Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Requested move 3 May 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart → Mozart – WP:COMMONNAME a google result shows 132,000,000 results for "Mozart"; while "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" pings 54,000,000. An example for a similar discussion is Beyonce Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Poe's Law is strong with this one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONCISE "neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness" and apart from people who's first name is unknown I can't think of anyone who is titled here with only their last name (WP:CONSISTENCY). Also MOS:DABPRIMARY gives Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as an example for using his full name on Mozart (disambiguation) even though he is primary for his surname. I don't think most people who know something about him would only know his last name per WP:NCA unlike Madonna for example not being known by her last name much at all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: While I hate Amadeus, and Mozart never used that himself, and in article prose I always use just "Mozart", I don't think that's a fair article name. Sounds a bit like Madonna to me. Look at concert programs, listen on radio: announcers usually give him a first name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per advice in WP:CONCISE and WP:SINGLENAME to retain the title as-is. -- Netoholic @ 09:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per those above who have read the actual guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seriously? Against guidelines.Smeat75 (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. By this logic we should move William Shakespeare to Shakespeare. WP:CONCISE says, "Neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness. Thus Oprah Winfrey (not Oprah)." — the Man in Question (in question) 19:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Virtually all first-rank classical composers are routinely referred to by their surname alone (with the weird exception of César Franck), but that is a far cry from naming their articles accordingly. This would be the thin edge of the wedge for Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff and all the rest. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 3 May 2020 (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.

Today's revert

I just undid a wiki data edit by a sock which produced an infobox. I've never seen this type of code before and as it was not the normal splurge of coded diarrhea you usually get with infoboxes, I reverted it. As this was inadvertently done against my restrictions, I've self reverted. I wouldn't, of course, put up much of a protest if someone were to revert me. Just sayin'. Cassianto^Talk 10:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek, I couldn't possibly comment on your revert of me, but thank you. ArbCom would now want me to challenge you for being "disruptive". I of course, won't. Many thanks. Cassianto^Talk 10:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ignored. What a toxic, horrible place this is. Cassianto^Talk 04:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Mozart’s Name

The article says nothing about the transition from his birth name to the name we know him by, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Britannica tells me: “Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, in full Johann Chrysostom Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, baptized as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart…” But it to says nothing about the circumstances of adding Amadeus to his name. If there is a music historian out there, perhaps you could do an edit. With regard to his nationality, I noted that Britannica refers to him as Austrian and notes that he was born in the archbishopric of Salzburg. I’m too new to know what would be correct for Wikipedia. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Humphrey Tribble: It's not an addition. People often translated their names freely between languages in that time: Theophilus = Amadeus = Amadeo = Amadé = Gottlieb. (You will also often for similar reasons find "Louis de Beethoven" in early Beethoven editions: same story.) See Mozart's name (and regarding the rest of it, Mozart's nationality), which is a subarticle discussing this issue. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

In short, he usually signed Wolfgang Amadé. When he got serious, such as Great Mass in C minor (look at the autograph), he wrote Wolfgango AmDeo. The present common name is awful, but common. The Salzburg Festival says "W. A.". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Error in the early life section

It says he was appointed as fourth violinist in 1743, but he was born in 1756. Time travelling composer? Clarysandy (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Read again; that sentence refers to Leopold. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Profound disappointment

Opening this page in English and finding out that right at the beginning there is no line where Mozart is declared, as he truly is, one of the greatest composers of all times and certainly the greatest of the classical period, is utterly dispiriting. What is worse still, perhaps, is that there seems to be no room for improving the article: the page is locked!!!--86.6.150.203 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You can suggest specific improvements right here, with sources, and we'll check if to be included. The page is locked because you can perhaps imagine that many changes to this article are no improvements, but vandalism. What you say above, is a specific Point of View (WP:POV), which has no room in Wikipedia. Please suggest something less problematic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well we already do say that Mozart is considered one of the greatest classical composers of all time. So what is the problem?

