Jump to content

Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Mozart Infobox RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is that an infobox should be included. The main opposing arguments were that an infobox would emphasize decontextualized or unimportant facts over more pertinent information about Mozart's work that needs to be in prose, but the general consensus here is that it is desirable to present basic biographical details in an infobox. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


Should the article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart have an infobox? 20:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Yes, I will simply quote an editor from a discussion seven years ago: Usually, people, once a consensus is reached, consider it as the golden yardstick to which everybody may conform. Even more so if the process of consensus building is reiterated more than once with identical results: the “golden yardstick” becomes a “platinum stick”, almost untouchable and immovable. To me, that a certain choice is questioned time and again, is in itself a sign that the consensus building process has a fatal flaw. In these cases we ought to follow the path of inclusion, not that of censorship, as much as possible. On the question on hand, if you consider Wikipedia to be a strongly multimedia encyclopedia, an audio-visual tool for the advancement of knowledge, where words play a role in union with many other actors, than you will agree that an infobox is almost indispensable, even when it repeats the lead: what is different is the format. Any means are welcomed to catch the attention of potential readers. Wikipedia isn't read in the calm rooms of a Bodleian Library or in any other library, it's read everywhere in the world but in libraries. So let try to build some robust multimedia pages, with infoboxes, quotation boxes, images and any other audio and visual helping device. Thrakkx (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support adding an infobox. Almost all biographical articles on Wikipedia have one, and Mozart shouldn't be an odd exception. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support an infobox. An infobox benefits the reader by collecting basic information in a familiar and easily accessible location. The reader suffers when this information is deliberately scattered throughout the article because some editors could not agree on adding an infobox. Aneson (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I've made my previous arguments in favor of a userbox nearly a month ago as of writing this but as an extra opinion: It's pretty obvious that there is a new consensus that's for an infobox rather than against one and nobody here seems opposed to its inclusion, SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. I'll just copy my previous comment from the foregoing discussion:
An article of this length and popularity about such a historically relevant person, the details of which have been spread over several main articles, must have an infobox. Apart from frustration among readers and edit wars among editors as well as regular discussions about it on the talk page, nothing results from the largely unfounded rejection of an infobox.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. I’m strongly in favour of inclusion here. The infobox would help readers access key information quickly and uphold the values of Wikipedia in making the world’s knowledge easily accessible to all. Damilaville (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • In favour: I think there is various reasons in favour:
1. As brought up by another user on this talk page that for people not familiar with this particular issue on wikipedia will be caught off guard
2. I'd like further elaboration on why exactly the Mozart infobox spreads misinformation
3. When bringing this up with other members I was told that wikipedia prject regarding classical musicians just don't like infoboxes however pages are there to inform; and also for public use.
4. I understand the idea of controversy within a field but if that argument is to be used then literally every academic can come out of the woods and say that no infoboxes should be present in any article. I do understand wikipedia uses academics as references (this is not an impeachment of that policy) however the fact that there is some facts not 100% confirmed doesn't mean that an infobox cannot be included. Infoboxes can be edited as the academic landscape changes.
