Jump to content

Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 17

Give this an infobox.

This seems to be missing an info box. As you may see above. Give this page an infobox before it is nominated to be deleted. MetallicaMan800 (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Lacking an infobox is not a reason to delete a page or nominate it for deletion - see WP:DEL-REASON. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Mozart c. 1780, by Johann Nepomuk della Croce
Born
Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart

(1756-01-27)27 January 1756
Salzburg
Died5 December 1791(1791-12-05) (aged 35)
Vienna
WorksList of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Signature
It's missing an infobox because people disagree on this topic. A bit of history: the last one was in May [1] and promptly reverted, before was in 2011, in 2010, in 2009, again in 2009, in 2008, again in 2008, in 2007, again in 2007. An infobox was reverted in May 2007 which had been in the article for about a year. {{infobox writer}} (the 2015 choice) was not appropriate, but it could be {{infobox classical composer}} or {{infobox person}}. Following the models of Bach and Beethoven, it could be something like this. Note that persondata, which so far listed the data of birth and death together, is no longer supported, and no prominent link is in the lead that points at a neutral list of his compositions. This might be an acceptable compromise. Image and all parameters are of course open for discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
While I favor an infobox along the lines proposed by Gerda, that sure was WP:POINT-y behavior on the part of a user who has only been on-wiki two months and was most recently blocked on Nov 9. I suspect that this user is WP:NOTHERE and is merely trying to stir up drama. To avert unnecessary drama, I suggest that we all apply WP:NODEADLINE here and revisit this question in another month or two. Montanabw(talk) 18:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be most regrettable to force an info-box on this article in defiance of the consensus on all three relevant music projects. Info-boxes are useful in the right place (sportspersons, politicians and others where life statistics can be summarised top right) but are not helpful to the reader for composers. An I-B that listed Mozart's major achievements would be absurdly long, and one that didn't would be an amateurish waste of time and space. This is why we have the consensus that they are to be avoided for composer biogs. Tim riley talk 18:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The neutral list to his compositions works well for Beethoven. - I would not have suggested here, but there were two questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Making an error once is no justification for making it again. The box in the Beethoven article is pointless clutter and should never have been foisted on to the article. Tim riley talk 09:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps find a little more neutral wording (instead of "force", "pointless clutter" and "foister") for "implementing talk page consensus on infobox". You may have missed that arbitration requested (in 2013) to handle each article individually. You may like it or not (I don't like it), but that is the current ruling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Gerda, your concern for my drafting is touching, but we can obey WP Diktats while at the same time using words to mean what the OED says they mean; we must not get Orwellian. I fear that the I-B absolutists will not rest until an I-B is added to every WP article, however silly that makes Wikipedia look to the innocent visitor, but heigh ho! Tim riley talk 14:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion of "consensus on all three relevant music projects" led to an ArbCom decision on LOCALCONSENSUS that infoboxes in articles are to be decided on a case-by-case basis, article by article. (And that we all need to be nice and civil about it) The endless rounds of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT about infoboxes generally and infoboxes in the classical music areas specifically are a total waste of time. The only question s if users think this particular article needs one. My position is yes, and in part because I think all the major composers should have them as well. Biographies are appropriate places for userboxes containing basic biographic information and they are a benefit to the reader, particularly the casual reader. What the infobox contains, whether it is expanded or collapsed and any number of other questions surrounding parameters and syntax may be debated endlessly, but the infobox itself should not be something we are still debating about including, particularly now that they are also getting rid of persondata. Montanabw(talk) 00:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There are two obvious contradictions in your thoughts: 1) You contradict yourself by first deploring the ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT nature of discussions, but then you proceed to do exactly that, not offering any reason why WAM's article specifically needs an infobox. 2) You then assert that all biographies ought to have infoboxes; MOS:INFOBOX#Using infoboxes in articles says otherwise. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
That is because I am exhausted by these endless debates; arbcom's decision to discuss infoboxes on an article-by-article basis was perhaps the least worst decision, but it's tiring because everyone just uses the same arguments. SO HERE: For both purposes of layout producing standardized basic information at a glance (some of which is also in the lede, but some of which is not) and use of wikidata, infoboxes are helpful. Now other people can trot out the usual "I don't like infoboxes, I think they are ugly and contain unneeded information/duplicate the lede" argument. IF anyone actually has anything new to say, do enlighten us. Montanabw(talk) 08:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The reason I refrained intruding into your lovely duet sometime ago, was because I didn't want to add my zero to your zeroes. Now that you are stalled I'd like to express myself on the question on hand as well as on the more general topic about how a lack of agreement, in particular a persisting lack of agreement, should be considered and dealt with.
Usually, people, once a consensus is reached, consider it as the golden yardstick to which everybody may conform. Even more so if the process of consensus building is reiterated more than once with identical results: the “golden yardstick” becomes a “platinum stick”, almost untouchable and immovable. To me, that a certain choice is questioned time and again, is in itself a sign that the consensus building process has a fatal flaw. In these cases we ought to follow the path of inclusion, not that of censorship, as much as possible.
On the question on hand, if you consider Wikipedia to be a strongly multimedia encyclopedia, an audio-visual tool for the advancement of knowledge, where words play a role in union with many other actors, than you will agree that an infobox is almost indispensable, even when it repeats the lead: what is different is the format. Any means are welcomed to catch the attention of potential readers. Wikipedia isn't read in the calm rooms of a Bodleian Library or in any other library, it's read everywhere in the world but in libraries. So let try to build some robust multimedia pages, with infoboxes, quotation boxes, images and any other audio and visual helping device. Carlotm (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
a) There is no consensus to use an infobox on every article. b) I don't understand how an infobox adds multimediality. c) Your last suggestion might be seen as clutter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I certainly regard that last suggestion as clutter, and possibly the strongest argument that can be made against infoboxes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I knew I shouldn't have snicked in, because here, when people don't understand, it's not that they don't understand, it's that they don't want to understand, and I can do nothing about it. Carlotm (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