(P.S. "Greatest of the classical period" as the OP would have it is suddenly not quite as obvious for those of us who think Beethoven is best conceived of as part of the classical period. Which is similarly why I feel the current wording reflects the sources better and that we should leave well enough alone.) Double sharp (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

Most biographical articles seem to state the person’s nationality in the first sentence. That is missing in the case of Mozart. He was born before the annexation of Salzburg to the modern Austria. Would it be correct to say that he was ethnically German? Is this a contentious issue? If not, could the article be amended please? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is complicated. See Mozart's nationality for a full discussion. "Ethnically German" is incidentally one of the little pickles: in Mozart's time Austrians would generally have considered themselves ethnically German. This naturally changed after the war that we are not supposed to mention. ;) Double sharp (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he was ethnic German. Too bad I did not participated in the discussion when it was done, the Austrian lobby group introduced many times fallacious and misleading argumentation to prevent anything described German, although ethnic German would be the best solution. "Austrians" = residents of Archduchy of Austria not just considered themselves ethnic Germans, but they were Germans in fact, as Austrian national identity did not exist prior 1945, but even that does not change their blood.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC))

"Austrian" is not a nationality - it refers to citizenship, for the most part, as the majority of Austrians today speak German, with the other two major peoples speaking either Swiss or Italian - i.e., it is not a nation-state. His nationality/ethnicity was German, he resided in the Austro-Hungarian Empire for a large portion of his life (which had a huge chunk of its territory of Hungarian/Magyar speaking people.50.111.27.64 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Or adherence/resident of anytime Austrian state. Swiss language does not exist.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

@Phil Holmes, Double sharp, KIENGIR, and Dina Khusainova: (Recent editors): Perhaps in this case we might use geographic location: "Central European composer of the Classical period"? —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: I think Central Europe is a bit too wide: for me this term naturally would include Poland and Hungary. But what do you think of "German-speaking composer of the Classical period"? After all, Mozart's sense of German nationality was a linguistic-cultural one, so it makes sense from that view; and it is not against the "Austrian" view either (because Austria was and is still German-speaking). Double sharp (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure—that sounds okay to me. I just want something more specific. (Anyone else?) —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is about the short description, right? Such thing cannot summarize the complicated matter. "German-speaking" is the least poignant description and is no improvement. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

DocWatson42,

you may read my analysis/stance above. The best solution is ethnic German composer...., on the other hand this is a fact, noone may debate or challenge it.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Sure, I support that (too). —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I think any such "clarification" is unnecessary. Adding it will only invite petty edits where this article has been stable for a long time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I also think so. But if there has to be one, I prefer "German-speaking" as it seems the least likely to attract complaints of all the options that are not "leave well enough alone". Double sharp (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek, Double sharp, we don't have afraid of anything, we don't write/censor facts in articles just because some trolls or some ignorants may appear, if so, we'll handle it, that's for the talkpage and our community guidelines, etc. Ethnic German cannot be challenged, see my argumentation above, and this is just a shortdesc, such never was debated before, I endorse to go on with it, and let's see what happens, we have nothing to loose.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC))

"ethnic German" would be problematic relative to MOS:ETHNICITY. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Nikkimaria's caution. "Censorship" is a straw man. WP:UNDUE also applies to short descriptions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, the guideline you cited is meant primarily to the lead. Michael Bednarek, a metaphore is not a "straw man", we should not choose thing based on "least likely to attract complaints of all the options" or not to "invite petty edits" etc., necessarily. I told I take the responsibility, will gladly make the edit. In case it would be reverted, I'd let it like so, but worths a try.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC))

The short description is part of the lead. See MOS:LEADELEMENTS. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why does Mozart not have a information box?

Beethoven and Bach have the information box. But then most of the other major composers do not. Like Brahms, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Haydn, and Debussy. Since when are the great classical composers not worthy of an information box? Like why? Cj7557 (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

They did not reach consensus for it since years. In reality it is because of the "Austrian-German war" over identity/birthplace, which has a history, though very easy and adequate solutions would exist, i.e., describing him as ethnic German, which he was in fact, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC))

