Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 17

Infobox 2023
I'm not a wikipedia editor, I'm just a random guy, but I've never seen a figure like Mozart without an infobox. It seems wrong, like there's something missing from the wikipedia page. It obstructs important info like his birthdate, death date, and relatives. I assume it's the result of some stupid internal wikipedia politics but I am firmly pro-infobx 169.232.71.165 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. Is there any opposition to including an infobox? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * apparently, because he doesn't have one! 169.232.71.165 (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a FAQ above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you against including an infobox? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking a stance on this, but current consensus is for this page not to have an infobox, so a discussion would have to be had to overturn that consensus before one was added. here is the RfC where that consensus was determined. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That discussion was three years ago. Currently, the consensus on the talk page appears to be in support of an infobox. Nobody has come forward to express opposition recently, particularly in the current discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion would not be sufficient to overturn the RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to me to be no reason to not include an infobox. A significant portion of readers looking to quickly find simple biographical information would be well served with the inclusion of an infobox. I agree that without it the article feels incomplete. Aneson (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it is sufficient, especially since there is literally no explicit opposition to including an infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. The advocates of an infobox are clearly superior both numerically and argumentatively. 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) 14:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh look, another pointless war around an infobox that the same people as always are going to spend all their energy arguing against no matter how many people bring it up. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion need not be pointless, since nobody here has said they are against including an infobox. We can add an infobox by unanimous consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That statement is wholly incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please show where someone in this discussion opposes the inclusion of an infobox. The only claim similar to this that has been made is that a previous consensus opposes it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * . Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was easy to miss. We do have one person saying they are against including an infobox, but we have several people supporting it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We already had an RFC on the infobox, see the FAQ.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 13:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That refers to discussions from years ago. In 2023, there are several editors who have expressed support for including an infobox, and only one expressing opposition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What is here remains insufficient to override the previous RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the previous Rf C, from what I could gather anyways is that there is a growing new consensus for the inclusion of an infobox rather than for its omission. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's actually more than sufficient to overturn a previous consensus, given how strong current consensus is, and how long ago such previous consensus was. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The ongoing edit war needs to stop. I see above that there are some saying that consensus has changed based on talk page discussions while others suggest that the last RfC result still holds. While a talk page discussion can be sufficient to demonstrate consensus, given the current challenges, not to mention the history involved, an RfC (ideally closed by an uninvolved editor) is the route that will likely be needed to show current consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems like current consensus favors an infobox. I concur. Add an infobox. JOJ    Hutton   19:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Me too. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I am also in favor of an infobox. Yannn  11  00:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Stated my reasoning in previous conversations about this but to quote my argument eight months ago:
 * The Wikipedia of the archived messages are a different time compared to what the current consensus is and it doesn't help that the latest citation for "consensus" was over 7 years ago. As AHI-3000 pointed out, if other classical composers can gain infoboxes then I don't see why Mozart is an exception, especially given that it doesn't violate WP:DISINFOBOX considering the length of the article and there should perhaps be a new review for consensus. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't personally have a preference one way or the other, but I agree with Barkeep that given the history of this argument it would be a good idea to have an RfC. Not because I think it would change the outcome of this discussion (it looks like there's a growing consensus to add an infobox), but because it would stop people from edit warring over it with the excuse that there wasn't enough discussion. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, the people who are against an infobox could just give up and save the rest of us a bunch of time. We all know how it will end because it always ends the same way. Of course that's wishful thinking on my part; in reality, it'll be an RFC. Levivich (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's already a clear consensus here, so no need for RfC. Highly unlikely that this will change in the next few days. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes there is since the previous participants of the RfC have not been pinged or alerted. It may also be reading WP:NOTAVOTE.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There are enough participants here, and the consensus here overwhelming, that it is not necessary to alert others, especially to alert participants from discussions held years ago. Nothing is stopping anyone from alerting previous participants. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

When can we get the infobox back?
