Talk:List of works by Max Reger

Attribution
This article began as a different presentation of the List of compositions by Max Reger from November 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 May 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to List of works by Max Reger. SST flyer  10:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Max Reger works → Works by Max Reger – The current title might misread readers into thinking that the late Max Reger is "working". Almost forgot; List of works by Max Reger is a suitable alternative if the former might not work. George Ho (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It has not been misread for Carl Nielsen, among others. The advantage of Max Reger works is that you find it when you look for the person who died 100 years ago today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * List of compositions by Max Reger is a redirect, the standard name but clumsy and long, we don't have to invent variations, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a glance at Category:Lists of compositions by composer leads me to support List of works by Max Reger (or ...compositions...) per WP:CONSISTENCY. No such user (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Only that they are no similar articles. This one is a sortable list, with links possible to every item. Such links should better be as short as possible, example Op. 144b Op. 144b. I'd rather go for "Reger works". For Busoni, there are two very different articles, works and List of compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they are similar; the format varies between bulleted lists, table-based lists, or a combination: List of compositions by Aram Khachaturian also uses combination, like this one, List of compositions by Rebecca Clarke is table-based, while List of compositions by Aaron Copland is bullet-list-based. No such user (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As for List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni and Ferruccio Busoni works, they are obvious WP:CFORKS and should be merged. There are also several duplicated or misnamed entries in the category; for example, I don't see why short Piano works (Bruckner) shouldn't be merged into comprehensive List of compositions by Anton Bruckner, and they aren't even interlinked. But those are exceptions, not the norm. No such user (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Busoni: A merge was suggested for weeks but nobody discussed. The list of composition is extremely detailed and - if you ask me - for specialists only. Bruckner is no topic for this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support List of works by Max Reger.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How is that better than the current redirect? Both are clumsy when you search for the thing, because there are so many that begin the same. How many times did I type "List of compositions by F", only to get to Busoni's list? Waste of time, every time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Procedural note. This RM was closed as "not moved. Using my discretion here. There's no established convention, furthermore, it's not misleading which happens to be the very gist of the rationale. The article is not a list, so I cannot move it to a "List of..." either. (non-admin closure) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 06:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)" This closure was then referred to MRV (see Move review/Log/2016 May) where the consensus was to overturn the close and relist it. Jenks24 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * move to List_of_compositions_by_Max_Reger. From 's link above it is clear that most such articles are titled that way. For WP:CONSISTENCY reasons this one should follow suit. And it is basically a list. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but please look closer. Busoni has both "List" and "Works" (see just a little bit up in this discussion). This is closer to "Works". Also please consider how much easier it is to code Op. 106 (typing 10 chars) than Op. 106 to achieve Op. 106 (rather 28 chars). Linking to individual movements and sortability are accomplishment of the arrangement which the typical "List of compositions" doesn't have. Let's not make things appear consistent that are different, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving me the Precious stone, but shall I thank you for trying to stop rebutting every proposal supporter's argument? The whole consensus is against the present title apparently. Why can't you accept that? -- This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because - if it gets moved I will be the one who has to type 28 25 chars instead of 10 4 every time I want to link to a work, - he wrote up to Op. 147 and many more without numbers. Did you, George, look at the two for Busoni? Repeating the main reason for objecting to a move: let's not make things appear consistent that are different, - it's not the typical list of compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You can type in just Max Reger and search for the subpage. I want to provide stats, but the site is having tech issues lately, so I'll provide them later. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me. I talk about the process to code a link to an item of the list (which will happen often). I start typing: "L i s t  o f   c o m p o s i t i o n s   b y   M a" - and then finally the search function will supply the correct choice. Otherwise, I type "M a x  R" - and have it offered right away. I confess I don't like the long names that are different that late, anyway, not only for this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your reply. In answer to your point I would answer that you can continue to type exactly that, as you always have, if you want. Max Weber works will certainly remain a redirect, so if you type your link above, it will still work correctly and probably no need to do anything different. But like it or not editor convenience has never been a factor in our article title decisions, it's the WP:CRITERIA that apply. And in this case it seems fairly clear that this is an outlier. For consistency with other articles, and also to make it clearer what exactly the article is, in my opinion the article would be better served at the title I mentioned above. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expanding. Three questions: 1) Do we need an article with no link, because - if I do as you proposed - all links will go to the redirect (while I usually try to avoid redirects, but wouldn't in this case, if only to avoid the needless "List of compositions" a few hundred times)? 2) Why do we need an article name changed that most people will not even see because they are linked to individual entries? 3) What do you suggest for Busoni (see above), where we have two lists? A merge request had been proposed, but nobody wanted to act on it in a month. I suggest we start to solve that question first and then name Reger accordingly, matching the name of the second list, now Ferruccio Busoni works, because that's the similar one, not List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni. I am not against consistency, but against giving an apple a pear name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article title
See WP:NCM: if all listed works are "compositions" then better to use the more precise term, per the applicable guidance. Anyone having a problem with moving this page to List of compositions by Max Reger – or better to launch a WP:RM before moving? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, move, it doesn't matter which long name will not be used in links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ps: most incoming "links" come from the navbox, only a few others should be changed after a move. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like the page started off as a cut and paste move - without properly attributing the origin of the material in the edit summary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No. The page started - as for Poulenc - as a separate table with sort function, planning for the other to still exist. Only afterwards a redirect seemed better than keeping both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ? The bullet list was copied, section titles and all, from the other page. Then, step by step, bullets were transformed to table rows. Once the other page was turned into a redirect (doesn't matter how soon or late that was) that changed from copy-paste (without attribution of the wiki-source) to cut-and-paste (without attribution of the wiki-source). The salient point remains the lack of attribution in the edit summary of the edit with which the page was created. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit summary said that it was a transformation of the existing "compositions" (not said: to a more practical form), - please remember that I thought the other list would stay. Had I meant to replace it, I would have named the article. I am sorry that I failed to do it later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think you still don't get it: whether or not the other page stayed is irrelevant. A substantial in-wiki copy-paste from one page to another without indicating the origin of the material in the edit summary of the page where the material gets pasted falls always short of attribution requirements. An exception is made when the editor who pastes the material is the same one who also wrote all the material they are copying (which was not the case here afaics). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, relevant guidance at Copying within Wikipedia (explained better than I did above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I restored the last version before it was made a redirect and wrote an attribution above. I also restored the article from were the information was taken. The project should decide what to do with the zwo lists, merge or keep separate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The attribution needs to be in the edit summary, again: see Copying within Wikipedia.


 * I thought this was a discussion about a page name, no more? Where would a discussion about a merge be? It looked to me that you merged quite unilaterally, and I just tried to untangle things by restoring the versions. - Sorry, I can't change an edit summary. When I translate from another Wikipedia, I attribute on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also all good and well that you change opinion mid discussion, but please leave the time for a reply before unilateral action. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * And we're all over the place: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music – no problem for me to move there with this discussion, but could you at least leave a link here that that is where the discussion is to be centralised? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved my questions to the new discussion place --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I had several edit conflicts, and will move my answers also there. I believe that when two pages are involved, a discussion on one of them is too hard to find, therefore moved to classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)