This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
… 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
infobox person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.207.86 ( talk) 17:21, 18 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)
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)
{{
Citation needed}}
in neon. Tag BLP anyone?
DeCausa (
talk) 09:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
Needs an info box 38.99.108.128 ( talk) 03:34, 10 May 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)
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)
File:Barbara Krafft - Porträt Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1819).jpg Dancingtudorqueen ( talk) 05:20, 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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
… 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
infobox person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.207.86 ( talk) 17:21, 18 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)
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)
{{
Citation needed}}
in neon. Tag BLP anyone?
DeCausa (
talk) 09:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
Needs an info box 38.99.108.128 ( talk) 03:34, 10 May 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)
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)
File:Barbara Krafft - Porträt Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1819).jpg Dancingtudorqueen ( talk) 05:20, 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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)