Most people agree that the infobox should be brought back. I for one think that it's utterly stupid not to have an infobox since it provides lots of information in a concise way. The consensus is that it should be brought back. So bring it back! TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I must emphatically say, in the most polite way possible, that many wikipedia editors forget what the average person desires out of an article. They make every attempt to ignore this reality by reshaping it as some sort of primoridal beef with editors; "We already talked about this, so stop bringing it up!" despite numerous new users joining the conversation and growing interest from laymen in the article. I genuinely believe that it is up to those against a change to argue for why that change should not occur, not to argue that those making the change are inherently poisoning the well because you talked about it already. Several people who are not actively wikipedia editors are baffled at the lack of an infobox on this page. These people make up the vast majority of those using wikipedia, whether you want to admit it or not. Furthermore, I can see hardly any opposition that is brought up beyond a general disdain for infoboxes, in which case you may as well just nuke half the articles on the website. This is the stomping ground of people with far too much time on their hand and axes to grind about a stylistic choice that benefits the majority of readers and only irks a small minority of die-hard editors. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This, this! Added to my userpage. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have put an infobox back in the page. I appreciate the strong feelings that this evokes for many people and don't mean to tread on any toes of fellow editors. However, infoboxes are a valuable source of information that gives visitors a rapid way of finding key pieces of information about a topic. All of the information of the page remains as-is -- infoboxes just provide it in a tabular form. For comparands, please see the recent conversation on Talk:Jean_Sibelius. Damilaville (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you've done that in full awareness of the previous discussions/RfC on this issue on this talk page and the ArbCom case? DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox 2


The current lead is missing a lot of information that is vital to the readers. The prior discussions at has no bearing at all, as it is a result of our stupid infobox debacle. Beethoven has an infobox, why should Mozart be exempted from that? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * See also above discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing that will come from this is disorder and frustration, and characterizing prior discussions as having "no bearing at all", while characterizing a long-term dispute as "stupid" (and thus implying that of the participants as well) is unlikely to make you any allies.  Aza24  (talk)   08:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I should've cooled down and be more respectful to others. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The part of your opening post now crossed out that listed the previous discussions omitted Archive 14 which has two threads in it: an Infobox thread that spanned 2017 to 2019 and an Infobox RfC from 2020. It's probably worth quoting the non-admin closure of that RfC in full: 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. That was March 2020. DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * DeCausa, Aza24, I crossed out my infobox proposal. It is a waste of time given I can do a billion other things to improve the article overall. I guess I will never understand this kind of bullshitery; maybe I'm too daft to see how taking away an infobox adds something important to the article.CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This infobox lacks information, I keep adding it but someone deletes it vault (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You will need to get consensus for your proposed change, and you're unlikely to achieve that by posting in the middle of an old conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Upon reading the resulting discussion I have some thoughts I'd like to contribute to this conversation.
 * 1. As mentioned by its the standard in all of the articles. It really struck me as weird that this article did not have an infobox since he is such a key figure. I understand not all composers have infoboxes however a great deal of wikipedia (over 40% uses infoboxes)
 * 2. As mentioned in Purpose accessibility is part of the purpose. It makes it much more easier to users who just want to access his birth or death.
 * 3. Upon seeing prior discussions listed by 8, 10, 12, and 13 as well as the | RfC there is no actual reasoning as to why precisely an infobox should not be included, just as to why its not included. The arguments mostly sum up to "the lead is ok so there's no need". This is not an argument against infoboxes.
 * 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.
 * ''In addition some of the arguments used were frankly really uncivil. The fact somebody doesn't have a lot of experience shouldn't be used against them. New people can still contribute good ideas, in fact sometimes better ones. Its not a question of being "info-box warriors" as someone put it. Its a question of making the article accessible to mass public

Note: I italicized things so that the crux of the argument is precise.'' Chefs-kiss (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll not start again with the usefulness of an IB etc. For me, this causa is simple: one part of the readers gains something. The others can either not read it, and even opt-out being shown infoboxes! There are 2 ways to handle that: 1) Adds something for some readers, takes nothing away from the others. 2) Still doesn't change anything for some people, but takes something away from the others. How this simple, logical step is being strongarmed from happening is completly beyond me. I guess at that point it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT at work. Gott (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The resistance to putting an infobox on this article, the accepted standard for biographical wikipedia articles, has always been a childish and moronic attempt to defend what is different for the sake of being different, and not for any actual reasons. AvRand (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit absurd convo. Infoboxes make info immediate and accessible. People aren't always looking to read in detail and maybe just want birth/marriage etc. It's pointless to remove and frankly doesn't help people Chefs-kiss (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Piano or fortepiano?