Chefs-kiss (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, an infobox is sorely needed. Brad (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes It should not get into subjective items such as "influenced" "influenced by" "known for" etc. But dates, places of birth and residence, etc. are frequently searched and it's helpful to have that information and context up top. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. For the reasons I mentioned above, I think the burden of argumentation lies on those opposing an inclusion of information already verifiably provided within the article. Additionally, I believe exclusion is more a result of the transformation of this page into an ideological battleground against infoboxes period rather than for any reason this page in particular should not have one. Given clear desire from non-involved editors for an info box, inclusion seems beneficial. Paragon Deku (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support There are clear benefits to adding an infobox to organize information in a way users expects to see it, it makes the article more useful for the reader. In the above current discussions I didn't see an argument why it shouldn't be included except to look at the archives from years ago. Mousymouse (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - even though I personally prefer infoboxes limited to politicians, royals & athletes bios. I must accept that infoboxes in bios, is (IMHO) the general consensus on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I have no real clue how to use this site, but I just want to say as a frequent user and non-editor, it feels like people chose a hill to die on with this article, when the infobox thing is incredibly useful and popular. Deeply invested people can often lose sight of the trees. Even if only the most concrete information is included, that's still useful. As it stands, it looks like an unfinished article compared to what people expect. 2405:6583:3060:2200:C20:EC8:79F7:139B (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Beethoven has one, Mozart should have something similar. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe that the infobox exposes useful information about the article in a way that is consistent with other composers. In the same way that one can expect to find the subject's birthday at the start of the lead, so too can one expect to find certain details in the infobox. Yannn11 14:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose As someone who intially supported an infobox in the previous 2020 RfC, I have changed my mind on the matter after reading more about it, and do not think infoboxes particularly suit composer articles, including this Mozart article. I am not going to repeat all the other reasons why people oppose infoboxes here as they have already been made numerous times.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
    I .ean can you at least discuss them please? So that we understand why you dont agree? Chefs-kiss (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    Others have already made such arguments so there is not much point in me rehashing them here. You can read them below or in the talk page archives.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 03:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Pinging users who previously participated in the 2020 RfC who have not already been pinged: @HAL333, Dimadick, Cassianto, SchroCat, Tim riley, Smeat75, Johnuniq, Ssilvers, Jack1956, Jerome Kohl, William Avery, Jip Orlando, SusanLesch, Davey2010, PackMecEng, Davey2010, Serial Number 54129, A s williams, Eliteplus, and Isaidnoway:.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Missed a ping @Michael Bednarek:  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. I use them often, most often "death_date" to determine a subject's age at death. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not necessarily a big fan of infoboxes in the sense that they can sometimes become a focus for obsessives who get bogged down in complex issues such as, in the case of bios, nationality, religion etc. But if they are used for basic indisputable data in bios such as birth, death dates etc then I don't see why this artcle should be different to any other bio article. Per SPECIFICO. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See Signpost report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the information in the box must already be discussed in the body of the article and the Lead section, and likely has also just been seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts. (3) The IB's overly bold format would distract readers and discourage them from reading the text of the article. (4) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa), and vandalism frequently creeps in that is hard to detect because of the lack of referencing in the box. (5) Boxes in liberal arts biographies like this attract fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (6) IBs in arts bios distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
    Although it is, of course, legitimate to hold the opinion that "most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not" benefit from infoboxes it's difficult to dispute that most articles in liberal arts fields do, in fact, have infoboxes. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion of each the issues listed above
    Issue 1. The idea that factoids about he died, what age he was, where he was born, his parents etc are irrelevant is somewhat curious
    Issue 1.1: Most of the times the WP: Lead section does contextualize and can add information, there's no reason for one invalidating the other
    Issue 2: The Infobox often acts like a summary, most often sections will repeat when the person was born and where, in addition to that most articles have a personal life section which elaborates even more.
    Issue 3: The fact is that people sometimes just access wikipedia to look up a quick fact like where a person lived. We shouldn't forget that we want articles to be accessible
    Issue 4: There is no issue with updating things as scholarship changes. As I mentioned above most fields have controversy, if the idea is that infoboxes cannot be included if there's controversy a lot of history articles would never get an infobox
    Issue 4.1: Regarding vandalism and citation we can establish the precedent that the infbox must have references by including them at the time of creation or the other proposal of including an infobox that indicates
    Issues 5: Well if people would elucidate on a list on what they find controversial we can include factors that aren't controversial OR look to the academic consensus for sources
    Issue 6: The idea that people focus on infoboxes when editing seems a value judgement. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ssilvers, who makes cogent arguments. SN54129 22:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Infoboxes are a valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Wikipedia. Data analysis of Wikipedia articles show that users find the information contained in the infobox valuable.[1] Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities. It is understandable there's reluctance to adopt something new, but infoboxes have been around long enough that they are an expected part of the user interface. RfC's like this pop up and each time support for the infobox increases. Eventually it will be included in this article as the community accepts infoboxes. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: I think things have moved on a lot since 2013. Infoboxen are in almost all lengthy biographies now (even Homer has one and there are far more objective facts about Mozart than about him), so readers are used to using them as a way to access basic information (dates and places of birth/death, link to "List of compositions", links to articles about family members). Infoboxen are also capable of far more subtlty than they once were. Sidenote: it strikes me that the lead for this article is very unusually short and doesn't really give much of a guide to the contents (contrast Beethoven). I wonder whether that is because editors have been worried about too focussed on using the lead for the basic information that should be in the infobox. Furius (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An infobox at this article will tell readers nothing of note about the individual: it contains no important information that helps readers "get a quick overview", but worse: it will likely misinform or mislead them. The pertinent information is in the lead, where it is presented with context and nuance. Looking at the [last version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart&diff=prev&oldid=1143604215] that was added most recently we have the following entries for Mozart:
Name: we have a whole article about Mozart’s name and its various permutations
Cause of death: another area of disagreement about which there is another article looking into the various theories
Family: apparently we need four different entries to provide details, which gives more weight to his family than his profession
Signature: because that really explains a lot, doesn’t it...
