This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. Stick with the existing
natural disambiguation. But interesting question. Disambiguation is definitely necessary as reverb 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 Reverb (Marketplace) (but only one incoming mainspace link) and Reverb (marketplace) (but no incoming mainspace links) following bold moves. A new redirect from
Reverb (company) would not hurt.
Andrewa (
talk)
16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Comment: On further reflection and looking at
reverb (disambiguation), maybe reverb 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)reply
Oppose move per Andrewa and also oppose retargeting of reverb. 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. —
Amakuru (
talk)
15:29, 8 February 2022 (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.