Talk:Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung

This article 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 article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Name

I believe this article should be moved to Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung, despite the edit summary in this and this edit. Why? 1) The article's prose uses that spelling; 2) the Barbour work uses it in its title; 3) the table of content of the first edition uses it; 4) this title page from vol. 3 uses it.

This text uses "Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung", but I doubt that source's reliability; see here.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that such a move will require administrative assistance because of the edit history of Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael, The New Grove consistently uses lower case 'm'. Opus33 (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

… and many libraries catalogue it so. I'm asking above, and at de:Diskussion:Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung#Nochmals Lemma: how much weight do primary sources carry? And: if "Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung" is correct, shouldn't the lead paragraph say so? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Stein on the German discussion page makes a pretty clear case that "m" is the modern standard. Unlike New Grove, Brockhaus, MGG, etc. we're amateurs, not pros, and as WP:NOR indicates, we're really not supposed to be going out on scholarly limbs. I realize that this is a very minor limb to go out on, but it makes some sense to be fully consistent in respecting the NOR principle.

On the other hand this is certainly not a big deal and if you want to change it I won't put up a fuss.

Re your last point: yes indeed, the lead paragraph should certainly match the title, whichever you decide. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]