So an IB will show two fields where there is considerable academic and popular disagreement, four fields about his family and a pointless signature. I’m not sure how this confusion is actively going to help readers. The short answer is that it won’t. By choosing one disputed factoid over another for an IB field, we mislead and do readers a disservice. We should not be deciding which one we prefer.
I see, as usual, a lot of IDONTLIKEIT votes where there is no recourse to either policy or guideline, or to how an IB is relevant on this article, or how useful it would be to display misleading factoids that will confuse our readers. Studies of reading patterns on WP show that at any point in an article, a reader’s eye is unwillingly drawn to images, boxes quotes - all the non-body parts of an article. This is true of IBs, where they act as a distraction and one, in this case, which will contain misleading information. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
As noted by the closer of the last RfC, the ArbCom case only really leaves IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT as the basis for a decision: 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. DeCausa (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
That was a terrible basis on which to make a close, and I hope one that is not repeated on any RFC. It goes against all guidance on how to determine consensus and specifically breached the ArbCom strictures relating to their various decisions on IBs. Deciding whether to have an IB or not is not solely based on personal preference (I’ve formed articles with them and without them, only including where they are of benefit, for example); to claim that discussions are only down to IDONTLIKEIT was utterly wrong. That method of closure is rather lazy and ignores any well-founded comments from any party and is simply vote counting. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't find any evidence of the close being challenged on that basis. Having read that RfC (I didn't participate) I came to the same conclusion as the closer. only including where they are of benefit seems another way of saying ILIKEIT. I'm sure the closer of this will address the point in their close. DeCausa (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how putting disputed factoids in an infobox is much different from putting them in the lead. To take death for example: "his death at the age of 35, the circumstances of which are uncertain and much mythologized" (lead) and "* Death: 5 December 1791 (aged 35) Vienna, Holy Roman Empire, cause disputed" (infobox) are basically the same. Neither is more misleading than the other (the piped link in the lead is currently a bit of an easter egg, but of course that is changeable). In my opinion (and admit it is an opinion), the presence of "disputed" right there alongside the objective facts of date and location draws more attention to the scholarly debate and the existence of WP's article thereon. Furius (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. I have come to regard infoboxes as part of the essential style of Wikipedia, at least for articles that could be considered part of a group, where they allow at-a-glance access to the information fields (or navigation) common across that group. I consider composers, or even just biographies, to be legitimate such groups. Particularly where we already have a portrait, it seems natural to extend the portrait box with some concise data points.
    I see some concern that those data points could be misleading, but I don't see any reason why the inclusion of an infobox would require us to put misleading information in it.
