Looks like this is not unusual at all. In general it seems that they are identified by the first line elsewhere, so would this be ok here too, instead of using the numbers? I tested this with Baudelaire's Spleens, and now I've ran into another similar case.

https://www.bookogs.com/work/522726-spleen-pluviose-irrite-contre-la-ville-entiere
https://www.bookogs.com/work/522727-spleen-jai-plus-de-souvenirs-que-si-javais-mille-ans
https://www.bookogs.com/work/521915-spleen-je-suis-comme-le-roi-dun-pays-pluvieux
https://www.bookogs.com/work/522666-spleen-quand-le-ciel-bas-et-lourd-pese-comme-un-couvercle

What do you think?

I like it. Seems a sensible approach for a case where the poet wrote multiple poems that would otherwise be indistinguishable.

I believe this approach would be fairly standard if you were referencing the works in another piece of writing.

I can't recall we had a consensus about not using the suffix? I also do not think you should be doing this first then asking in the forums if you can do it.

I appreciate the fact that the time was taken to provide an illustration prior to asking a question in the forum. It helps with comprehension of the question.

I appreciate the fact that the time was taken to provide an illustration prior to asking a question in the forum. It helps with comprehension of the question.

I believe this approach would be fairly standard if you were referencing the works in another piece of writing.

Yes, and it seems to be also a common way to catalogue them.

I can't recall we had a consensus about not using the suffix?

Last time there was no consensus on using the suffix. It seems many users are not happy with it and wish for a different system, and there are already exceptions in place. For example short stories and collections with the same name:
https://www.bookogs.com/work/499540-a-medicine-for-melancholy-collection
https://www.bookogs.com/work/419264-a-medicine-for-melancholy-short-story

I do think that this makes it easier (and faster) for users to connect to the correct work.

It helps with comprehension of the question.

That is exactly why I did it. I've noticed that it's sometimes difficult to explain all the details of a particular case, so I thought an example would demonstrate the problem better. Everything can always be edited - to me at least it's not a big deal.

You are asking to change a major part of our system that we use across many of the og's sites, a few people not liking the system we use is not a consensus to go forward with any changes, I believe we had a thread on a similar question two weeks ago where no consensus was giving. Such a big change in the system would need staff approval and guideline changes.
https://www.bookogs.com/forum/307708-naming-conventions-for-people

You are asking to change a major part of our system that we use across many of the og's sites

I'm not, at least not here. What I'm suggesting here is an exception, and it shouldn't be used for all works, but only when one poet has written several poems with the same name - a similar solution to the Collection/Short Story problem.

In Baudelaire's case they were even all published at the same time, in the same publication. Without a better solution, users would need to refer to notes to be able to identify which work it is which is hardly ideal.

If I do recall it right, there was the exception allowed, to use a variant of an exact name / title / e.g. if that is generally better known than the accurate one.
In this particular case, I would vote for the way mirva chose, as it seems to be the common approach.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.