Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

More about Mozart

I think that its important to add that Mozart had Tourette Syndrome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungu (talk • contribs) 09:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to find a reputable source for that. (And a source that says he may have had it, or probably had it, is not the same as a source that says he had it.) -- JackofOz (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this before (see our earlier discussion[1]). Some sharp WP editors tracked down the story, concluding it was from a biased source, has little credibility, and was not accepted by scholars with expertise on Tourette's and/or Mozart.

Moreover, the Mozart-Tourette hypothesis is already well covered in the Wikipedia's article about Tourette syndrome and in Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome -- no need to include it here as well. People who are curious will be able to find it by searching under Tourette syndrome. Opus33 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mozrts death

Mozart did not die of commonplace... that does not even make any sence... he fell ill in november of 1791 and died at 1 AM on december 5... he died of illness unfortunatley just a fortnight after he had good health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.63.181 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Revive this article

This article needs a complete top-to-bottom revision - in fact, I would say a total rewrite. It is a blot on Wikipedia that so important a subject should be represented by such low quality. The main areas for criticism are:-

• Inadequate lead
• Generally poor quality prose. Sample sentence: "There were some prospects of employment in Mannheim, but eventually they failed to pan out".
• Inconsistent citation. There are 70+ in-line citations, but still hosts of uncited facts, including verbatim quotes. The long "Works, musical style and innovation" section (written in a totally different style) is virtually without any citation at all.
• Inappropriate sources: No use made, for example, of Zaslaw, Sadie, Eisen, Jane Glover (Mozart's Women). I know Sadie's biography is recent, but his New Grove article is virtually a book in its own right, and I see no reference to that.
• Over-ambition. It might be appropriate to focus this article on Mozart's life, and leave the detailed musical analysis, such as is attempted in the aforementioned "Works, musical style" etc section, to a separate article.

Comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally in agreement with Brian's analysis, however maybe it would be better to tackle one problem at a time? Perhaps it would be best to start with a rewrite/copyedit to smooth out the English style and make it flow a bit? --Kleinzach 10:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry User:Brianboulton doesn't like the article. I disagree with his assessment of the prose style, judging that occasional colloquialisms like "pan out" are in fact acceptable in encyclopedia writing--blandness can be a fault, too. I also think that short leads are best, and would cite the practice of the Grove Dictionary in support of this (their Mozart lead is four sentences). Lastly, I'm quite concerned that rapid, massive changes to the article will reduce its factual accuracy, which can be a major problem for a composer whose life has attracted so much mythology. Opus33 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The changes may well be massive; they will not be rapid. The accuracy of the article will be enhanced, not threatened, and facts will be fully cited to reliable sources. OPus33 may think that short leads are best, but this is a Wikpedia article and the present short introduction is not in accordance with WP:LEAD. The lack of citation in some areas is likewise unacceptable. I cannot believe that Opus thinks the article incapable of improvement; if she/he disagrees with my analysis, can she/he come up with her/his own practical suggestions as to how it might develop? Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup.

• The musical style section was written by User:Antandrus a few years ago in response to popular demand. It's been slowly degraded over time with drive-by edits. I think the original version ought to be restored, then backed up with more references.
• Of course the citations that are missing need to be filled in, and more sources need to be consulted to provide a more balanced picture. The bio currently is based on Deutsch, Solomon, New Grove, and the first half of Halliwell. The more reference works that are consulted and cited, the better.
• The topic is huge and could use more satellite articles treating particular periods in detail, along the lines of Mozart's Berlin journey and Death of Mozart.

Re. prose: I would guess that User:Brianboulton would like the article to read as if he had written it himself. I judge that this is selfish and he ought to find something better to do with his time. The prose of the bio is already clear and the wordings were selected carefully for accuracy. Opus33 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• • What is your problem - have I struck a raw nerve somewhere? However, may I respectfully point out that you do not own this article, and should not try to judge my motives. I would consider any amount of time well spent if it improved the article to the standard it deserves. Instead of this defensive carping, since we are in agreement that some things needs to be done, why not try to devise a practical plan for actually doing them? Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No raw nerves here, but I think that from the start of this discussion you have adopted an aggressive and unpleasant tone, which you should not be doing on WP. Go ahead and take a look again at what you wrote.