👍 Like Montanabw(talk) 07:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I oppose an infobox here. As already noted, the use of infoboxes in WP articles is optional. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids, and all the facts it presents are stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) The most important points about the article are discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, so the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you please point out which items in the above infobox you regard as unimportant factoids? Maybe infoboxes just get vandalised because they're always at the top of the page? Would you use the same argument to get rid of the opening sentence? Your comments don't really belong here, anyway. They have nothing to do with Mozart in particular, or composers in general - you should move them to some general discussion on deleting infoboxes from the project wholesale (except that there isn't one?) 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as someone who is largely a reader rather than editor, I immediately noticed the lack of infobox and it made the article feel incomplete. I don't think the above explanations for a lack of infobox are particularly appropriate for Wikipedia, which is very often used just to look up one or two facts - more so than it's used for in-depth reading, I believe. I'm afraid my first reaction on seeing the infobox missing was that it would be easier to go somewhere else than look through the article. Yes, it's lazy, but that's the reality of the internet - attention spans are limited. But the other thing is that some of the justifications for avoiding an infobox come across as somewhat arrogant, as if some people believe their favoured topic of classical music to be so important they want to force people to read the main article. To some extent, the idea that an infobox is redundant because the information is in the article would also suggest Wikipedia is redundant, because you could just read a book. Where is the consideration for convenience for the reader? That seems to have been left out in favour of consideration for editors and those who are perhaps a little precious about their interests. I know I don't understand all the factors involved, but most of them don't matter if you lose your reader in five seconds. Kombucha (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Unwarranted reversion

Michael Bednarek reverted Silverije's edit for reason of "squashing text between images – WP:SANDWICHING", which simply didn't occur and must be seen as a banal and specious excuse. When will it end, the use of reversion as a tool to lock pages and quash any change that looks like to be disliked by a newfangled son of Echidna? I expect Michael Bednarek to revert his abusive reversion, and, if he thinks he could make an improvement to the page, to wait a while and then make his own editorial effort. Carlotm (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016

Change from "Ludwig van Beethoven composed his own early works in the shadow of Mozart, and Joseph Haydn wrote that "posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years".[3]" to "Ludwig van Beethoven WHO composed his own early works in the shadow of Mozart, and Joseph Haydn wrote that "posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years".[3]" 46.39.116.221 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Done With bonus punctuation added EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, it was Haydn that wrote that bit about posterity not seeing another such talent, etc. Opus, can you check? I think you have the Landon book, right? The last sentence contains two separate items: that Beethoven composed in the shadow of Mozart, and Haydn wrote about Mozart's talent. Antandrus (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
(ec) That edit should be reverted, especially the added commas. 1) "who" is optional; it doesn't add or clarify anything. 2) the omitted and added commas, "Ludwig van Beethoven, who composed his own early works in the shadow of Mozart and Joseph Haydn, wrote that 'posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years'" suggest that Beethoven and Haydn wrote that passage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Already fixed. Antandrus (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't have the original Landon source for the quote, but you can read it on line at [2]. It's from a letter Haydn wrote to Maria Anna von Genzinger. Opus33 (talk)

