Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in popular culture

Video game

Considering that the events that play out in the video game never occurred in real life, I'm at a loss concerning the removal of the material with the rationale that it "couldn't be plausibly called fiction." Is the assumption that the events in the game actually occurred? Are we using some kind of nonstandard definition of "fiction" at this article? In common use, "fiction" is considered a form of narrative, and video games narratives are encompassed by fiction as one of its forms. Shouldn't we stick to the common usage? -Thibbs (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess as a follow-up question, why were the formatting repairs reverted as well? -Thibbs (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was rude, Thibbs. But I doubt I'm alone in considering video games as not in the same category as novels, plays, etc. May I suggest starting a separate article? That might achieve a good match between article content and audience interest.

The formatting repairs are a different issue. My take is that, since blank links after section headers don't show up to readers, and make the editor's job easier, there's really no advantage in removing them. Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about your rudeness. I'm honestly more baffled than offended.

With regard the creation of a new article, I'm not sure what it would be called. "Mozart in video games"? I believe such an article would almost certainly be merged into this one considering that it is far too small in scope to contain any anything meaningful or encyclopedic and that it clearly fits within the scope of this article as stated. I'm curious what the problem is with keeping a video game section here? Surely it wouldn't offend the audience's sensibilities any more than the story about Mozart fighting extra-terrestrials. In fact that was the motivation for me placing the new subsection where I did. I guess this also brings up a number of questions about the audience. What is the audience's interest here? Who is the audience? Why do we assume that they would have no interest in a video game featuring the fictional exploits of Mozart as a playable character and the rare appearance of his Concerto No. 25 in a video game? I find these things to be of interest. Might I not be as representative of the audience as anyone else?

As for formatting, I've found the opposite to be true with regard the blank lines. It's easier on my eyes when the whitespace is removed, but if you'd prefer the whitespace remain I suppose I have no real issue with it. Did you give any consideration to my having merged the References and Notes subsections? It has been my experience that they are more commonly placed under the same heading. -Thibbs (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thibbs, You certainly have defended your point of view articulately. So look, if you really want to put it back in, go ahead and I won't revert. On the other hand, a caution: the videogame will at least appear to be the cruftiest item in the article. A couple years ago, an unstoppable gang of editors deleted virtually every "X in popular culture" article from the Wikipedia, rather to my disappointment. To the extent that fancruft-y things get added to Mozart in fiction, it increase the chance that this group of editors will return to action and delete it, too.

Re. separate notes and references, that's pretty normal in scholarly work and more reader-friendly, I think. I certainly hope it doesn't become a WP requirement to amalgamate them. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will reinsert it then. I understand your concern with the removal of cruft from wikipedia, and I share your sense of disappointment. Nonetheless, I doubt that the video game would be removed from this article in an anti-cruft purge. More likely the entire article would be nominated for deletion. I for one would be strongly opposed to such a nomination and if I'm around, you can count on my defense of the article should such a thing happen.

I will leave the formatting as it originally was. The formatting used here is a less-common but recognized (and permitted) alternative. I've checked the manual of style to verify this. -Thibbs (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in fiction → Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in popular culture – In consistency with the category Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in popular culture and Category:Ludwig van Beethoven in popular culture‎ and seeing that "popular culture" is the popular term in the category tree and in articles as well (the section is usually called "in popular culture". Having uniform article titles makes it easier for everyone to find articles. The Evil IP address (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Greg Kaye 08:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles. bd2412 T 14:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Randy Kryn 19:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"led a life that was dramatic in many respects"

I recognise what the writer of this line wants to communicate, but can this be more encyclopedical and less dramatic. After all, we just want to describe which aspects of Mozart's life are frequently featured in popular culture. I'd do it myself, but am currently out of words to make it better. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]