Re "practical plan," the three bullet points above are what I have in mind. Opus33 (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Getting called out by the Russian Quartets is a veritable rite de passage here in the Classical sandbox, so Brian you shouldn't feel bad. As for your points, I think you overstate the case somewhat. Reputable sources are always a problem for Wikipedia articles because so few of us can typically be bothered to consult (or are familiar with?) the standard literature. For Classical, a Groves regurge is often the best that can be hoped for. However, this article at least benefits from referencing some of the standard literature. Of the additional sources suggested, it would be good to add them in, but I am unconvinced that there absence renders this article useless as a general encyclopedic overview of WAM's life. Then there are the usual jaw-dropping idiocies of Wikipedia citation, such as footnoting the fact that Max Reger's Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Mozart is, in fact, based on a theme by Mozart. Mon Dieu. As a question, what does this article look like compared to when it was featured? Eusebeus (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at what I wrote; not intentionally aggressive, but blunt, provocative and a bit rude. But (please note) without personal attacks. I wrote it in the heat of the moment and on reflection could have made my points in a less confrontational manner. I apologise unreservedly for any offence given. I wanted to kick-start a process - did I overstate the case? Yes, in some respects I did. I was unfair about the prose, which probably only needs minor attention rather than the "rewrite" I was demanding. I think that the lack of adequate citations is a problem - that doesn't mean I am arguing for the "usual jaw-dropping idiocies" as exemplified above, merely for a consistent level of citation of significant facts throughout the article. Tempting though it is, I can't be quite as dismissive about Wikipedia as the above good-humoured comments; as to comparing the article's present form with that of its FA version, well FA standards weren't particulary high then, so I'm not convinced that such a comparison would be very useful.

I have no wish to "take over" this article, as has been suggested. I would like to contribute to a process of revivification of an article which I believe has suffered from a certain amount of benign neglect. I agree with the three bullet points that Opus33 has offered, and can suggest a couple more: a decent lead, and some refreshment of the prose. I think that the idea of more satellite articles, which would offer the possibility of increased detail without over-inflating the article, is sound. I once started a project "Mozart in London" which never got beyond the sandbox, and is probably too limited an area, but I would certainly be prepared to do a sub-article dealing with the first family journey, which included London. However, I would rather not do anything significant, without it being an agreed part of a plan. I am learning to tread cautiously. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reply, Brian, and for the recent addition of citations to the article.

Re. a lead: I could imagine having a longer one. My understanding is that the lead is supposed to serve as stand-in for reading the whole article, which raises my hackles (why indulge lazy readers?), but it wouldn't be the end of the world. On the other hand, I caution that historically, the lead in this article has attracted a great number of dreadful edits (often, individuals blurting out how much they love Mozart), and it will be harder to protect a long lead from gradual degradation.

A "Mozart's early travels" article would be great. Ruth Halliwell's book is a very good source for this.

Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Halliwell's book is practically unobtainable in the UK, but I have other sources. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that on any Wikipedia don't take it 100% true and always say it was from wikipedia so people know it could be wrong if you do sourcing. However, some things are extremely true but some pranks add things to have a laugh.

So don't be sure it's true and start spreading rumours about things!!

An incident was recently about Vernon Kay which said he died in a sailing accident on the Greece islands. ummmmmmm.... bad editing eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.251.85 (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Draft new lead

This is the draft of a possible extended lead section. It's written in sympathy with the article, and except for a slight flourish at the end (courtesy Robbins Landon) it is, or attempts to be, a summary of the article rather than a summary of Mozart's life. Leads can sometimes be a stand-in for reading the whole article, but they can also make people want to read more. Please feel free to comment on this draft, edit it, or whatever. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Brian, it looks pretty good to me. The only part where I see revision might be in order concerns just two sentences in the middle:

'In 1773, aged 17, he accepted a post as a Court Musician in Salzburg, but was soon discontented. There followed years of relative poverty and further travels, as Mozart sought a better position without success, while continuing to compose profusely.

I think we'd be out on a limb describing 1773-1781 as a period of poverty. Rather, in the view of Halliwell, and not necessarily everybody, there was a temporary financial crisis in 1777 in Paris when the expenses of the journey had gone beyond what Leopold was able to pay for. But during less expensive times when Wolfgang lived at home, it seems the Mozarts (with two incomes) were able to live a quite stable, middle-class life.

So maybe this particular bit might be rewritten, leaving out the controversial poverty claim and emphasizing instead the discontentment and wanderlust.

Two tiny bits: perhaps leave out the caps on Court Musician (seems pretty generic to me) and switch "profusely" to something else (alas, the word seems to have become contaminated with sweat).

Putting all this together, I suggest something like:

'In 1773, aged 17, he accepted a post as a court musician in Salzburg, but was unhappy with his low pay and limited opportunities. Over the next eight years, he frequently traveled in search of a better position, and composed abundantly.