Eine kleine Nachtmusik

Among "Mozart's greatest works????????????????" puuuuuLEEEEZE! 50.202.216.74 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

How would you adjust? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Anon is surely right; the reputation of EKNM is surely more on the "lightweight but delightful" end. This error went in only recently and needs to be fixed. I can give it a try in a little while. Opus33 (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
They have such good taste in Vienna, don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a couple small changes. Specifically, I've removed the material that says these are Mozart's greatest works -- this issue has come up with various other composer articles over the years, and I think it's a consensus that "greatest works" lists are tend to be very subjective and we should not engage in providing them. As a result, I have removed the mention of "Eine kleine Nachtmusik", per discussion above. In addition, I took out the mention of The Magic Flute as it appears within the 1786-1787 section. This section is part of a chronological narrative of Mozart's life, and it seems better to let The Magic Flute be discussed (which it is) in the later section covering 1791 -- which was the year it was composed. Opus33 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Amadeus?

Mozart never used this pompous name unless he was joking (writing his name in mock Latin such as Wolfgangus Amadeus Mozartus). His middle name was Gottlieb and occasionally he used the French version Amade' But really the entry should be 'Wolfgang Mozart'.

Whether that is true or not, the common name for the subject is Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe Anon is correct about the marginality of "Amadeus". But at least according to Deutsch (1965), Mozart preferred Amade over Gottlieb. See Mozart's name. As far as what we should actually be doing, I agree with Nikkimaria that we should abide by WP:COMMONNAME and use "Amadeus". Opus33 (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This and so many other articles on composers on Wikipedia are rich with plagiarism. The bulk of the content is either directly copied from Grove, or lightly paraphrased. In many instances the correct citation is included, but quotation marks are needed. For instance, the article writes:

"The following March, Mozart was summoned to Vienna, where his employer, Archbishop Colloredo, was attending the celebrations for the accession of Joseph II to the Austrian throne. Fresh from the adulation he had earned in Munich, Mozart was offended when Colloredo treated him as a mere servant and particularly when the archbishop forbade him to perform before the Emperor at Countess Thun's for a fee equal to half of his yearly Salzburg salary. The resulting quarrel came to a head in May: Mozart attempted to resign and was refused. The following month, permission was granted but in a grossly insulting way: the composer was dismissed literally "with a kick in the arse", administered by the archbishop's steward, Count Arco. Mozart decided to settle in Vienna as a freelance performer and composer.[48]

In Grove, it says:

"On 12 March Mozart was summoned to Vienna, where Archbishop Colloredo and his retinue were temporarily in residence for the celebrations of the accession of Emperor Joseph II; he arrived on 16 March, lodging with the archbishop's entourage. Fresh from his triumphs in Munich, Mozart was offended at being treated like a servant, and the letters that he wrote home over the next three months reflect not only increasing irritation and resentment – on 8 April the archbishop refused to allow him to perform for the emperor at Countess Thun's and thereby earn the equivalent of half his annual Salzburg salary – but also a growing enthusiasm for the possibility of earning his living, at least temporarily, as a freelance in Vienna. Matters came to a head on 9 May: at a stormy interview with Colloredo, Mozart asked for his discharge. At first he was refused, but at a meeting with the chief steward, Count Arco, on 8 June, he was finally and decisively released from Salzburg service, ‘with a kick on my arse … by order of our worthy Prince Archbishop’ (letter of 9 June 1781)."

I'm a university professor and teach writing, and this is a clear-cut example of plagiarism even with the footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephejones (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

How else would you describe this well-known episode from March to June 1781? Feel free to improve; this is "the encyclopedia everyone can edit." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The description is fine, it's the citation that's problematic. A citation at the end of a paragraph is not a substitute for quotation marks, if you're borrowing the wording itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephejones (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Mea culpa (I checked and it is me, 2007). If no one else does it I will put an alternative together, using other sources as well, as soon as I have time. If Joseph E. Jones noticed any other passages that are too-close-to-Grove I would appreciate his identifying them. Opus33 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2016

Tristan adobo (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC) 

wow ang galing niya
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 talk 05:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2016

Tristan adobo (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC) 

wow ang galing niya
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 talk 05:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016

