was Schumann, not Heine, who made this a Liederkreis, therefore - while not against ignoring rules in general - I think that having Heine as a disambiguator makes no sense here. Also, repeating, we are requested to use the common name for an article title, and at present I don't see a single source for a name with Heine in it, let alone several, to substantiate that it's common. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.