Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17: 90 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why does this article have an infobox?

A: Previous discussions (1, 2, 3) had mixed responses, with prior consensus against inclusion. The most recent and widely subscribed RfC in March 2023 concluded that an infobox should be added.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
October 20, 2004	Featured article review	Kept
October 29, 2005	Featured article review	Demoted
February 21, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 21, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
September 14, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 27, 2006.
Current status: Former featured article

Biography: Musicians / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Austria Top‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Composers

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles

Opera

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

Link to Free Imperial City

In the second paragraph of Early Life, it reads: "Leopold Mozart, a native of Augsburg, then an Imperial Free City in the Holy Roman Empire, was a minor composer and an experienced teacher."

Imperial Free City is in plaintext with no hyperlink, even though Free imperial city does exist. I think it should be updated to include a hyperlink to the relevant Wikipedia article as it's relevant information and makes it more accessible. Horrgs (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in Austria?

In the lede it currently states:

"Born in Salzburg, then in the Holy Roman Empire and currently in Austria,"

Yes "currently" in the English language means "now", "presently" etc but it also is a time clause suggesting the extra meaning of "ongoing"; hence is this site implying that Salzburg, although in Austria at the moment (right now), has a question mark over its geopolitical future? Using currently is a strange choice of word to describe a city that has been unquestionably Austrian territory for centuries. I'd use "now".87.242.223.122 (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "now". Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revote for the main portrait

I know this has been discussed before, but from the archives I looked at I haven't seen a general vote for this (and if there has been one it was probably a long time ago), so I think we should have a vote for what should be the main portrait of the article, as I saw many people argue it should be this popular posth. one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wolfgang-amadeus-mozart_1.jpg instead of the current faced in portrait because it made in his lifetime. (I also should mention that Schubert's main portrait is the posth. one when there are others that were made in his lifetime).

So can we do a vote to see what everyone thinks, just so we can try to get a general consensus or at least a certain majority vote? I want as many people to be in an agreement of whatever decision we make. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see a vote on this because consensus is not a majority vote. If you have a reason why you believe the portrait should be different, then present that, and people can chime in about their reasoning for agreeing with you or not. But the fact that there hasn't been a vote isn't such a reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, @Nikkimaria, a consensus is, in short, the result of a discussion, it would be roughly like this:

Let's say there's a discussion about X thing, then people will propose arguments, whether for or against, and after that particular subject has a answer, then it has reached a definitive consensus, i.e, if the subject does not reach a consensus (result of the discussion), the discussion does not end there, if an consensus is the result of an discussion, then a discussion without consensus, it's a discussion out of respond, out of result. 177.105.90.56 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like Nikkimaria, I'm not actually seeing you propose a reason for why this portrait be changed. As I said in an earlier thread about "I can hardly sympathize with [this suggestion] when the rest of the article, quite literally the entire thing, is painfully incomplete and lacking". – Aza24 (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd like the Stock profile drawing, if only because it is a fine but less often seen portrait. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria@Aza24@Johnbod please let me make a more extreme example to make my point...

Imagine there are 2 portraits: One that everybody knows but was made posth., or one that barely anyone would recognize to be the person but was made in their life time (I know this isn't what it's like here, it's to make a point). Would it really be more worth it to put up the portrait that will confuse everyone just because it was made in their lifetime?

I think we should make the main portrait the most recognizable one, and only if we're unsure which one is more known, THEN we go with the one made in their lifetime.

Well this is the case just to a lesser extent. We can still have the zoomed in portrait, I just wouldn't suggest having it as the main one that shows up when you hover over Mozart's name. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your hypothetical situation, we would select the image that best reflects what the person (most likely) looked like, because that's the primary purpose of the lead image - not a popularity ranking. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say (or if it doesn't then what is the reason) that we should choose the portrait based on its' potential accuracy instead of how recognizable it is? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say we should use the best-known portrait? Nowhere, I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken, but I don't think there's any wikipedia policy as for how to pick which portrait to use... Which is why I suggested we have a vote Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is MOS:IRELEV: images serve as an illustrative aid and "should look like what they are meant to illustrate".

To give you an example: for most who have ever heard of Scott McCloud, this image will be the most recognizable - I'd bet far more people could identify that than could pick an actual photo of him out of a lineup. But we use a photo as the lead image for his article. (To be fair there's a copyright complication there, but I'd suggest even if the comic was free we still should use the photo for his lead). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote that you stated goes on... "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate." and shows that sometimes the most authentic image doesn't always have to be the main one.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just unsure and think we should see what others think. As for the example you used, I think either option could work, so it's up to discretion. Here, however, the examples nearly aren't as extreme, and it's not certain that the current image is more accurate than the other one. Barbra craft and Mozart were alive at the same time so it's possible she met him even if the painting was made after he died. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased music recently discovered. Notable or not?

If you have been unaware of the music world recently, a German library found music composed by teenage Mozart, which had been unreleased. There are several news sources that are reliable to be added onto the page, but I need consensus on whether it should be placed in or not. If you want, please start a conversation at the reference desk. Thank you! ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 04:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happens every few years. Random chamber music from when he was 9 years old—not important for an overview article like this. Could possibly be used a brief example when/if the legacy section is expanded, where it would probably include a sentence on the modern-day recovery of his works. Aza24 (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]