Cj7557, see Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 14, and other talk archives, and your talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's not feed the trolls, Gerda. Cassianto^Talk 06:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I treat a new user a new user, assuming good faith. - A link to an archive is good food for anybody ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, you seem to be a good judge of what is to come. Can you tell me next Saturday's lottery numbers? Cassianto^Talk 07:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is strange. It's standard practice to have an infobox regarding all figures. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional comment. Having gone through at least one archive, I will say this. From an outside perspective regarding this article, I came to this article expecting to find a means to see information quickly. This is the purpose of the infobox. But instead, I had to scroll down to see where his birthplace was marked. Needless to say, I come across this article rather disappointed in having to do that. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

These things are useful on biographical articles... I'm clearly not a troll, just a typical casual user and sometimes editor of Wikipedia who finds this article less useful because it doesn't have an infobox. Keeping it out by accusing people of being trolls reeks of article ownership. --Here2rewrite (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto Let me be clear. I am no troll. I’m am new. I was unaware that some here on Wikipedia were so sensitive about this. I now know that this is a difficult topic for some. Live and learn. Cj7557 (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt First thank you for the link to the archive, it was most enlightening. Second I thank you for assuming good faith in me. I did not mean to upset anyone. I was simply curious. And now I have been supplied with an answer. Thanks again. Cj7557 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, but let me just reiterate that consensus can change. I have now seen multiple discussions here saying "this has been discussed before, look there" and then closing the discussion. Infoboxes are ubiquitous on Wikipedia, so it's understandable that new editors are surprised when they see prominent articles without infoboxes. On the other hand, I understand that it gets tiring to rehash old discussions every time someone comes in. But relating to discussions from years ago is of itself not an argument. If he's still around, Cassianto could definitely stand reading the newly introduced Code of Conduct too. Biting at newcomers for even daring to ask about this topic is wholely unnecessary. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, considering the previous discussions contained many errors which has been not noticed/voiced by others.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

The most recent consensus not to have an infobox was just one year ago. In it, a proposal to have a multi-year moratorium was made by an advocate for an infobox. While the closer did not endorse that view, it seems sensible. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox (February 2021)

I am aware that this subject has been discussed extensively, but I still cannot understand why an infobox is not included in this article. Infoboxes are universally used across bios of notable people, and other famous composers, such as Ludwig van Beethoven, Johann Sebastian Bach, and George Frideric Handel all include them, as well as bios of people from all across different fields. According to a section addressing this above, the reason for the inclusion is "because of the "Austrian-German war" over identity/birthplace", which makes no sense to me. I strongly support the addition of an infobox. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes,

I agree, some non-experts in the topic started to be afraid of any German-associations in connection with events did not even exist in his lifespan. Sad story.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 5000 Schilling Mozart obverse.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Gottlieb

His middle name that he took in life should be at least mentioned. --2600:1700:E910:B830:854B:2DD:9FCD:EAB (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a whole article about Mozart's name, and "Gottlieb" is only a translation from the name used in his birth certificate, "Theophilus". I don't think mentioning "Gottlieb" here would improve the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox (March 2021)

I request we open a news discussion if a infobox is needed, personally it is my belief that a infobox is needed since it would gives quick and helpful information to viewers and makes the page more organized. BigRed606 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ps judging on the previous discussions it looks like the Majority agrees that a infobox is needed.BigRed606 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If it’s okay with everyone else I would be more than happy to make and add a infobox to the page. Although I do understand that their is some debate to adding a infobox, as I looked through the archives of this talk page. BigRed606 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that an infobox is necessary. Many of the past iterations of an infobox were quite good, could just restore one. Rauisuchian (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam, per MOS:INFOBOXUSE The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. have a look at the archives.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 05:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Necessary? How so? … were quite good" – They've all been rejected. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I fervently support the inclusion of an infobox. It seems in the past this page was caught up in a contentious debate on infoboxes, and those that were against infoboxes on articles decided Mozart's article was the hill they wanted to die on. Despite this, it remains that for biographical articles of prominent individuals, having an infobox remains the norm, and there is no particular or specific reason why Mozart's should be without it. AvRand (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I too was surprised by the lack of a useful infobox. All that is needed is a simple one that projects simple information that can be looked at in a glance.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, there should be an infobox Sahaib3005 (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - it is true that infoboxes are not required, but that's not actually an argument for not having one - a short box using the "Infobox classical composer" template, like Beethoven would be grand. Furius (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• I see that the archives are full of pointless discussions of this issue. Infoboxes are getting more and more widespread on wiki and eventually this article will be brought into line, but for now it's clearly not worth rehashing it. Furius (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Birth and death dates