    Additionally, when it comes to ranking the fame of composers, Bach, Beethoven and Mozart stand out as a near-undisputed top 3, and I believe it is valuable to have consistency between them. Naturally, the other two have infoboxes. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support adding an infobox as it summarizes encyclopedic content valuably for someone this famous and notable. Anyone who wants to read further is still able to, and I have seen very little evidence presented here that this infobox, on this page would mislead readers in any way. Instead, I see evidence that other users note consistency, mirroring the LEAD's facts, and collating and presenting facts that are normally spread across several articles. I find all of these arguments persuasive. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per SchroCat and others. No purpose any more for infoboxes, now that searxh engines (Google, Bing) have mechanisms which display basic info (datea fo birth and death etc.) automatically. It would be nice if instead of fatuous arguments over infoboxes some editors could take the trouble to improve the very feeble article here, but I get the increasing feeling these days that there are active editors, some of whom support this proposal, who are more interested in the fancy icing than in the substance of the cake.--Smerus (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    I’m a bit confused by the argument that Google/Bing/search engine of choice can provide a summary of key facts about a person better than Wikipedia editors. This can lead to inaccuracies. For example, at time of writing, a search for “Mozart nationality” yields the rather quixotic result of “Roman”.
    Relying on third parties to infobox-like synopses of Wikipedia articles is, in my mind, as misguided as eliminating the leads of articles to let ChatGPT write them. Damilaville (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
    The SEO will sometimes pull from wikipedia itself, since search engines...search information from already existing sources. the SEO usually pulls from infoboxes since it is brief and maximizes keysearch terms Chefs-kiss (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    Won't it just pull this data from wikidata in the absence of an infobox? Furius (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    I can't confirm that but I imagine the algorithm is configured to pull from infoboxes and if not going to other sources. Checking the knowledge clips that google pulls out such as "When was Mozart born and died?" the algorithm pulls from operaphila, not WP Chefs-kiss (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    Pretty sure search engines pull that data from infoboxes. Levivich (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per opposers. The last one added (diff above) was completely useless, despite being rather long. It is often difficult to find the right things to put in an infobox for figures from the arts, and that is especially the case here. For example, you can't just call him a "composer" when he was possibly the most famous virtuoso pianist of his period. Giving all his children, but none of his compositions is just ..... words fail me. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    I mean....he was a composer. That was his work. Perhaps it could also include pianist. People know Mozart was significant. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    And your point is? Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    That we can list composer. DaVinci is still a painter and Socrates still a philosopher, and they both did incredible pioneering work in their profession. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    also what do you mean by the "last one added (dif above)" to which comment are you referring to? Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    [2], given a bit above. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    It did give a link to List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, which the reader otherwise does not encounter until the start of section 3 (over halfway through the article). Furius (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    Yes but to learn the very basics of his life which "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" WP: INFOBOXPURPOSE. Yes the compositions are crucial to his contribution but perhaps not a key factoid. That however is a personal judgement on my end but the key factoids about his life can be included in the infobox, and it does need to exclude the composition. Again if a user wants to learn more they can always scroll down Chefs-kiss (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, I generally find infoboxes useful and am not convinced by arguments here to the contrary.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Johnbod's, Ssilvers' and others' arguments. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ssilvers, SchroCat, and Smerus. Infoboxperson's are good for sports and political figures (and others), but are uniquely challenging for arts figures. See Francis Bacon (painter) for an example of a figure that is better off without one. We should encourage the reader to read the article and not rely on factoids without nuance. An infobox tells the reader the what but not the why. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    "We should encourage the reader to read the article"
    It should be up to the reader to decide if they want to read the whole article or just look up some key information. It's very patronizing to force the reader to read the article by deliberately omitting a potentially useful infobox.
    "factoids without nuance"
    Could you clarify what you mean by that? I cannot comprehend how information in the infobox are "without nuance". Most information in the infobox are merely objective facts, and more disputed information can be explained in more detail with an explanatory note or link to the corresponding section in the article or, if given, to the main article.--
    Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Infoboxes allow readers to find key important details very quickly without needing to read an entire article or section and there is really no downside to having one in any article. If a specific parameter should not be used, then just don't use it. Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Without question. Displaying essential details for quick access is a HUGE benefit on the pages that have them, and has literally no downside. It's not our place to dictate to users how they should use the encyclopedia - if some users don't need to access basic facts quickly, they have the option of simply not reading it. There is literally no downside to including one. PianoDan (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Infoboxes provide readers with basic information about the subject in a quick and easy to access format. It saves the reader time, not having to skim paragraphs of prose to access the basic information. In some cases it can be more accessible to readers with disabilities than lengthy prose. It can also be a handy navigation aid by providing links to sub articles and related articles, eg to list of works, where they can be quickly and easily seen and clicked (near the top of the page). I am not convinced that the weaknesses of an infobox (eg oversimplicity) even come close to outweighing the benefits. Levivich (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Infoboxes are an integral part of editing and more importantly of the reader experience. They allow us to cater both to the reader who is looking only for the basic facts concerning the person quickly and easily presented and to those who want a lengthy and more detailed artcle. The "repetition" argument is simply a canard. The Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't have a problem with "repetition" via infoboxes [3]. Nor does the Australian Dictionary of Biography [4].
