A fact from List of works by Max Reger appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 May 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This redirect 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 redirect or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
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.
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 [[Max Reger works#144b|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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 May) where the consensus was to overturn the close and relist it. Jenks24 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 [[Max Reger works#106|Op. 106]] (typing 10 chars) than [[List of compositions by Max Reger#106|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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Because - if it gets moved I will be the one who has to type 2825 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi Gerda Arendt, 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 — Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
? 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