Wolfgang's birthplace is in the centre of Salzburg (in Austria) and is visited by thousands of people every year. Noranhs (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Quite so. We already have an article on Mozart's birthplace, and this article links to it, from the text "9 Getreidegasse". I feel that the presence of thousands of visitors at the birthplace museum is more of a fact about the present day and not a fact about Mozart himself. And it would interrupt the narrative of his life if we said something like "9 Getreidegasse (visited by thousands of people today)". So my sense is that we should not change the article. Opus33 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Not done per Opus33. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Aqua Tofana and Die Zauberflote

Reasearch of Mozart manuscripts showed evidence to musicologists Oliver Hahn and Claudia Maurer Zenck that large amounts of Arsenic were found in the manuscript of 'Die ZauberFlöte', the opera Mozart was working on the latest years of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.158.193.164 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This research got published in:
Claudia Zenck (with Oliver Hahn). “Die Tinten des Zauberflöten-Autographs. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen neuer Analyseverfahren. Ein Nachtrag zur Chronologie und eine biographische Pointe”. Acta Mozartiana 50, Heft 1/2. (2003): pp. 3–22.
Gosh, there are so many things to fix in this article that I'm not really eager to follow up on this hint myself, at least at the moment. Opus33 (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Item moved to this talk page

  • ""Mozart turns two hundred and fifty" (Text and Audio)". International Committee of the Fourth International. 6 May 2006. Retrieved 6 October 2016.

This good-faith edit links to an article that I suspect was prepared by an amateur (hey we're amateurs, too! but we rely on professional sources). Errors of this source include:

  • "Carl Bach", a very odd way to refer to this composer. If you use just one name it would be "Emanuel".
  • Eastern Hungary as location for Haydn; off by several hundred miles.
  • only 104 symphonies for Haydn
  • The anachronism of "Prague, Czechoslovakia" (I've never seen in writing about Mozart, since there was no such country as Czechoslovakia in his time.)
  • Severe Military Fever. I guess the author misread "miliary"? It means "millet-like bumps on skin".

This is what I caught, so who knows what else there might be. I don't think a professional Mozart scholar would have put these thing in. There are plenty of professional sources so I think it would ok not to cite this one.Opus33 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Opus 33 - Thank you for your remarks. I do hope you enjoyed reading it, even though it was proof-reading. I found it to be a lively and inspired essay - and I might add, quite informative.--36hourblock (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Since you liked the article, you might ponder what things were said in it that are not already included in our current Mozart article and ought to go in. Opus33 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Opus 33: Well, the WSWS article in question is not recognized by you, or, presumably, your co-editors presiding over this site, as source material. That said, Laura Villon discussed Mozart within the context of the historical era in which he lived and created his music. This is placed at the center of her article, with special focus on the Age of Enlightenment. Nothing in the main body of your article mentioned this world historical movement or the wiki article. A link to Mozart and Freemasonry touches on the topic. Honestly, I would have thought that a careful reading of the Villon article would have made that which "is not already included" rather clear.
Recently, I rewrote a section on Paul Gauguin. The opening words read as follows: "Gauguin was born in Paris, France to Clovis Gauguin and Alina Maria Chazal on June 7, 1848. His birth coincided with revolutionary upheavals throughout Europe that year."
The reason I included the Revolutions of 1848 was not because I thought it was important, but because Alan Bowness, former director of the Tate Gallery, wrote the material I based edit upon, and HE thought it was important to provide this historical context.
I decline to edit the Mozart article. But perhaps you will take my comments to heart with regard to your future presentation of Mozart's life and work. --36hourblock (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Place of citizenship.

The lead needs to directly inform the average reader of the country of which the subject was a citizen, as per MOS:BIO. As "Salzburg" doesn't mean anything on its own, to the average reader, the lead currently fails to do this.

Feel free to fix this yourself of course, or at least tell me wherein lies the contention from "Born in Salzburg, (located in what is now Austria), ..."

InternetMeme (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

In regards to relating it to a place people know the location of, how about:

"Born in Salzburg, (in what is now Europe)", or

"Born in Salzburg, (located near modern Austria), ...", or

"Born in Salzburg, (located near Germany), ...", or

"Born in Salzburg, (a state of the Holy Roman Empire), ..."