I hope this is helpful. Opus33 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, most helpful - I have altered the draft accordingly. Could you also check that I haven't transgressed American spellings, which are needed for consistency. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it; it reads well, contains the important elements of a lead, and makes it a better article. I have to admit that I've had trouble getting used to the "Wiki-style" multi-paragraph lead: most of the other encyclopedias I know (e.g. Grove) summarise a composer in a single pithy paragraph. But this is good work. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not bad - a bit prolix perhaps, but then I echo Antandrus' point that these wordy ledes can come across to me as dilettantish & spoonfeeding. I wonder what cabal managed to impose their views on the project as a whole. Anyway Brian, that's not a criticism of your rewrite. Nice work. Eusebeus (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus, so I'll post the extended lead. I'm away now until 18th or 19th so can't respond to comments (if any) immediately.Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lists of Compositions and Composition Articles

There are currently two disparate lists of compositions by Mozart (here and here). Do we really need both? Also, there are stand-alone articles for each of the 600+ compositions. Some of which are shorter than this message. I can understand the notability of his first composition (being at age 5 and all) but every single composition? There is some serious notability concerns here. To make List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart a main article is understandable and any compositions that acctually demonstrate notability should obviously be kept but articles whose depth is "it's 15 secs. of arpeggios" should go to AfD. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

An obviously missed opportunity is a listing of all the missing or lost pieces by Mozart. These are suaully referenced in letters or catalogues but the music itself has not survived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.183.172 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

mozart-archiv.de

How about a link to mozart-archiv.de which hosts the complete works of Mozart in digital recordings? I think the site is legal because it's hosted in Germany (there's even a map on the site) and it's been around for years. - Gus ^{(T, C)} 2008-09-18 16:41Z 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see why a link to that site cannot be included. While the organisation of the site is sub-optimal, it certainly is a valuable resource, especially when it comes to smaller and/or obscure works. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten piece of music

Any comments about this? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fascinating find, and I came here to see if there was more information on it. After reading this article I see it really doesn't fit here. Like the other compositions, it will need its own page once they release some detailed information. I would like to get hold of some scans so I can see what it sounds like on the piano. OrganTransplant (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link with a better image of the score. The magazine FOCUS says its first part are 15 bars in D major of a Credo for an planned Mass, voice only. Apparently, the sheet is actually signed "W. A. Mozart". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Amadeus play and movie

I think it should be briefly mentioned that these works are fictional, and are not intended to be historically accurate or biographical in any way. MANY people seem to mistakenly think otherwise. Thoughts? Kier07 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This article (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) doesn't deal with those; it correctly refers to the article Mozart in fiction where, obviously, the fictional character of those works is discussed. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mozart family Grand Tour

I have drafted and posted this new article, and put in a link from the main Mozart biography. It will shortly go to peer review, but any comments from the Mozarterie will be wecome on its talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Now at PR Brianboulton (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Composer project assessment

Mostly a formality for this article, but pursuant to composer project discussion, I've reviewed this article. My comments are on the Comments page. Feel free to follow up here, there, or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 17:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is very helpful, Magic. If you have the time to point out the particular sentences that need footnotes I would try to fix them pronto. Opus33 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My generalized observation (from all of two data points of pushing articles through GA), is that you can expect any paragraph not ending in a footnote to be questioned. I don't like this myself -- I think it's a shorthand for reviewers who are basically skimming the article, and not actually reading (much) for comprehension. Sometimes those sentences are glue between paragraphs or sections, or are relatively uncontroversial conclusions from what precedes or what follows, or you're summarizing a See Also-type subpage. All of these points are arguable with the reviewer.

So a simple guide is to go through the article, and look at the ends of paragraphs. (I personally exclude footnoting in the lead unless it contains quotations or other things that demand clarification for some reason, and the GA reviewers that looked at my articles were OK with this, as long as the lead was properly summarizing the article.)

• There are a few uncited paragraph ends in the first two sections of the bio.
• Early Vienna Years, Return to Opera, 1788-1790, all have some, and first para of 1791 too
• The entire Style subsection has three footnotes; one of which is of a quote. If it's all really based on just a few sources, that should probably be made explicit up front. If not, more cites (or language indicating whose analysis is being summarized) are needed.
• The Early biographers section is not footnoted at all. Opinion language (about the reliability of some of them) should specifically be cited.

Other things that would come up in GA:

• the presence of {{fact}} and similar tags will probably quick-fail a nomination
• images with fair-use/copyright issues will quick-fail. For this article, that should only be modern photos, not images of artwork.
• short paragraphs. There are few in the first sections of the bio; expand or combine.

