Talk:List of compositions by Max Reger

Intra-wiki attribution
The 9 February 2017 iteration of this article was copied from this version of the article List of works by Max Reger, which was created by. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Pre-2016 talk
I've removed the linkless tag. There is one article that links to this one - the article on Max Reger himself. Surely that's enough? 203.206.14.81 05:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Source for some material here now that maxreger.com is down - here. Needs double-checking I think... Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge? Go back to earlier version? Page name?
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that List of works by Max Reger be merged into List of compositions by Max Reger. The bulk of the former duplicates the latter, and so as a redundancy it needs to be merged and redirected per WP:Duplicate articles. The standard Wikipedia title convention for classical-music composers' compositions is "List of compositions by" (see Category:Lists of compositions by composer). -- Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge. The "works" article is nearly entirely redundant, and the standard titling for classical composers is "compositions", as the article created in 2006 is titled. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider that the apparent "redundancy" came with . This article was a redirect before, and it was a bulleted list before that. The question is if we still need such a bulleted list (make sure we talk about the same thing: like this), because some readers can't sort. Sorry that the edit history is so confusing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally, the individual pieces within an Opus are detailed in an article dedicated to that particular Opus. I don't see any reason for a composer who wrote 200 Opuses to have every individual piece within each Opus mentioned as well in the compositions list article. Especially when it is a simple matter to create a stub article on every Opus that requires one. Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. I am in the process of writing such articles, such as Sieben Stücke, Op. 145, just two days ago. But until then, the titles of movements are valuable information, if only to find which set contains which hymn or poem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The information doesn't go away just because it is no longer live on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here it's most easy to find. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: the name "List of compositions by" might be consistently used for such lists, I think, which Max Reger works (excuse the shortcut) is not. We have two lists for Busoni and Poulenc, and had two (by opus and by genre) for Nielsen until they was merged to List of compositions by Carl Nielsen (developed as Carl Nielsen works, because you can't do the modifications on a "living" article. The sorted lists are new, and perhaps a new name would help readers to know what to expect. I suggested FP (Poulenc), - please remember that many internal piped links go to such articles which have a label for every piece. Shortcut: name bulleted lists "List of compositions by " and name sortable tables something short, but with at least the surname of the composer to make the connection, such as Op (Reger). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The two articles are identical. The only difference is one (the new one) has an infobox and one doesn't. One article is correctly titled, and one (the new one) isn't. One has to go; Wikipedia does not allow duplicate articles. Softlavender (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you hear me? The articles are identical because FS imported in a cut and paste from the other article. I don't think that is a proper merge, and it should be reverted, but not by me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering your unilateral edit ten months beforehand here, it doesn't seem you have any leg to stand on there, as you clearly didn't care for the bulleted list either. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand on the leg that I created the sortable table, and it added a lot to the list, I did nothing in 2016 of which I am more proud. - I am sorry that I noticed only now that while I thought it was clear that the table was more useful, others might disagree, as we saw for Poulenc. I am also sorry that when I took this list as the basis for the table, I didn't write an attribution. I thought when I began it would be merged, but didn't know how. I am further sorry that I did the redirect then myself without asking someone who'd know how. The question is what do we do now, restore the bulleted list for people who might want such a thing, or do a proper merge. This was discussed with Graham87 before going to the project, because it concerns not only this composer but would be a rather general decision, 1 article or 2 articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing is going to happen to the sortable table, so there's nothing to worry about. The bulleted list has already been overridden, by you, and it was both incomplete and unwieldy -- the information that was in that is more suitable for individual articles because it is too exhaustive and detailed. We could cover the details of the individual selections within Opuses by creating shorter articles like "List of instrumental compositions by Max Reger" and "List of vocal compositions by Max Reger", since shorter articles would have room to use bulleted lists of each element within each Opus. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of compositions by Max Reger. Clearly makes most sense — Iadmc  ♫ talk  17:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)