Shouldn’t their be a birth date and death date underneath his portrait to make it more convenient? Jdietr601 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

His birthdate and death date are in the lead sentence in brackets. If you are referring to an infobox but consensus on this page has been against having one.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like that you are the only advocating for not having an infobox at the moment.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Regular editors of this article are tired of repeating themselves. See this talk page's archives. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus can change. "Regular" editors do not own this article. Anyone can add or subtract information, which also means that anyone can ask questions on the talk page. If you still feel you have a consensus then there shouldn't be any reason not to have a "Request For Comment" on this topic.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I added an infobox

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.

---

This issue has been discussed many times before in the archives. There seems to be a lot of support for an infobox. Per WP:BOLD, I added the infobox. If people really don’t want an infobox, then you can revert my edits. Sahaib3005 (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Um did you see the hidden note? It says this: "Please do not add an infobox, per the consensus established on the Talk page, in Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 8, Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 10, Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 12, and Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 13". So you should self revert. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Not having a basic biographical information infobox is asinine. I noticed immediately that it was missing because I wanted to know how old he was when he died. This sort of simple information shouldn't be buried in the article. Morvahna (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It's in the first line of the article, in case you didn't bother to look.--Smerus (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

p.s. he was 35 years, 10 months and 8 days old, in case it's a bit hard to calculate. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The topic of an infobox has been repeatedly been brought up so I have added an FAQ simliar to Kubrick's page.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:08, 31 July 2021 (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.

I gotta say looking at the discussions pointed to here from archive 8, here from archive 10, and finally here from archive 12. None of those are really discussions or consensus. The one Martinevans123 pointed out in archive 13 is closer but still not great and a long while ago. I will also note that the archive 13 discussion was not consensus against, it was evenly split by my count. Does this call for broader input like a RFC? PackMecEng (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You missed the RFC in archive 14 in January to March 2020, which is mentioned in the FAQ above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh snap I certainly did! Thank you for that! Well that answers that. PackMecEng (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Portrait as a child

Is there a particular reason that a portrait of Mozart as a child is included right after the lead image? Frankly, its awkward and out of place. I don't know of a single other article that shows an image of its subject as a child right below the one as an adult. Yes, I know Mozart is a child prodigy, but it feels unencyclopedic to shove that archetype in front of readers with this image so prominent. Aza24 (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The 1763 portrait used to be a bit further down, until User:UpdateNerd moved it up ("elevated" in their words) twice in August 2018. I agree that it should again be further down, below Getreidegasse, and the Carmontelle could possible moved to the left. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I tried as you suggested, and then some other variants but all were too crammed or caused too much sandwiching. I've opted to remove it entirely—we don't need every painting of Mozart, and the anonymous portrait is from the same year as the Carmontelle anyways. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

infobox person?

infobox person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.207.86 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No. See talk page header. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a tl;dr explanation? I'm not trying to argue that there should be an infobox, I frankly don't care whether or not there is. But the page header just said there has been "extensive discussion". For those of us who aren't willing to go down the rabbit hole of reading a debate that seems to span almost a decade, what's the gist of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margretarson (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Like all infobox discussions, the reasons to include or exclude given below are almost entirely couched in terms of personal preference. Current Arbcom guidance on the issue is that "(w)hether to include an infobox...is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." The current status of policy & procedures is in line with this guidance. This means that editor preferences are really the only basis on which to judge infobox discussions and should not be discarded solely on WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. The discussion below shows a clear preponderance of editors by nearly a 2:1 margin against an infobox on this article and should be respected.
Whether there should be a moratorium on further infobox discussions was not addressed by enough participants to make an assessment of consensus but there is a clearly-expressed fatigue with infobox discussions on this article. Any further discussions or RfC's on this issue should proceed only with the greatest caution. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Margretarson: here is the close from the latest discussion. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It was 3 years ago so I think it's safe to run project-wide RfC on that. It's surprising though that the arbcom didn't clarify for how long the "infobox probation" should last. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Still alive?