I don't have any experience with the FA process, beyond reading some of the nomination discussions.

Hope this helps. -- Magic♪piano 19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Magic. I'm pretty busy with other stuff for a while but will try to look at all of these items when I can (if others don't do it first). Opus33 (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Was Haydn Mozart's "mentor"?

Hello, If you Google the question you will find a fair number of web references saying that Haydn was Mozart's "mentor". However, I think that to use the term "mentor" you would have to show that Haydn actually gave Mozart advice and guidance, and I know of no factual basis for this claim. He wasn't around much in Vienna, he held Mozart in awe, and the two didn't meet before Mozart had already scored a huge success with Die Entführung aus dem Serail. AFAIK, they really were just friends, not a mentor-mentee pair. For some details on their relationship, see Haydn and Mozart.

So, in sum, I'd like to see a citation before we put the term "mentor" into the WP article.

Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth has happened to this...?

Can I submit that the following is utterly nonsensical as it stands, and should either be re-written or deleted....

"One of the most recognizable features of Mozart's works is a sequence of harmonies or modes that usually leads to a cadence in the dominant or tonic key. This sequence is essentially borrowed from Baroque music's Phrygian style, especially J. S. Bach. But Mozart shifted the sequence so that the cadence ended on the stronger half, i.e., the first beat of the bar.[citation needed]" Pfistermeister (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. I wrote the style section long ago, but it's barely recognizable any more, and I sure didn't write that. A sequence of harmonies leading to a cadence in the dominant or tonic? You don't say! -- I took it out for you. Does anyone watching this page know what may have been intended? Antandrus (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird! Ta! Pfistermeister (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How to make the Table of Contents visible?

Hello, something that I hadn't anticipated when we earlier discussed the possibility of a lengthy intro section is this: the long intro makes the Contents invisible from the opening screen (what the reader sees on her screen, when first arriving at the article). I've tried to address this problem by adding a new header, "Article summary", at the top of the long summary section. (This has the further advantage that anyone who wanted to just plunge in to the article without reading a summary first would have this option made clear.) I know that putting a section heading over the intro (as I have just done) is not standard Wikipedia practice, but on the other hand it strikes me as the best way to solve this problem. Comments welcome. Opus33 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• To remove a carefully-written introduction that fully accords with Wikipedia's style guides, on the trivial grounds that the whole table of contents cannot be seen at first sight, is peremptory to say the least. I attempted to establsh a consensus before posting, you have simply gone ahead. At the very least you could have contacted my talkpage and let me know what you had in mind. If you want this change to be carried out, please consult around, find out what others have to say, get some sort of approval rather than taking action of this kind. I am reverting your change until there is evidence of a consensus for your proposed change. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For heavens' sake, Brian, I did not remove your introduction. I only put a section title above it. Please take another look and you will see this. So the issue at hand is much more minor, I believe, than you were imagining. Opus33 (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to solve this problem. Pls revert if you don't think it works. The tech stuff is at TOC. Best. --Kleinzach 01:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My preferred option would be to leave the Croce image "right" and place the __TOC__ after the first paragraph, before "Mozart was born in …". That way, it looks more standard and the way it used to look while still pulling the TOC up into a visible position. (Note that editors can play with the settings and assess the appearance via "Preview".)Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Try it if you like, but I have a feeling it won't balance. --Kleinzach 01:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael, your change opens acres of empty white space. It looks very odd . . . Sorry, but I don't think it works. --Kleinzach 13:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is the same amount of white space visible to me (IE7) to the right of the TOC as there was in the established version. That could probably be reduced slightly (by one line of text) by sizing the Croce to 220px, which it was originally and which I forgot to reestablish. Even better, by moving the image to the end of the first paragraph, just befor the TOC, it would occupy most of the white space to the right of the TOC. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO the 'established version' didn't work very well - the first screen is OK, but no text flowing around the TOC. On the other hand "moving the image to the end of the first paragraph" looks even worse - two boxes out of position instead of one!. It would be better to have text flowing around the boxes as I suggest before [2] with maximum accessibility of information in the first screenful. --Kleinzach 02:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I reacted to appearance rather than reality. Long day, late in the evening, etc.... With a cool and rested mind this morning I will say, first, that I'd still prefer the lead not to be split. The problem with the Kleinzach solution, which I quite like, is that it is non-standard format, and it is likely that someone will come along and change it. Also, if at some time the article was reassessed for FA, it would no doubt have to be changed. With the smaller Croce, on my screen the top of the table of contents is visible in the normal format, i.e. image on right, table under lead. Would that not deal with the problem? Sorry, Opus, for my initial over-reaction, I think I'll go and play some Mozart. Brianboulton (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this discussion. I think it works pretty well the way it is as of this writing (Michael was the last editor -- this version) -- the TOC is easily visible and is within the lead. To my eye it works in both Firefox and IE. Antandrus (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How to make the Table of Contents visible? (continued)