The other "oppose" reasons are equally weak.
•They contain "unimportant factoids"?? The dates and places of birth and death, the subject's primary occupation are not factoids, they are highly salient and essential facts of a biography which is why music reference books include them in the first sentence of an entry. Not the current WP artcle, though. As for the omission of [virtuoso] pianist from the box, well this is also missing from the WP lede and given quite short shrift in the article overall. Simply add pianist to the occupation field, although I should add this is not what Mozart is primarily known for, c.f. his entry in Grove.
•This is the most recently removed infobox. There is nothing in that box which is misleading, requiring nuance, or not part of essential biographical information.
•There is no evidence for the assertion that vandalism is harder to detect in infoboxes than in the article text. In fact, if the "oppose" arguments are taken at face value, the deleterious attention grabbing nature of infoboxes should make it even easier to detect. Note also that infoboxes can contain refs and/or footnotes if required. I have used them on rare occasions. The additional proposal that Mozart's infobox will attract "fan cruft" is frankly preposterous.
•The notion that an infobox attracts less valuable editors and its absence will somehow make them edit the article text instead is equally preposterous and patronizing to boot. Editors do all kinds of valuable work that keeps WP working for our readers, from adding categories to patrolling new artcles. The main thing is that we are producing an encyclopedia that benefits all kinds of readers on all kinds of devices, not simply our own notion of how they should be using it. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think infoboxes are useless. If they were useless, then we should also remove them from other articles (but I don't think that would be a good idea). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Try to be less...simplistic! I don't think infoboxes are useless either. My comment was (very clearly) about the specific infobox linked to on this specific article. I set out my views on when infoboxes are and are not useful several years ago, in particular here and here, and various people have thanked me for them over the years. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
      This RFC does not propose any specific infobox. (Intentionally.) It asks whether the article should have a infobox, not the "specific infobox linked to on this specific article" (I am unaware of any such specific infobox BTW; there have been several infoboxes added, and they were different -- I checked before launching the RFC, to see if I wanted to propose a specific one). Levivich (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Sigh! linking for the third time in this section. It's rather revealing that you've looked at several versions of a Mozart infobox, but don't feel able to put any of them forward. In general, I think such RFCs work better with a specific proposal to discuss. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
        My impression from reading the “oppose” comments is that they oppose any and all infobox versions in this article. Full stop. (They’re basically all versions of Infobox person with varying use of parameters.) In my view, it’s better to establish the general principal first. Is it the case that you might be in favour of Infobox person but limited to certain parameters? Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
        Jonbod's criticism of the framing of this RfC is a fair point. Being British, I'm reminded of the Brexit referendum (!) Leave...ok, but on what terms? 4 years of chaos follows because "leave" didn't mean a single, specific and clear outcome. DeCausa (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
        Please feel free to discuss below. Nemov (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
        I take your point but as far as I can see, the “oppose” folk basically want a “hard Brexit” in this article and so far have indicated that no version of an Infobox would be acceptable to them. I could be wrong though… Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
        • Yes, you could well be wrong. My view is that I don't see the necessity for an infobox, and if we have one it should be as short and useful as possible, not filled up with nonsense cruft like his many middle names in Latin, address at birth, excessive family details, and hardly anything (and partly inaccurate) on his music. We do all realize, I hope, that for the majority of our readers, using mobile, the infobox appears at the end of the lead? Contrary to what someone says above, there is a link to the list of compositions in the 2nd line of the lead, not that most readers are likely to find that helpful so early on. One might ask hard-liners like Gerda whether there is any article that should not have an infobox in her view. In fact making a useful box for Mozart would be rather difficult, much more so than most supporters seem to realize. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
          • Johnbod, if we have infoboxes for similar articles, then there is no reason to prevent this article from having one as well. I personally think it's rather baffling to oppose having basic information neatly outlined in an infobox. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