Should all the occurrences of the word piano be replaced by the historically accurate name of fortepiano, or is there consensus against this? Contribute your best (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If it was the harpsichord in question, than specifying would be essential as it is an entirely different instrument (or just saying "keyboard", which is often done to avoid this exact problem). Since the fortepiano is simply an earlier version of the piano it would probably be more confusing than helpful. A bit like specifying that a baroque composer wrote a concerto for "baroque oboe" rather than "oboe" (whereas if it was a concerto for a shawm, the specification would be needed).
 * And if we go to see what reliable sources say, Mozarts keyboard concertos and sonatas are never called "fortepiano concerto/sonata", always piano.  Aza24  (talk)   20:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What would you say about only changing the occurrences of the word piano to fortepiano under the instruments subheading? Contribute your best (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, although that section will probably be removed at some point. Might belong in a note, but as its own section its rather trivial. Was added by an editor who went around inserting which instruments a bunch of composers used. No need to remove at the moment since the article is so short to begin with!  Aza24  (talk)   20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I sincerely appreciate your advice, as I am relatively new. I wish to be bold, but not too bold! Contribute your best (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Baptised
Wasn't he baptised Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart? So put that info in. 188.113.95.213 (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So read the article – footnote b, and links to Mozart's name cover this adequately. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So why is it only in a footnote when it's his real name? 188.113.95.213 (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What I mean is: Put his real name under the simplified name. 188.113.95.213 (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Additions to the info box yet again
There is currently a slow motion edit war, mostly between and. This is the latest version that was reverted. It basically adds a link to the place of death and marriage date. Should these additions be made to the info box? I think they should, it seems fairly non-controversial to me and inline with the recent RFC on the subject stating that the infobox should include basic biographical details. PackMecEng (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * What specifically leads you to believe these changes would be helpful? In fact, it was proposed above that all individual relative fields be omitted in favour of the simple link to Mozart family. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of basic information is crucial, as emphasized by the RFC, which underlines its significance on Wikipedia. The initial need for an infobox arose from the challenge of navigating a lengthy and unwieldy article, with information scattered across various links. In order to assist the reader, it's important to avoid obfuscating the information by burying it within a labyrinth of links. Therefore, I'm curious to hear your arguments against its inclusion. By engaging in a constructive discussion, we can weigh the merits of different perspectives and make informed decisions regarding the presentation of valuable information to our readers. PackMecEng (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to engage in discussion about the issue, but I'm hoping you can explain why you feel these specific changes would be beneficial. From my perspective trying to engage in the question of what specific polity Vienna fell within at the time is not at all helpful - "Vienna" is the basic information here - and spending most of the template discussing the subject's family rather than what is actually significant about him is obfuscating the more crucial information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * While the link to the Archduchy of Austria may be of lesser concern to me, I do believe that including a direct link to the existing content on Vienna would greatly enhance ease of navigation for our readers. Moreover, I find the inclusion of the year of marriage as a quick reference point to be highly valuable. Many readers often seek this information for a brief overview, and providing easy access to such details would undoubtedly benefit their reading experience. By considering the needs and preferences of our diverse audience, we can ensure that our content remains user-friendly and engaging. So perhaps to start with we can compromise, adding the brackets around Vienna and the tag for year of marriage while excluding the new link to Archduchy of Austria. Both have very little visual impact or clutter but can have a direct benefit. PackMecEng (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to linking Vienna, but would propose removing Constanze per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When you mention removing Constanze do you mean removing her completely or the proposed (m. 1782) after her name? PackMecEng (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The former. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, an intriguing point indeed. I shall ponder the matter further regarding which relations to include. I'm curious to learn more about your thought process that led you to that conclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * See the discussion above about children. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not defined there. Also that discussion seems fairly split on the topic with no reasons given pro or con much past the RFC and clutter arguments. PackMecEng (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

For the record I do not agree with removal of all family from the info box, nor do I see consensus to do so. PackMecEng (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Archives
The latest RfC (begun 10 March, closed 30 March) can be found in Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 16, while earlier questions (for some reason first a 2023 question, then a 2022 question) are in Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 17. Just for ease of reading the history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire - Chinese !