InternetMeme (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current link to the article "Salzburg", which gives more information than the average reader is likely to demand?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with JK. See Mozart's nationality for the considerable complications that IM's seemingly-simple question raises. I feel it is better not to open such cans of worms in the lead section; the main text can handle it better (see just a paragraph down). Opus33 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
"What's wrong with the current link to the article "Salzburg""
The average reader is unlikely to have read that article, so to the average reader, "Salzburg" doesn't mean anything without context. Please read MOS:LEAD#Provide an accessible overview if what I'm saying doesn't seem to make sense.
InternetMeme (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
So how does importing even an abridged summary of that very long article improve the lede here? I agree with Opus33. Opening this can of worms in the lede of this article would be counterproductive, especially since it is already dealt with in the main text, for the benefit of any readers who care to read more than the barest of facts.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Jerome. Those readers who are not curious enough to inform themselves by clicking on Salzburg will probably not be helped by a clumsy explanation either, and for all others it would be distracting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I quite agree.--Lubiesque (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you may need to pause for a moment and consider the possibility that perhaps certain aspects of Wikipedia style don't really suit your tastes, and that you therefore may occasionally have to do things in a way that doesn't seem best to you.
In a lead on Wikipedia, "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined.", as per MOS:LEAD#Provide an accessible overview. Now I'm not trying to say whether that's a good idea or a bad idea: it's just how Wikipedia works. If you want to help, you could work out a brief definition of the uncommon term "Salzburg", as it is currently missing from the lead. I'm confident you can improve on my suggestions above : )
InternetMeme (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe that you think that Salzburg is an uncommon term, and that most people won't know that it is now in Austria. Why would you believe that?--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a strange angle to take. Wikipedia is a global general interest enyclopedia. I don't think you fully comprehend the education range of Wikipedia's audience. We're not writing for Europeans or scholars here: Salzburg doesn't exist; not existing alone is a qualifier for uncommonness, so we need to identify where it was, as per MOS:LEAD. My vote is "(which was located within present-day Austria)", though I'm sure you can improve that. InternetMeme (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Given that it has moved around a lot, politically speaking, but has always been in the same place, perhaps giving its coordinates would best satisfy your requirements? I still don't understand what you find wrong with the hyperlink. Please explain further.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, JK, but I think the right response is to ask IM to go away. His ideas for dumbing down WP are not attracting consensus here. I think it is sensible for us to write for a minimally well-informed audience. We should not clog up our prose with endless explanations for the ignorant. As Gerda says, we let the less well-informed inform themselves by clicking.
Also, I really resent it when people who have plainly lost a discussion on a talk page just go on nagging forever. There ought to be sanctions against this. Opus33 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Opus33: It's that type of attitude that is destroying Wikipedia. I haven't "lost" the discussion: you haven't given any good reason to ignore MOS:LEAD, other than the fact that you disagree with Wikipedia's style. If you don't like Wikipedia's style, then find a different encyclopedia to edit. If you can accept it, please educate yourself on the following paragraph:
" ... the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. For example, it is better to describe the location of a town with reference to an area or larger place than with coordinates."
Again, what are your reasons for disregarding Wikipedia guidelines? You have currently "lost the discussion", as you put it, and you keep "nagging" me every time I try and correct the article.
InternetMeme (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Structure of the lead section