Hello, this seems to be quite a knotty problem (and one which is surely found throughout the Wikipedia). When you have a really long lead section, how to you keep the table of contents from disappearing from the opening screen? For the past couple weeks the strategy has been to put the TOC in the middle of the lead. This attracted many meant-to-be-helpful edits from editors who don't otherwise visit this page. It's been really a drag to keep reverting them, and probably not a great way to make new friends.

The new solution now in place is to have a short lead, and label the extended article summary as such, with a separate section heading. This solution is likewise not a standard one on the WP, but I rather like it because it gives the reader a clear choice: they can read the quickie summary if that's all they want, or they can cut to the chase and read the full detailed version if that's what they want, or they can read both. I hope people will think this is reasonable. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This makes absolutely no sense. Is there a real reason that the TOC has to be in the first screen? And different screen sizes invalidate that anyway. Readers should know that the lead is the article summary; that's exactly what a well-written lead is. Readers should not need a Summary section to make their decision. No, this lead section is not too long at all. Look at any FA; a good article has a nice lead no shorter than this. And this is in violation of WP:LEAD: "an 'Introduction' heading should not be added at the beginning of an article." "The lead should be no longer than four paragraphs" Well, that's just what this very long (51 kb) article has, so there is no need to split it up.

And there should not be a Biography header per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). The entire article is a biography, not just those sections. Reywas92^Talk 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is terrific. There's nothing wrong with the 4-paragraph lead and the standard location of the TOC. I think moving the TOC about is a solution in search of a problem. --RobertG ♬ talk 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the longer lead, except that I have now merged the two middle paragraphs to make one that covers the entire course of his life from birth to death. Three thematically distinct paragraphs, making a fine and well-proportioned lead – considering the length of the fine article it introduces.

I also like the "Biography" heading, which I think works perfectly naturally to group the sections devoted to the stages of Mozart's life. No, it is not true that the whole article is a biography. WP:MOSBIO applies to those articles that are just biographies (although you'd wonder about some of its examples). This article is about Mozart's life, but also about his compositions and his situation in Western art music. Even if WP:MOSBIO were strictly applicable, a strong case can be made for overriding it here. I would suggest that we do so.

I should add that it was you, Reywas92, who on 14 January 2009 unilaterally added the relevant provision to WP:MOSBIO.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read the new lead through several times and I think it's too long. It goes a little beyond what is expected of a lead - as if the editors were (understandably!) a bit in awe of the subject. I agree with Noetica about the Biography heading - my compliments also on some very good copyediting! --Kleinzach 00:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kleinzach! Responding to your very reasonable concern I have now polished and compressed the lead even more. If it had gone "a little beyond what is expected of a lead", I hope we can agree that it is now well proportioned, and not overweight for such a comprehensive article.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cut it a little more - removing Constanze - please say if you disagree! --Kleinzach 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I like what you have done, but I restored briefer mention of Constanze and two sons. I now suggest that we leave it alone! Don't overdo it; it now looks just great.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Noetica, I added that, but I'm not the only one with that opinion. Someone else did agree and add to it. I understand that it is not applicable in all places, but even if the article includes other information like lists of works, the entire thing is a biography. I would prefer a header such as "Life" that would distinguish it from the other parts of the article but is not redundant. Reywas92^Talk 02:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to your adding that provision Reywas, but I also don't think it's a good one. I think it should be challenged, but I will not do it myself since I have retired (for now) from my own long commitment to developing WP's Manual of Style.

I hope others will challenge it.

There is no explicit boundary drawn at WP:MOSBIO between articles that are pure biography and articles such as the present one. There should be, and that needs to be fixed too. This Mozart article has a clearly biographical portion and also sections that are clearly not biographical. Even if a whole article is loosely speaking biographical (as opposed to an article dealing with a musical genre or period, or some form or some technical matter), that internal distinction is a reasonable one to make; and the term biography is the natural decriptor for those parts covering the course of the subject's life.

If I may dare to offer a little advice, I would suggest keeping some questions more open than you are inclined to do. There is a long-established body of practice for excellent articles such as this one, and sweeping changes based on some abstract principle of propriety may be seen as disruptive – and even, in some quarters, as half-baked.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)