Do the rumors that Mozart is still alive deserve a mention? While he (probably) isn't, and we obviously shouldn't claim that he is without proper citation, the rumors are frequent enough that it seems they deserve at least some mention. Perhaps a brief "Rumors" subsection, or including the prevalence of the belief under an "In Popular Culture" section. 2601:405:4400:9420:5175:B20E:F653:2E42 (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

What reliable secondary sources are there to support this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably isn’t? Ha ha. We’d need a {{Citation needed}} in neon. Tag BLP anyone? DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And here I'd thought I'd seen everything on WP. Never dreamed I'd see someone suggest that a person could possibly be 265 years old. Carlstak (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus about the infobox

There's a reason for not adding an infobox for classical composers, But it has a discussion for infobox multiple times: Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 8, Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 10, Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 12, and Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 13. --Aesthetic Writer (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is unintelligible so I don't know how you expect anyone to respond. Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I need a consensus for infobox proposal based on Talk:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart/Archive_13. --Aesthetic Writer (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not once before did you say you were proposing something. You said just made an observation and linked to some archives. If you're proposing something, you need to actually be clear in what that is, otherwise your comment is as good as meaningless. Aza24 (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The editor is trying to remove the infobox at Leopold Mozart on the basis that the consensus at this article is for no infobox. Thrakkx (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok? And what does that have to do with THIS article? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to tell this editor (my talk, their talk) that there is no requirement to first have a discussion as long as all agree. But they seem not to understand me, which may be my fault. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously it has nothing to do with Wolfgang—we all know this. I am just explaining why this editor is coming out of nowhere, linking to archived discussions, and arguing about the existence of infoboxes for composers, both here and on Leopold's talk page. Thrakkx (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed Thrakkx, and thank you for your clarification. Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Haydn quote

The quote from Haydn that "posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years" feels very much unhelpful in the lead, especially since posterity did see the another talent of the same stature (Beethoven) in the next 100 years. If anything, it feels misleading and like a sly remark to say Mozart is superior to Beethoven. I don't think it adds anything to the article, if a quote is desired there are surely better ones. Aza24 (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the lack of response I've gone ahead and removed it. I replaced it with a quote on the nature/character of Mozart's music, which seemed lacking in the lead anyways. Aza24 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Virtually every genre"

Could I change this to "virtually every Western genre"? There are Eastern genres he didn't write in. BA1SV-5455 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is implied—it is introduced before that he is a composer of the 'classical period', so 'his time' presumably refers to that period, and thus the region associated with that time. Aza24 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Biography template

Does anyone know why some composers like Mozart/Haydn/Tchaikovsky don't use a biography template (Infobox classical composer)? Well, except Beethoven. Not sure of others. Danial Bass (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Article-by-article consensus. For this one, see here et al. DeCausa (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Was gonna change it, but not anymore Danial Bass (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox 1

Needs an info box 38.99.108.128 (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been heavily discussed in the past. There is consensus against including an infobox. The helper5667 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why this specific article doesn't have an infobox? AHI-3000 (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in short, because in 2010 (!), project composers arrived at a consensus that classical composers should not have an infobox. I don't believe that today's Wikipedia should take that seriously, but have been called an infobox warrior for that belief. The latest discussion was for Jean Sibelius, if you want to get a feel for the viewpoints, - it's mercifully short. Read Pierre Boulez (2016) for more background. I stayed away for the last discussions for Mozart, as a complete waste of my limited time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