The opening paragraph of the lead is to state the context of the subject per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph. Usually, the second paragraph is biographical, and the third sums up the artistic achievements of the subject. For an example of this structure, see the lead at William Shakespeare. Yet the biography begins in the opening paragraph at "Born in Salzburg..." which part belongs to the second paragraph. This is probably because editors want to mention Salzburg as near to the opening sentence as possible, but it actually disrupts the paragraph division in a way that can easily be repaired with some rewriting. It is a bit tough to squeeze in that Salzburg was then not a part of Austria but an independent place under something like a Prince-archbishop rule: even the Mozart page of the German Wikipedia needs some space to set this forth. Cheers MackyBeth (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it is uncontroversial that the strange paragraph division you just noticed (bio is broken into end-of-intro plus own-paragraph) deserves fixing and I will do that now, by altering the paragraph break. Then we can resume our bitter quarrels about Salzburg.  :=) Opus33 (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
For the moment it may be more productive to discuss what should be said about M's musical achievement in the first paragraph. For the Dutch - language article, I used (perhaps a bit too) much of how Stanley Sadie sums it up in the beginning of his M entry in the New Grove Dictionary of Music (p. 680): M excelled in all musical genres of his day but especially in opera, the piano concerto, and chamber music for strings; his music is rooted in the tradition of southern Germany, with operatic influences from Italy; his music is distinguished by melodic beauty, formal perfection, and complex harmonic textures. Information along those lines may be a good way to give the first paragraph more depth, and inform the reader immediately on the specifics of his contribution to music. MackyBeth (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. Symphonies were never M's forte, were they? They are hardly ever played today, and no reader is likely to want to know of them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
That's funny, I was a bit surprised myself when I noticed Sadie did not mention symphonies in his introduction; he just mentions the three genres I repeated above. Maybe he reasoned that the development of the symphony format was primary Haydn's achievement. H.C. Robbins Landon, in his essay on M in the Encyclopedia Britannica, writes that some of Mozart's symphonies have no peers except in Haydn's best symphonies. If one agrees, as the sources seem to do, that M developed the piano concerto as Haydn did the symphony, then it seems reasonable to say that M's achievement in the symphony, as stunning as it is, is still just a hair less important than what he did for the other three genres.MackyBeth (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Alfred Einstein, in his A Short History of Music, cites the symphony as one of the genres in which M excelled, but does not mention the piano concerto. For the Dutch M article, I combined Einstein and Sadie's lists to include both.MackyBeth (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
How about we model the opening paragraph on Britannica? They're surely a good benchmark of general-interest encyclopedic style:
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, in full Johann Chrysostom Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, baptized as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart (born January 27, 1756, Salzburg, archbishopric of Salzburg [Austria]—died December 5, 1791, Vienna) Austrian composer, widely recognized as one of the greatest composers in the history of Western music. (Britannica - Mozart)
Surely nobody can object to that? It's Encyclopedia Britannica, after all, and it also meets the Wikipedia style guidelines of which the lead currently falls short.
InternetMeme (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't, but you're welcome to try to get this guideline changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, I forgot to paste the relevant guideline into this new discussion. Please read the following excerpt from MOS:LEAD#Provide an accessible overview:
" ... the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. For example, it is better to describe the location of a town with reference to an area or larger place than with coordinates."
So now you can see how it falls short of the guidelines (given that "Salzburg" isn't a familiar term amongst typical lay-people—even if they have heard the term, they know of it as a present-day town in Austria), do you have any ideas for a brief definition? Coordinates are out, by the way (some guy tried to make a joke about that above). So, to record our progress in fulfilling the guidelines:
  1. Placed in context ☑
  2. Linked                ☑
  3. Briefly defined     ☐
We're two-thirds of the way there! We're actually doing pretty well.
InternetMeme (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I saw the earlier discussion. What I'm saying is, even if we assume the Britannica version meets that guideline, it fails another relevant one - an unnecessary one IMO, but still. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
To omit the impression that this article is derivative of any single source, it is usually a good idea to make up the lead by combining different sources. Just to prevent any confusion, this online Britannica essay is signed by the same author who wrote the New Grove M essay (Sadie). The M essay in my paper Britannica edition of 1987 is signed H.C.R.L. The essays are revised every few years, but not all at once, so that the 1987 version is numbered 15th Edition, and the final paper edition of 2010 is still called 15th Edition, but it is not a mere reprinting. It is interesting to see that, while M's nationality leads to discussion on more than just the English-language Wikipedia, the Britannica says: Austrian (also in my edition).MackyBeth (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Fascinating stuff! So anyway, how would you briefly define "Salzburg", in a few words? InternetMeme (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
No need to define, because it's a common termm, and linked additionally for those who really don't know it. Or should we also explain keyboard, violin, Requiem?? - Mozart hated the place, btw, - the shorter about Salzburg, the better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
How would you briefly define "Salzburg", in a few words, though? InternetMeme (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This belongs to the previous discussion, really, but my solution would be to simply call him a "Salzburger composer" in the lead, and since that means his nationality and not his birthplace, I would supply a wikilink at "Salzburger" not to Salzburg the place (which is already linked in the first sentence of the body of the article) but to Archbishopric of Salzburg. Problem solved.
No, you're describing a problem two-thirds solved. Please read MOS:LEAD:
" ... the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. For example, it is better to describe the location of a town with reference to an area or larger place than with coordinates."
So do you have any ideas for a brief definition, as per MOS? So, to record our progress in fulfilling the guidelines:
  1. Placed in context ☑
  2. Linked                ☑
  3. Briefly defined     ☐
InternetMeme (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
In that case: "Born in Salzburg, in the Archbishopric of Salzburg,..."MackyBeth (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt Mozart's own opinion of Salzburg is hardly relevant. If he was born and raised in Salzburg against his will that's worth working in the article, but I don't see how his dislike of his birthplace would affect his nationality. Funny thing is, as the German M article describes it, Vienna was not even Austria when he died there. MackyBeth (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2017

Jjgiles (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

i want to edit i found more facts
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2017

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born on January 27, 1756. At the age of 5, he learned how to compose and performed in the European royalty. At the age of 17, he was working as a musician for the Salzburg Court, but grew bored and traveled to search for a better job. He had written 600 songs before his death at December. 5, 1791. Gcamp0321 (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. RudolfRed (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Style