            Yes, I can see you find it baffling! In fact many figures from the arts don't have infoboxes, though many do. You put your finger on the issue with "basic information neatly outlined". That is emphatically not what the linked-to infobox provided - that would be more like "unimportant personal personal details spread out in a sprawling format". Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per Voceditenore, who makes cogent arguments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per the very good arguments raised by others. How sad that people are still arguing about this all these years on. 92.40.219.203 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    @92.40.219.203: With all due respect to the editors advocating against an infobox, I would say Voceditenore does a fine job refuting these "very good arguments" SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support — I see no reason to not include an infobox, and hopefully this discussion—lasting over a decade at this point—can be put to rest. I'll add that infoboxes can be queried. DuckDuckGo uses information from infoboxes to display information on the right hand side of search results. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed. One could argue that the fact that this conversation keeps occurring might mean that the consensus is in fact not established. Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
    Or even that there IS a reasonably strong consensus, and it is being strenuously opposed by a few very active members of the minority. PianoDan (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
    I mean when I asked around on the discord all I heard was that the project in charge of this page doesn't like infoboxes....which like ok? Wikipedia pages aren't owned. And despite me asking for concrete listing of why exactly the infobox spreads misinfo i have yet to receive an answer. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Its very readonable to have an infobox in an article. I see no reason why one cannot be included here. JOJ Hutton 16:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a first-timer to this debate, I would like to point out that Infoboxes are not mandatory. This policy, rule, what-have-you should remain so for certain classes. This is one of them. These classes should be defined by the project that is in their purview (and not the general editor or drive-bys who have no stake in the article or its subject). They do not care for the intensive article's progress from infancy to maturity here; or the article tone; or the nuance needed to impart and enhance the understanding of the subject. This project does not need the overwhelming "I want it easy, and I want it now," thinking of the influx of many new editors here (many who history has shown will be gone five years hence).
This article—and ones like it—is much better without the McDonald's, instant-menu board (what I consider the typical IB to be), and should instead be viewed more like a fine dining experience to be read or savoured slowly and deliberately. These are some of history's greats—their articles should be treated as such. Please leave one of the classiest parts of Wikipedia alone and un-marred by un-needed infoboxes. (And let's get rid of the one at Beethoven too.) Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 04:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
should be defined by the project that is in their purview (and not the general editor or drive-bys who have no stake in the article or its subject). Per WP:OWN that sort of thinking has no place in Wikipedia, thankfully. DeCausa (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
(1) It is important that wiki articles cater to all guests, not just the classy ones. (2) By virtue of being an encyclopaedia, wiki is always going to be more towards the fast food end of the spectrum (I mean, "wiki" literally means "quick"). For those who want to savour, a book on the topic will always be a better option than a wiki page, because it can go into greater detail and is a secondary source.
I don't think it helps to think in terms of new/old editors. All we ever have are current editors. If the current editors have a different opinion in five years, they can reconsider this 'issue'. Furius (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
But does the "fast food" reader want to know all Mozart's middle names in Latin, or the names of his relatively undistinuished children? They would be much better off just reading the lead. Like many figures from the arts, Mozart can't usefully be summed up in a handful of standard infobox factoids. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll never understand this kind of logic.
When some readers prefer the fast food style of content accessing, e.g. simply because they are not particularly interested in Mozart but just need some key information about him as fast as possible without much effort presented in a clear manner, then why should they be forced to read the article if they are not interested in it?
You can still enjoy a "fine dining experience" by simply reading the whole article carefully if you like; the infobox won't hinder you from doing so. You lose nothing when an infobox is added, but it's very beneficial for many others.
