- 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 discussion.
The result of the move request was: (WP:SNOW close) Moved, per rationale that Triple Concerto No. 2 is an ambiguous term, and thus needs disambiguation anyhow. Consensus on this rationale, and on the fact that it may be implemented without delay was found in the discussion below. If a new WP:RM request is desired it must start from this fact. (non-admin closure) Francis Schonken (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Triple Concerto No. 2 → Triple Concerto No. 2 (Smirnov) – Per WP:MUSICSERIES, parenthetical disambiguation should be included for a composition with a generic title "even if the article title is unique without it". King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Comment: Actually that would have been my preferred name, but I was afraid JHunterJ would move it then. Another option would be to make it an article about both of Smirnov's triple concertos, but that would take a few days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose per WP:PRECISION. The WP:MUSICSERIES guideline shouldn't contradict policy. If the composer's name is necessary for a good title, support move to Smirnov's Triple Concerto No. 2 per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDIS where no ambiguity exists. See Internet usage, for example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- No: Your interpretation of policy does not override a guideline, which represents a consensus interpretation of policy which was adopted in full view of and with implicit assent of the policy's maintainers. There are policy-based reasons, such as WP:CONSISTENT, for this rule. Unless you can point out a specific line from WP:AT that bans parenthetical disambiguators when the base title is unique, a guideline which explicitly authorizes their use takes precedence over whatever you think policy ought to say. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- No. Wikipedia's policy on article titling includes three strikes against it, which I linked in my !vote. WP:PRECISION, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NATURALDIS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Again, that's your interpretation of it. WP:MUSICSERIES is a consensus which has been endorsed by the community, and unequivocally specifies this form. You are pushing to make a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in this RM. If you disagree with the guideline, propose for it to be removed first. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Support. It's just common sense.--Smerus (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Comment: Moot (i.e., as an "unnecessary disambiguation" RM): also Bach wrote a Triple Concerto No. 2 (=BWV 1064), so the Triple Concerto No. 2 page should either be a disambiguation page or a redirect to the Bach concerto (which is certainly the most famous concerto of the two, when comparing Bach's "Triple" No. 2 with Smirnov's "Triple" No. 2, so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC may apply). I'd support a WP:SNOW close, moving the current content on Smirnov's No. 2 to Triple Concerto No. 2 (Smirnov), and making Triple Concerto No. 2 a disambiguation page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- support for that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- That proposal makes a lot of sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- 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.