The following passage in the section labeled "Style" contains an anachronistic reference to Richard Wagner:

During his last decade, Mozart exploited chromatic harmony, for instance in his String Quartet in C Major, K 465 (the Dissonance Quartet; 1785), with an introduction containing chromatic suspensions and harmony reminiscent of composer Richard Wagner, whose musical career post-dates Mozart's death by over 40 years

It is better written as follows:

During his last decade, Mozart exploited chromatic harmony, for instance in his String Quartet in C Major, K 465 (the Dissonance Quartet; 1785), with an introduction containing chromatic suspensions and harmony which influenced composer Richard Wagner, whose musical career post-dates Mozart's death by over 40 years

Thank you. 208.194.97.5 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd be up for removing the reference to Wagner entirely. It it's really true that Wagner was influenced by Mozart's chromaticism then that fact belongs in the Wagner article, not the Mozart article. Opus33 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I would support removing it. The first cited source doesn't say that Wagner was influenced, it says that in the introduction to K. 465 "the harmonic definition at any given instant is as blurred as anything in Wagner". --Deskford (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
"Reminiscent" is clearly wrong. I sometimes see the phrase "which anticipated/foreshadowed …" in such contexts, but that is possibly WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or somesuch. Not mentioning Wagner (why him in the first place?) seems sensible. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I do wonder if this actually comes from a reliable source at all: Mozart's chromaticism here is not very Wagnerian, as it is always clear that the tonic is C through his definition of the tonic, dominant, and subdominant, in spite of all the subsidiary modulations. Wagner's chromaticism is more allied to Chopin's (see for example the codas of the late mazurkas), and even his drifting between keys without defining any one of them clearly comes straight from J. S. Bach. Mozart's similarity to Wagner seems to be more in their unification of the literary and the musical forces at work in opera, so that they both point the same way, although even their success was incomplete. (It had to be so; if it were complete, the result would not be opera, but absolute music.) Even Mozart's most colouristic uses of chromaticism (e.g. the development section of KV 595/i) are clearly moving directionally, from one clear harmonic area to another, rather than having to take lots of time defining the starting and ending keys as Wagner tends to do (the third act of Parsifal being as good an example as any), although at least this is one way where Mozart had a real influence on the Romantics outside prelapsarian nostalgia. So not only is this not relevant to the Mozart article, I have a hard time trying to figure out how it is right. Double sharp (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just made a try at writing a truncated paragraph without the Wagner reference. Opus33 (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Sounds much better without Wagner! --Deskford (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest that the "religious views" section be merged with "appearance and character", it is too short too have an entire section dedicated to it and it doesn't look that nice.—‎Lost Whispers talk 05:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A rationale and history for the split is discussed at Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and the Catholic Church#Why does this article exist?. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

Is he technically Austrian or German?—‎Lost Whispers talk 02:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither -- it's complicated. See the talk page archives. Neither "Germany" nor "Austria" in their modern senses existed during his lifetime. See Mozart's nationality for a more extended treatment of this question. Antandrus (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

What's in a name?

The introductory paragraph which states Mozart's common and baptismal names doesn't explain how "Amadeus" came to be. Either include it, or link to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mozart%27s_name.

TrueLaStudent (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure myself if going into detail about Mozart's name is so important as to deserve a place in the first paragraph. Whether or not his middle name was Theophilus, Gottlieb, Amadé, or Amadeus rather pales in significance compared to his musical activities when it comes to things one would try to tell someone who knows nothing of Mozart. I also am not sure that including first names that are rarely used (and were rarely used by the composers), such as "Joannes Chrysostomus" in Mozart's case or "Franz" in Haydn's case, is all that important for the lede, and I would much rather go into detail about this when discussing the composer's early life or, in a complicated case by Mozart, setting a separate section aside to it. If not, the result is that we go into enough detail to raise demands for an explanation, and then fail to give one visibly, as your comment has illustrated. Double sharp (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Appealing to Mozart's music