Not to mention the fact that Wikipedia is first and foremost a source for quick information retrieval, and not intended to provide an amusing reading experience (well, at least the aforementioned informative aspect has a higher priority and should not be impaired in favor of this).-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This project does not need the overwhelming "I want it easy, and I want it now," thinking of the influx of many new editors here (many who history has shown will be gone five years hence). You want more than a five year commitment from editors? 😂 Levivich (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree that from the author perspective we shouldn't have the "lets be quick about it" mentality for sure. However I think what the general feeling is that while we as contributors should definitely not consider the page done and easy, most users do not contribute to wikipedia and instead use it as a quick way of getting info. I think that's what they are trying to convey, not that the issue of mozart is closed and done. The issue is the general public, after all wikipedia at the end of the day is an encyclopaedia. Chefs-kiss (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. He doesn't have an infobox? wat? An infobox has become an invaluable format of information, and not because it has become a standard. It's true that most articles have an infobox, but I believe it to be a positive evolution towards utility. It is the organizing and formatting of information in a plain way that benefits readers and compliments the article text. Their utility comes from being structured data, distinct from prose and beneficial to adding a structured overview. Infoboxes do not distract readers or editors from the prose. There is comparatively very little information to the prose there, and most of that information is stuff that is immutable (do dates of birth change each year?). Content disputes (incl. vandalism) in the infobox are some significant reason for opposing it, but to me those seem to be typical content disputes (or typical vandalism). To me, I see that an infobox should be used in biographies unless there's, like, zero information that goes into the infobox. SWinxy (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Just a note for those that wish to debate this topic. Many of the editors who have commented here are a bit entrenched in their position after many RfCs and debates over the years. That's perfectly fine, but if you wish to ask questions or debate please do it in this section so new commenters can review the survey without being buried in a wall of text. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I have the question as to why the infobox would spread misinformation? Chefs-kiss (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm honestly confused by these points as well. It's not like this problem prevented the inclusion of an infobox for other articles that have contradictory birth dates and birth locations as the new infobox could include a note about other common dates and places that are cited. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2023 (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.

Joannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart (other names)

This cruft, with names he never used, in a language he didn't speak, has been reintroduced. It should go. Some of the infobox activists seem determined to prove correct the arguments against infoboxes in the Rfc above. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed those names, as well as the children and the disputed cause of death. Can we please discuss without terms such as "infobox activists"? I wonder what Mozart would say, about a prominent "common" name that he also didn't use ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Seems like a fine compromise to me, even if I think the consensus is slightly in favor of including the cause of death. If this is the stable version, I'm happy with it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Mozart's children in the infobox

Should the infobox include the children= parameter? I think so, as it seems like pretty basic biographical info, especially considering both his (surviving adult) children are notable. Levivich (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did take pause at that as well. I think it should be included, but I see why this is worth discussing. It's on the edge, for me. But their individual notability, and the inclusion of his parents, make me think the answer is yes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a link to Mozart family, which is plenty. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I think that's a good point and would agree the one link for family is enough. It frees up space for other stuff. Levivich (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Not really. On that basis we wouldn't have parents and spouse parameters either. The fact is it's a very short Infobox. It's quite usual to have spouse, parents and children - it's the sort of basic biographical detail that readers look to easily obtain from an Infobox. If and when space needs to be freed up then that could be looked at. But at the moment it's not necessary to cut it out. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
(A little off topic but FWIW I agree with linking the cause of death sub article in the infobox as well.) Levivich (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, circumstances of death are clearly basic biographical info, and are included in most infoboxes where the death is mentioned in the lead as a notable controversy/event (e.g. Adolf Hitler, Hermann Göring, Alexander Hamilton, Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, Jesus, Socrates, etc.) Talk about a list of people who have "one word" household names, of which "Mozart" is clearly a member. Plus this event literally has its own article! I would say obviously a very notable part of his biography. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
