This article was nominated for deletion on 21 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Richard Wagner

This article falls within the scope of the Richard Wagner WikiProject, a collaboration to develop articles on the composer and his operas. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!Richard WagnerWikipedia:WikiProject Richard WagnerTemplate:WikiProject Richard WagnerRichard Wagner articles

friendly tags

Untitled

Concerning those friendly tags: The article is still in work and - until now - has not even reached a beta version. So, please, have some patience. As far as it might be your opinion there were "personal reflections", please give examples for it. Just adding some tags for the fun of it is a thing which everybody can do.85.22.30.11 (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template boilerplate says "personal reflection or essay". In this case essay applies. Please see WP:OR and WP:CITE. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without intending a personal attack, it is my opinion that putting claims without giving any reasons is at least a somewhat boring kind of debating style.80.144.72.13 (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be a personal attack, even if not intended to be. You can exercise your debating skills at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New German School, but please keep it about the article. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you cannot change your attitude (your talk page is full of complaints), no further reply from my side will be to be expected.85.22.21.50 (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to look in the archives - there are some really good complaints in there! You're welcome to comment about the article here, or the proposed deletion at the AfD, but please don't turn this talk page into a forum for attacking me or any other user. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the tags

Since my above posting of 10:30, June 18, 2008, four weeks elapsed, and no details justifying the tags concerning "a personal reflection or essay" or "original research or unverified claims" have come to light. As opposite, by now it should for everyone be obvious that everything in the article was taken from published sources. (As single exception, a reference for the last quotation of chapter 1.1 is still missing. I took it from an unpublished version of a Ph. D. dissertation about Liszt and Schumann. There is a published version now which I'll order from a library the other day.) The tags are in so far misleading and must be taken away. For the purpose of wanting to be fair, I'll give you two weeks as occasion for putting contradictions. As far as once again no reply with any substance will come, the said tags can only be understood as part of a kind of game. In this case I'll delete them. With regard to user Delicious carbuncle, I may add as friendly advice, please click here and there and also here and read carefully. Thank you very much.

The article has changed greatly since the tags were placed there. Any editor should feel free to take them off if they think they are no longer appropriate. As for your suggestion that I added them as "a kind of game" and not because I felt they were warranted, I refer you to the WP:AGF guideline you cite above in your friendly advice. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split, need for English references

It would be helpful if the present unwieldy article could be split: ie that the section on Music of the future, which is a topic in itself, be made a separate article, with appropriate reference between it and the remainder of the present article.On the same lines, the ADMV could (and I think should) be made a separate article. This would be far more valuable in encyclopaedic terms - rather than having one title covering three linked, but separate, topics. It would also help to introduce some English texts as references. This after all English WP, and the bibliography as a whole is not much use for the general reader.--Smerus (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created Allgemeine Deutsche Musikverein article by splitting and copyediting (including Englishing).--Smerus (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can quite well unerstand that you prefer English sources, there is a particular problem concerning the ADMV. The ADMV has for a long time been neglected by musicological research. Most of the original sources are today preserved in the "Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv" in Weimar, but they can no longer be used because of their pityful state. Parts of them have been destroyed by water, others have been eaten by mice. To this comes that sources like the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik are not only German sources, but printed with old German letters, which many Eglish speaking scholars can hardly deypher. For reasons of such kinds it will be a difficult task to find realiable English sources. Had I found some, Iwould have used them.80.144.53.71 (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]