Appealing: someone was damaging commons' self-peace of playing and using Mozart's music by crazily deleting Educational edition of self-reflections in Wikimedia Commons. It was a very dangerous behaviour to the creative giftedness of commons. And oppositely, they slandered commons' voices as vandalism what they were right doing so. I thought we should respect commons. I found only here, it can be a peaceful place I made my appealing. Why did so many talents of commons have been killed? Why did so many potentials have been limited? Why shouldn't positive power influent people's kind-hearted minds and let them turn to good, rather than evil? currently. Just because some people were doing vandalism, but oppositely points kind-hearted commons as in vandalism. I cannot find any problems if a common learner want to express his aesthetics, after hearing Mozart and even willing to play a piece for respecting and improving his abilities. It should be in Wikipedia Commons' categories for commons' voices. But, one piece has been unfairly list as in deletion. May it be I am a foreigner, but I have been learning global English to express myself from 4 years old. Then, I knew more from Wiki-family, about Mozart's style through English. Should those all be mistakes? Shouldn't a common love Mozart through English and be willing to express his voice. I felt very sad and really didn't know why. Oh, Mozart, please tell me and those kids who are willing to learn yours: Why? Hopefully, this situation can be better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason M. C., Han (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Mozart and fashion

MERGED
Merge the content about Mozart's white wig that was mentioned in the source provided into this article, and redirect Mozart and fashion to this page

The following discussion 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.

Very short article, and I definitely don't think it's notable enough to have it's own article. I'm not sure what the policy is for speedy merging, but I do think that the article does not need to be separate at all. SkyGazer 512 What will you say? / What did I do? 13:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Support merge to this article per nom--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete There's not enough in that single sentence stub (and none of it is supported by the single reference) to even merit a merge discussion. If someone wants to add the reference about the discoverey of a new portrait to this article, feel free. Meanwhile, I've put a PROD notice on Mozart and fashion. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Nick Moyes. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete - Mozart is wearing court dress in those portraits, the reference does not supply any evidence that it was his personal choice, you had to dress up like that in the presence of royalty or rulers.Smeat75 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Support merge I think it would be a good idea to just merge it. It is well documented that Mozart wore flamboyant outfits outside the court as well, and it is very well known that he wore a powdered wig. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo, Nick Moyes, Double sharp, and Smeat75: see what I've done with my last edit to this page. It didn't exactly merge the Mozart and fashion article directly with this one, but I summarized the information provided in the source. If anybody has any another specific ideas about this, feel free to add them to the article, and/or remove what I put.--SkyGazer 512 What will you say? / What did I do? 19:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2018

Please change the link-url

https://web.archive.org/web/20091222083620/http://www.blb-karlsruhe.de/virt_bib/mozart/

to

https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/search/quick?query=mozart%20leopold&facets=collections%3D%2220953%22

Thank you! M Fischer (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The two links don't go to the same content, so get consensus before changing it. RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2018

Please add to the entry under "Honors" that reads as: 1770: Knight of the Order of the Golden Spur, by Pontifical Decree of Pope Clement XIV.[90]

to: 1770: Knight of the Order of the Golden Spur, by Pontifical Decree of Pope Clement XIV, received at age fourteen.[90]

It is certainly worth noting that Mozart was designated to receive such an award at such a young age. It may not be immediately apparent to readers that he was so young because they may gloss over the year the honor was awarded.

Thank you Seigristn (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose; instead, the section "Honours", added in November 2016, ought to be removed. This order is of no significance to Mozart's life and works. BTW, it's surprising to see Mozart described as Strasburghense in that papal document. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DBigXrayᗙ 08:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2019

change baptized to baptized in the first line Tulane Fanatic 11 (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that meant to say change baptised to baptized in the first line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulane Fanatic 11 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is written in British English, so there is no need to change the spelling. - SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the "claimed" wording

Hello. A few days ago, I changed the "claimed" wording to "said" per the relevant guidelines at WP:CLAIM regarding Mozart's letter; unfortunately, it was reverted. I'm taking the WP:BRD route and am opening a discussion here in an effort to avoid an edit war. According to said guideline, "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence," and I believe the "claimed" wording might not be neutral. Given that, I'm thinking "stated", "commented" or "written" would work better in this instance. Thoughts or ideas before I change it again? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Unless we know if the claim is true or false (and I didn't see any indication either way) then "claimed" seemed to be a perfectly normal English word to use and it seemed a little awkward the way it was altered. I'm not convinced that using "claimed" that way "casts doubt" but if others read it that way then change it by all means. I only reverted because [a] the usage seemed fine to me so a change didn't feel necessary, and [b] the change seemed to read a little awkwardly. I certainly won't be offended if it's altered, and I hope my "swift" revert didn't offend you (was there a particular period of time you think I should have waited?) While I'm here, I've often wondered, are you a real Lord or is that just a "stage name"? Cheers. -- Begoon 11:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart/Archive_13&oldid=1137329150"