(ec) It might be if it was at all conclusive. It was piped as "disputed", which should never be included in an infobox. They are there to give concise information, not point "this way to the rabbit hole". (ec again) The "own article" argument is very clearly nonsense - we have hundreds of Mozart articles! Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Why not, as to both points? Levivich (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Why not what? Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Why should disputed never be included in an infobox? Why shouldn't an infobox point the way to sub-articles? Levivich (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I am unaware of any policy or guideline re: infoboxes which indicates that "disputed" is not permitted. It is a basic fact that Mozart's cause of death is disputed. Just as it is a fact for:
The fact that it is disputed is a notable and basic biographical fact. Not being settled is not grounds for exclusion, in and of itself. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it is. The documentation for {{infobox person}} (of which {{infobox classical composer}} is a wrapper) specifies that the field should only be included when the cause can be clearly defined. Because of the circumstances here that is simply not possible. There may well be other cases where the field is included inappropriately, but in the vast majority of cases it is excluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Template documentation is not consensus and not binding on anyone, but besides that, where does the documentation say the field should only be included when the cause can be clearly defined? Levivich (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
"Cause of death. Should be clearly defined and sourced" represents broader consensus on use of the parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
To clarify, I did not intend to specify what information should be included in my closure, because there was little discussion and no consensus about that. By basic biographical details I meant to summarize how supporters characterized the information typically presented in infoboxen (as opposed to opposers who argued that it is trivial), not to prescribe what information should be included, which clearly needs more discussion. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

German

Since Mozart was German speaking why isn’t he just considered German? I mean if Germany didn’t exist back then why are both Bach and Beethoven considered German but Mozart isn’t? all three men were German speakers, they just originated from different regions within the Holy Roman Empire. 143.176.246.244 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a reasonable question, but the reasoning here is irrelevant to the article. For our purposes, Mozart's nationality is whatever reliable sources say it is. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Please look at the history and the maps of the Holy Roman Empire and tell us that all those born there ought to be categorized as German. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
To be fair I don't think the OP is saying that being born in the Holy Roman Empire means they should be described as German. They're saying that at a time when there was no German state, why is it that two ethnic Germans (Bach and Beethoven) are described as "German" and another (Mozart) isn't. It is a question of how each of the three are described in reliable sources. I haven't checked but I suspect the RS may well have double-standards be inconsistent by convention. Mozart is normally described as "Austrian" in RS. Rather than describing the other two with then equivalents (?Thuringian, Saxon, Westphalian?? Not sure exactly) probably RS go for the more convenient and recognisable "German". DeCausa (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Little-known fact: as a teenager in Salzburg, he started the first classical rock band, called "Wolfgang and the Holy Romans". Levivich (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
You have no respect. EEng 18:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Mozart & Bach were born in what's now Germany, while Beethoven was born in what's now Austria. Don't know why there's inconsistency among them. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
We don't generally do anachronism. Brueghel isn't "Belgian" and Muhammad isn't "Saudi". DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
You seem to have that mixed up. Mozart was born in Salzburg, which is now in Austria. Beethoven was born in Bonn, which is now in Germany (it was the capital of West Germany from 1949 to 1990, and the seat of government of reunited Germany from 1990 to 1999.). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Apparently so. Well then, what are we gonna call Mozart? All three were born in 'then' the Holy Roman Empire. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not a matter about which Wikipedia editors can decide for themselves. As pointed out above, it's down to how reliable sources describe his nationality. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources did generally call Mozart German until WW1. But now they make varying choices. I think it was a mistake on their part and sympathise with the OP. "German" is correct both in the sense Mozart and his contemporaries would have meant it, and in one of its senses today (the cultural one, as in "German American"). The only senses in which "Austrian" is correct are the anachronistic one stemming from looking where the birthplace is on a modern map (which would force us to swallow the bizarre conclusions that E. T. A. Hoffmann and Immanuel Kant were Russians and Li Bai was a Kyrgyzstani) and the one in which he spent the last ten years of his life in Vienna (which is inconsistent because no RS calls Beethoven an Austrian when he spent even longer there). Note that whichever meaning of "Austria" contemporary to Mozart's time you take (the Archduchy of Austria, the Austrian Circle, or the Habsburg-ruled lands), Salzburg was not in it! But since it's the sources speaking anachronistically and not us, and they are divided on whether or not to speak anachronistically, on WP we have to discuss the problem and not take a side. Which we already do: see Mozart's nationality, our main article on the matter. :) Double sharp (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart/Archive_16&oldid=1179007405"