Salzburg was located in the Austrian Empire during Mozart's time. Why complicate matters like this ? In the 18th century The Roman / Holy Roman Empire was "out of bonds", without signification. Already during the times when Martin Luther put up his 95 theses on the Castle-church's gate at Wittenberg (31.October 1517) and what then followed, proved that the Empire of the Roman Empire lacked territory and support in most German speaking lands outside of Austria (Kingdoms, Grand Duchies, Duchies, Free cities etc), and some 250 years later Mozart came to the court of the Austrian Emperor at Vienna, who indeed was an important monarch who prevented the Ottoman Reich to invade Europe. Mozart was indeed an Austrian and native in German. (and also spoke Italian). Proposal - Change "Holy Roman Empire" to "Austrian Empire" (or "Old Austria")  91.128.168.74 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Also see the German page - they describe him as "Salzurger" and this sounds like Greater Germany nationalism. Mozart was Austrian as all dictionaries put him - e.g. Britannica. The German page should be changed too. Otherwise one might as well say that Wagner was French because France occupied Leipzig until shortly after his birth. 93.199.86.152 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart at AfD
(coincidentally to the thread above) The article Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is listed at Articles for deletion/Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to Solomon
Someone who is cited frequently & whose name appears 4 dozen times should be introduced at 1st occurrence. I have done that & supplied his link. Login54321 (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Burial
Any reason why the burial place is not in the infobox? FCBWanderer (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Because not every parameter needs to be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ignore her, there is a discussion above about it. Feel free to weigh in. PackMecEng (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You could if you wanted to, just you should consult with other editors if it is necessary as it is included in a quotation in the Final illness and death section. I would say that it should be added to the infobox because many other articles have burials listed and it just makes a pretty important detail of his life and death more readily available. Wyzzey (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Place of death
Did Mozart live at Rauhensteingasse 8? Did he die there? Here's an image of the plaque at that address. And here's an image of the building: File:Mozart's last residence at Rauhensteingasse 970.jpg. Should the address be mentioned somewhere? In the infobox perhaps? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I was looking into this topic and I have found repeated sources stating that his death place is at Rauhensteingasse 8. It is widely considered the place of his death as that house was his last residency before his death. We also know that he returned from Prague to his home after the premiere of his last opera, so all roads lead to Rome really. There are other wikipedia articles that mention this such as the Steffl wikipedia page. I have also found dates that back this up such as this website which states his residency from 1790-91. This is all not to mention the plaque located at the Steffl Department Store which states that he died there. All the dates match up too, with the house getting demolished in 1849 according to this website. Then, the department store was built in the mid 1890s according to this wikipedia page. I believe that it also should be added to the inbox so that it matches with the address of his birth. Wyzzey (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes and yes. https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-2006-957219 Grimes2 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't go in the infobox, per the template documentation. With good sourcing it can go in the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If it shouldn't go in the infobox, then why did you ask in the first place? Wyzzey (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, though you were someone else. Wyzzey (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wyzzey, could you wait until a consensus has been reached here before re-adding anything to the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC) p.s. it looks like there might be enough material for a separate paragraph on that location?
