Talk:Reverb.com

Reverb challenging
Can't talk to any anyone nor get through by email. Bad for business. 50.38.245.61 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2022

 * 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 section. 

Reverb.com → Reverb (company) – The company is almost always referred to as simply "Reverb" and is branded that way. —  AjaxSmack  08:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on this move and suggestions of other disambiguators are welcome. —  AjaxSmack 08:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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.
 * Oppose. Stick with the existing natural disambiguation. But interesting question. Disambiguation is definitely necessary as is a valid primary redirect. Difficult to imagine how to gather valid data on what the common name might be... and the name of what exactly? Scope of the article is the website rather than the company but both are notable IMO and the scope is maybe a line call. There are already redirects from  (but only one incoming mainspace link) and  (but no incoming mainspace links) following bold moves. A new redirect from  would not hurt. Andrewa (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Andrewa reasoning. A redirect could just be made for the article. If you want to write about the company a section could be made but this article was created because of the website. DownTownRich (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: On further reflection and looking at reverb (disambiguation), maybe should redirect to reverb effect, as in for example the legendary Fender Twin Reverb. I also question nom's statement that The company is almost always referred to as simply "Reverb" and note that one link doesn't establish this, but not sure it matters anyway... Reverb is still ambiguous. So, no change of !vote. Andrewa (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: After a look at, redirecting to  seems like a good idea. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do agree and support the redirection of Reverb to Reverb effect.
 * DownTownRich (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose move per Andrewa and also oppose retargeting of . There is no reason why "reverb" should refer in particular to the narrower topic of reverb effect rather than the overall summary article reverberation, which covers all aspects of the term. I do think it's a primary topic, anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)