Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 May

Max Reger works (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

A non-administrator closed the page as "not moved", but the consensus agreed to rename the article per consistency. Also, the non-administrator seemed to agree with one person who opposed it. I'm at loss as I didn't know the results until now. Either relist or change already. Edit: One person discussed the closure with the closer, but the closer decides not to reverse the closure. George Ho (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (revert close and re-open / relist). At least one editor thinks the non admin close was not correct.

I think the close crosses the WP:Supervote line. The closer should revert, and !vote instead. I think then, if closed immediately after, "no consensus" would be justified. The "Support"s are being reasonably harried, and User:Gerda Arendt appears to be opposing the move.

I agree with the nominator that "Max Reger works" reads awkwardly. "Max Reger works ... as a musical composer". "Max Reger works of musical composition", should be Max Reger's works of composition". Definitely relist. Trying to be as concise as possible leads to these bad titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion does not show a consensus to move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I gave my decision then and explained the reason again when an editor asked me. I suggested two more moves, which was to split the article into a list and prose or move it a preferable name which does not break the system already in place. The rationale is still at my talk page. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is sensible. However, it is a tad creative for a closing decision. Why don't you, per WP:Supervote, convert your close to a !vote? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and move. I was about to open this RM myself, but George Ho beat me to it. I did participate in the discussion, but I'll focus only on the closing arguments. To reiterate my points from User talk:QEDK#Your RM close:
  1. It is not correct that there is no established convention: Category:Lists of compositions by composer and its subcategories have well over 95% of entries in the form "List of <work type> by <composer>". The only exceptions were a couple of articles created by the same author as Max Reger works, Gerda Arendt (courtesy pinging).
  2. The argument that "the article is not a list" is incorrect (our lists often do have a small amount of prose), and in any case, it is novel – nobody in the debate, Gerda included, did not raise it, so it is not appropriate to list it in the close.
  3. The argument that the title is not confusing is also novel (it was confusing for the original poster, and I agree, although did not say so in the debate). At least, it is unidiomatic English.

  In sum, I think that three panelists supported the move to one of proposed titles (List of works by Max Reger) and cited WP:CONSISTENCY as the main argument (and awkwardness of the current title as secondary), while only the article's author opposed it. I appreciate that QEDK may also have a different opinion, but then they should have voted rather than close the debate. It definitely sounds like a supervote. No such user (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Some comments:

1. To split this article into a table and list seems unreasonable, because the list is for the longest part only added details to table entries, - these details would make no sense whatsoever in a separate list.
2. Very few people will ever see the article title, because most links will go not to the top but to an individual work by opus number, PAGENAME#no. The shorter that pagename is, the better for the purpose. Sorry that nothing was established for such a thing yet, - it's new. Asking again: what would you do about Busoni where we have both List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni for the complete works, and Ferruccio Busoni works for a selection of major works.
3. If only three people are interested in a change, why change?
4. Perhaps notify project Classical music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (again): I dislike the fact that that close is being regarded as a supervote in its sinister sense when the close was editorial in nature. Lists only have content in lede when presented in a prose format, unless they are prose lists. Again, feel free to overturn my close, just don't call it out of procedure. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (no-consensus) I agree with many of the concerns pointed out above, sans the NAC concerns. In addition starting the rationale with "There's no established convention" seems to be taking WP:Local consensus backwards if there really was no convention then the talk page discussion is what matters. PaleAqua (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen: Wrongly closed, QEDK should've left an oppose vote instead of closing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn simply because there was no consensus for the close in question. QEDK should have commented (and i might even have change my vote and agree) but as it stands this was an improper move closure. (full disclosure i supported the move to List of works by Max Reger).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azteca Records (California) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Azteca Records (New Jersey) is now deleted, so the RM should be reopened. The page Azteca Records can then be deleted per WP:TWODABS and the California page will replace the disambiguation page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale My closure at that time is not incorrect. Since circumstances have changed, a new RM is appropriate. SSTflyer 02:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. "Not moved" was appropriate, given at least the confusing affairs. I note from researching, "azteca records" seems inherently ambiguous, and ghits are hard to connect to the stubby article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]