 * Sorry, I just didn't realize there was a process to that. Wyzzey (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's always a good idea to allow enough time for any comments from major contributing editors. More so given that this article is about someone who is very well known. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So should there be a paragraph on it or should there be information in the inbox? Wyzzey (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A single sentence in the article text would make sense, with the academic source that Grimes gave.  Aza24  (talk)   20:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just added an edit to a part of the sentence where it says: Mozart died in his home at Rauhensteingasse 8 (cite 86) on 5 December 1791 (aged 35) at 12:55 am (cite 87). The New Grove describes his funeral: Wyzzey (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry Wyzzey, but could you also wait until a consensus has been reached here before removing anything from the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that Getreidegasse 9 is included in the infobox for his birthplace, so it might be balanced to also give the address of his place of death, as he did live there, not just go there to die? Except that his birthplace is much more notable. I see no reason why it cannot go in the text with some good source(s). I'd be happy to see a paragraph, but other editors might think that's too much. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that there should be a place in the infobox, but maybe it should include a part that says the length of time he lived there or something? So it doesn't seem like he just went there to die? Wyzzey (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A problem, the house Rauhensteingasse 8 didn't exist in 1791, it was build later. Mozart died in "kleines Kaiserhaus: No. 970 in der Rauhensteingasse". Grimes2 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The high number 970 results from numbering every house in "Innere Stadt" (inner city) of Vienna. So the correct address is "Innere Stadt 970 in der Rauhensteingasse". Grimes2 (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was just looking to see how it's covered over at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (with the aid of Google Translate), not that we have to follow that, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think that the Kleines Kaiserhaus is actually meant to mean Klein-Kaisersteinsches which means Little Kaiserstein's, so probably just the name of the apartment building. Wyzzey (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is nicknamed after the former owner Wolf Khayser. We shouldn't use this nickname. Grimes2 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I support a sentence or two in the section "Final illness and death", and possibly in the article Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are we still adding this detail? Wyzzey (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox birth and death details
It's pretty standard across wikipedia that infoboxes contain state of birth. See Pope Paul III or Elvis Presley as random examples. To maintain editorial consistency Mozart's infobox details should therefore read:

Birth: Getreidegasse 9, Salzburg, Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg, Holy Roman Empire

Death: Vienna, Archduchy of Austria, Holy Roman Empire

Ecrm87 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What specific benefit do you believe that would provide to this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Firstly consistency with other biographical pages. Secondly clear presentation of facts; Mozart was born as a subject of the Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg in the Holy Roman Empire, this is no different to someone being born in a modern state and these details being listed. Thirdly being a subject of those states would have had an impact on Mozart's life, therefore listing in the infobox is appropriate and in keeping with other historical figures. The linking of those historical polities is a separate issue which I'm going to raise on the MOS talk page, but otherwise due to the quasi-sovereign status of states of the Holy Roman Empire I'm confident in those listing details. Ecrm87 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The "quasi-sovereign status of states" would seem to be a reason for exclusion, in that it's not something that needs to be expanded upon there - that, much like its impact on the subject, should be deferred to the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree, by that same argument you might as well remove Massachusetts from John F Kennedy's birthplace details because it didn't have sovereignty. The fact that the states of the Holy Roman Empire were more sovereign then any other sub-national entity before or since makes it an important detail. The detail should be listed in the infobox as it of great relevance and factually accurate. Ecrm87 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024
THIS PAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE MOZARTS CHILDREN. 2601:547:F80:200:F51D:B2D1:E7DC:DEC5 (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  (talk | contribs) 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The page does include Mozart's children. See the section "Marriage and children". Antandrus (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Intro
"Born in Salzburg, then in the Holy Roman Empire and currently in Austria". Currently has never been used, to the best of my knowledge, to mean anything but the present. The entire sentence is unclear as a result. It implies he was born in multiple places. I'd put the rest of the sentence: "Mozart showed prodigious ability from his earliest childhood" after the comma following Salzburg, though it still leaves the sentence awkward. 75.190.170.74 (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC) DEL
 * The subject of the explanatory phrase (, then in …) is clearly and unambiguously the closest term, Salzburg. OTOH, 'currently', which raises expectations of change, might be changed to 'now'. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)