All this talk page drama on Wikipedia can be amazingly confusing to me. I don't understand why people are so militantly against putting an infobox into this article, while Ludwig van Beethoven gets to keep one? It all seems kinda dumb and arbitrary to me. I dunno, I don't really know much about how exactly things work on this site. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There has not been drama in years, see archives of this page. Perhaps make a little statistic of how many wanted an infobox and how many thought it's a sacrilege. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia of the archived messages are a different time compared to what the current consensus is and it doesn't help that the latest citation for "consensus" was over 7 years ago. As AHI-3000 pointed out, if other classical composers can gain infoboxes then I don't see why Mozart is an exception, especially given that it doesn't violate WP:DISINFOBOX considering the length of the article and there should perhaps be a new review for consensus. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This should absolutely be revisited. Not having an infobox for composers is inane. Brad (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Thing is, an infobox does no harm. On the contrary - it is helpful for people wanting a quick overview. On the other hand, people who don't like infoboxes are free to not look at them. The boxes take nothing away from the article. The whole shebang is quite ridiculous, in my humble opinion. I can imagine that for some people against infoboxes it's more about standing their ground, and not so much improving the article slightly. I don't believe that a majority has reached consensus leaving infoboxes out. The status quo is quite some years old, and I honestly don't see that many people defending it. Ah, well. Regards, Gott (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Brad @SuperSkaterDude45 Lest I forget; it is possible to opt-out being shown an infobox. Given this possibility I really don't see a convincing reason to wanting to take something away from an article. Gott (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur. At last, an infobox should be created. Antiok 1pie (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Now that we reached a level of highly considered and thoughtful arguments, I suggest that those in favour try to get MOS:INFOBOXUSE and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes ("neither required nor prohibited") overturned. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That wouldn’t of course be necessary for an Infobox to appear in this article. All that needs to happen is for a WP:CONSENSUS for it on this talk page which would overturn any previous consensus and trump any WikiProject point of view. I’m neutral on whether this article should have one (in the sense that I don’t care) but from this thread it appears a new consensus is emerging. I don’t see anyone putting forward a reason not to have it. DeCausa (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

First article image

I think that we should replace the opening image in the article. I’m not opposed to shifting it somewhere else within the current article, but I think it would be more appropriate to have a full image. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

What image do you feel should be used instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m open to any suggestions, but this is my personal choice since it’s one of the most well-known (though posthumous) images of Mozart-

File:Barbara Krafft - Porträt Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1819).jpg Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many times, and there is generally not consensus for a posthumous image, see here for instance. Aza24 (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the image, I think that the image shouldn’t just be a closeup of somebody’s face Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an image from the same painting as is currently in the Infobox, but with a a broader perspective:File:Retrato de Mozart, por Johann Nepomuk della Croce (detalle).jpg DeCausa (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It baffles me how it is not the lead image already and the current one has persisted for so long. It should absolutely be changed to the one you have proposed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"He is among the greatest composers in Western history"

Paging @Michael Bednarek -- one source is all that's included in the article, therefore the claim is based on one source. Just because it alleges Mozart to be 'among the greatest composers' doesn't mean the article has to report that. It's a wholly subjective statement.

In fact, If you're entirely insistent on including this claim, it should be reworded to "Mozart is widely regarded as one of the greatest composers in Western history". Simply stating that he is one of the greatest is subjective and not appropriate for Wikipedia. DeaconShotFire (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

efn vs. refn

Nitpick: I don't see the recent change in presenting explanatory notes from {{efn}} to {{refn}} as an unadulterated improvement. The introduction of columns improves the readability, but I always thought that distinguishing the numbering of explanatory notes with alpha identifiers (a.) from citations with numeric identifiers (1.) is a good thing. The {{efn}} format was here since the creation of that section four years ago, so WP:CITEVAR might possibly apply. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

change "Badura-Skoda, Eva, and Paul Badura-Skoda. Interpreting Mozart: The Performance of His Piano Pieces and Other Compositions (Routledge, 2018)" from "Further reading" section to (Routledge, 2008). The publication year is wrong. Ws143bach (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done – Not necessarily. There is a 2nd edition 2018. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Mozart and the Miserere myth

In Rome, he heard Gregorio Allegri's Miserere twice in performance, in the Sistine Chapel, and wrote it out from memory, thus producing the first unauthorized copy of this closely guarded property of the Vatican. is plain false; as shown even by the sources cited here to support it (for ex, Chrissochoidis 2010, p. 86-87, states, right after describing this, that the only documentary evidence of this is a letter by Leopold Mozart, who did in fact, as one would say, slightly embellish things elsewhere, and that "there have been concerns about aspects of the story, particularly the claim that this was the first unauthorised copy of the work"; and describes [p. 87-89] multiple performances in London c. 1740 (a full three decades before Mozart's supposed unauthorised transcription), and that Mozart, having met "every important musician in London" in 1764-65, is far more likely to have been acquainted with the piece at this point than in Rome. This is also, if with less details, given in Byram-Wigfield 2017.

