Talk:Alma Problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sources

Please see User talk:Pfistermeister as there is nothing on this on google that could remotely be considered a reliable source per WP:RS. This appears to be in hand. --Spartaz 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Google is only useful to point to online sources. The author of this article, User talk:Pfistermeister, has referenced several books. I think that unless we can read them, we cannot tag them as unreliable.-Atavi 14:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I know - that's why I took the hoax tag down after discussing with him and he agreed to put the references up in the article quickly. --Spartaz 15:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry; I wrote the above comment without reading your discussion on User talk:Pfistermeister's talk page, but only what was written on the article talk.

-Atavi 15:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Alma Mahler article

I vote in favour of merging with the Alma Mahler article.-Atavi 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on that idea, actually. For one thing, the 'Alma Problem' entry is going to be very big and detailed, and would tend to overbalance the Alma Mahler article; for another, I will eventually link the 'Alma Problem' page to the 'Gustav Mahler' article: people who click on it there won't want to be taken to the 'Alma Mahler' page.

Pf.

Yes. When I wrote that, the article was quite small. But you're still working on it, and it has already grown to a size where it wouldn't be right to put on the Alma Mahler article. I think we can remove the merge tag as well. The text is so big, I don't think anyone would support merging now.-Atavi 21:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. And thanks also for your contributions to the page: I hope there will be more!

Pf.

It's an interesting piece. I'm happy to read it and also write a bit when I can.-Atavi 06:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed neutrality

Who on earth has tried to paint this entry as something whose 'neutrality' is 'disputed'? Who is doing the disputing? The only people who have contributed to it so far are myself, 'Atavi', and 'Cenedi' -- and, as far as I can see, there's no disagreemwent between us, and the result is about as factually impregable as it is possible to be. So: can someone please take the tag off this entry? It's an insult to everyone concerned.

Pf.

Allow me! The text itself seems absolutely fine. And it's not a 'stub', either!

Uncle Brian