Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

My edits in the opening section
I've edited the opening section of this article, and I hope that I have not overstepped my bounds, by doing so. The nature of my edits will be apparent to anyone who compares them with the previous state of the text. I've made no substantive changes to the facts or their presentation. To provide guidance, I shall explicate the reasoning that I employed, when I made some of my edits. This is not a comprehensive explanation of every edit, but instead a few examples which will, I hope, illustrate my approach. I shall refrain from any further explanations, although I can share the reasoning that moved me to make every one of my edits, if it becomes necessary. Just read my work, compared with the original version. My writing speaks for itself. —catsmoke talk 05:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "more than 800 works representing virtually every Western classical genre of his time." This states that there are 800 works of every genre. It also leaves the artistic medium ambiguous (genre of what?). The clumsy phrase "of his time" is unnecessary, when we have an adjective which says the same thing in a more compact and pleasing manner. Thus, my edit, which fixes these problems and results in a more well-written statement: "more than 800 works which represent virtually every contemporary genre of Western classical music."
 * "Born in Salzburg, then in the Holy Roman Empire and currently in Austria, Mozart showed prodigious ability from his early childhood." This states that Mozart was born in Salzburg; following his first birth, Mozart was born in the Holy Roman Empire; and Mozart is currently being born in Austria. This is patently ridiculous, and must be changed. (The sentence may also be parsed in a way which results in a different meaning: Mozart was born in Salzburg; following his birth, Mozart showed prodigious ability in the Holy Roman Empire, and he is currently showing prodigious ability in Austria. Alas, only two of those three statements are true.) My edit: "Born in Salzburg, which was then within the Holy Roman Empire (and is currently in Austria), Mozart showed prodigious ability from his earliest childhood."
 * "At 17, he was a musician at the Salzburg court but grew restless and travelled in search of a better position." At 17 what? At 1700 hours, that is to say, at 5pm? At the height of seventeen feet tall? At the count of 17, starting on my mark—Now? The figure of 17 must be provided with some context. English idiom identifies a "musician at...court" as a "court musician"—it is silly and cumbersome to use the phrase "musician at...court". The sentence states that Mozart travelled while at the court in Salzburg, and that is not true, because one cannot travel while also remaining in the same place; so, we must explain that Mozart left Salzburg in order to travel. The sentence ends with the word "position" and the following sentence ends with the same word; one must therefore be changed. The one to change is the one in this sentence, because Mozart was not necessarily seeking another "position" such as the one he'd had at Salzburg. Instead, Mozart travelled to find any situation whatsoever which would improve his welfare; why would Mozart leave one position for the strict purpose of finding another position? If I may be allowed to speculate, then I would say that if Mozart was on his way to Vienna, and he found a treasure that contained a lifetime's worth of gold and jewels, then any "position" whatsoever would be far away from his future plans. Thus, the word "situation" is better here. My edit: "At 17 years old, he was working as a court musician at Salzburg, but he grew restless and left to travel in search of a better situation." My inclusion of the word "working" emphasizes the lamentable state in which the musician found himself, and foreshadows the difficulties that he will face in Vienna.
 * "While visiting Vienna in 1781, he was dismissed from his Salzburg position." We begin a new paragraph with a pronoun as our subject; this is weak writing; we must identify the person. And this sentence seems to warp time and space—is this the story of Vienna, or the story of Mozart? Which has primacy in our narrative? Which ought to come first, to preserve the narrative flow, and to maintain chronological cohesion? The answer is that, in this sequence of events, Mozart came before Vienna. So, he shall come first in an effective rendition of this event. My edit: "While Mozart was visiting Vienna in 1781, he was dismissed from his position in Salzburg." The original sentence leads with a dependent clause, which is feeble. My edit fixes that mistake by making the introductory clause robust.
 * Also, please be aware that historical human beings are not the subject of myth. Instead, they are the subject of legend. No one has seriously proposed that Mozart has become a god.


 * I would agree that some of your changes were improvements, and retained those. However, I think some of your explanations above are not reasonable interpretations - nobody is going to read "at 17, he was a musician" as referring to his height or a specific hour! In fact in some instances your proposed fix creates more ambiguity than the original, as in the case of "contemporary" - the varying definitions make it potentially unclear whether the genres in question are those of our time or Mozart's, whereas the original specified the latter. Similarly, if you consider "genre" to be ambiguous, it does not make sense to change "music" to "body of art" which is more so. Your edits also introduced some problems. For example, you added an apostrophe in the middle of a citation template - this may be grammatically acceptable, but it broke the template's functionality. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead seems satisfactory as is; I can hardly sympathize with these comments when the rest of the article, quite literally the entire thing, is painfully incomplete and lacking.  Aza24  (talk)   20:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)


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


 * 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)
 * 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)