This should either be removed entirely, or, preferably, rewritten to explain the status of this little story as, indeed, not much more than a little story. 173.179.105.16 (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

See also the rewritten Miserere (Allegri)#History for a way in which this could be done (although obviously would require a significant summary for this article). 173.179.105.16 (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I rewrote the section to clarify that this is more of an urban legend than an accurate historical account. Please ping me if you have further corrections. Thanks for your request :) Actualcpscm (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: Might just do with altering this footnote:<ref>{{harvnb|Gutman|2000|p=271}}. For details of the story, see Miserere (Allegri) and Mozart's compositional method.</ref> to something like this,<ref>{{harvnb|Gutman|2000|p=271}}</ref>{{efn|For further details of the story, see Miserere (Allegri)#History.}}

173.179.105.16 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Implemented, after no technical struggles whatsoever. To ensure that you will never again struggle with wikitext, I recommend WP:SIRH. Thanks for your suggestions! Actualcpscm (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

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.

---

I accidentally bumped into Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and the Catholic Church. The material in this second article was de-merged from this main article by Opus33 to keep the main article to a reasonable size and allow the section of Mozart's Catholicism to grow. Usually when this happens, it's because the sub-article deals with something so large that it can't be dealt with adequately in the original article, which retains a short paragraph summarising the information, and a "main article" link to the article dealing with it in depth. In this case there is almost nothing in the main article about Mozart's faith, and merely a buried link to the second article deep in the section on character and appearance, and adjacent to some stuff about scatological humour. This means that a reader is extremely unlikely to find the second article. The sub-article simply isn't working as intended. I therefore propose that the material be merged back again.

Less happily, I wonder why there is so little about Mozart's Catholicism in the main article? If it's important enough to need the second article, there should be more here, and if it isn't important enough, then the second article runs the risk of looking like a biased point of view. I am therefore also suggesting that if the merger doesn't go ahead, we should introduce some summary of Mozart's Catholicism here, to give a better link to the other article, while if it does, we should discuss how much material to merge back without creating a lop-sided article here. Elemimele (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Elemimele, this article is missing enormous amounts of information on Mozart's music and legacy, so it is not surprising (and perhaps not pressing) if religious information is missing as well. As for the merge, such requests tend to sit around for years upon years until anyone actually goes ahead and does a merge (if there is agreement in the first place, that is), so please keep that in mind. To your point, the sources of the current Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and the Catholic Church does not convince me that it is a topic in itself, given that they are all general overviews, not specific studies. Aza24 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – I think the reasons for splitting this aspect from the main article are still valid. Given the state of the WAM & Church article, such a merge would not improve the main article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Michael Bednarek I'm inclined to agree that the WAM & Church article isn't great. I'll come clean: to me it looked possibly like a point of view on Mozart's religious convictions being pushed in a separate place to the Mozart article to avoid scrutiny by those who watch this article. Can I clarify, is your objection to the merge that the other article is bad (so you don't want a load of stuff from there brought to this article), or is it that Mozart's religious convictions are a sufficiently large topic that they can't be dealt with in the main article (so you think the existence of the second article is necessary)? If the former, I'm wondering whether it's a case for AfD?

  Aza24, yes, I was rather afraid things might just linger for ever. I don't think the current situation is right. Either that second article does have valuable information, in which case we need to link to it properly from here, or it doesn't, in which case we need to get rid of it. I don't know enough about Mozart to assess which is true. Or am I being over-simplistic? Elemimele (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  The other article isn't great, so a merge would be a disimprovement of the main article, but it isn't unsalvageable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Elemimele, you are correct that (unconsciously or not) the split was certainly done to remove scrutiny from this article, which is why the current article has so little comparable information. I do not think an AFD would result in deletion. I find it difficult and rather overwhelming to judge and contextualize this specific situation in light of the huge defects of the main Mozart article, so I don't know what I can say to help. Aza24 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2022 (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.