Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleWolfgang Amadeus Mozart is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
October 20, 2004Featured article reviewKept
October 29, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
February 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 21, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
September 14, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 27, 2006.
Current status: Former featured article


Could this article benefit from an infobox? I thought that since it didn't have one yet, there must surely be a reason, and therefore I ask.--Simen113 (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you read Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 8, Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 10, Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 12, and Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 13.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it couldn’t. “Infoboxes (are) neither required nor prohibited for any article” and based on that, a reason is therefore not needed. It works both ways: there needs to be a reason why articles carry an infobox, not simply for the sheer sake of consistency. In my estimation, around 65% of articles on WP use infoboxes incorrectly. This makes adding one look normal, which it’s not. CassiantoTalk 07:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I guess that infoboxes too me are just to get a very quick overview of the person in question, or event for that matter. As is now I have to scroll to find the age at death, where it would be readily seen in articles with infoboxes (calculating age based on birth and death date can be somewhat tiring and hasslesome). Also the ability to quickly see place of death, burial and possible issue.--Simen113 (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Everything you need to know, including the answers to your questions, can be found in the archives. I don’t feel a need to rehash them here. CassiantoTalk 09:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
After trawling the archives I have to say I haven't found all the answers I was looking for, nor any real vote as to whether or not to include an infobox. As much as I can appreciate the simplistic aesthetic of a simple photo, I do find a compromise with a short informative infobox most desirable.--Simen113 (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Here’s a novel idea; have you thought about reading the lead section? I guarantee everything you need to know will be in that. A short infobox would be even worse than a puffed out one. CassiantoTalk 14:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow that was an unnecessarily snarky reply. I actually came to this article thinking that it would be nice to have an infobox that showed his birth and death dates and age at death for quick reference. Obviously this information can be found in the actual article however having it in an infobox as a quick reference would be pretty nice. Whether infoboxes are used incorrectly or not on many other articles has no bearing on this one. Ulysses S. Grant has an infobox and that is a featured article. A.S. Williams (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
And you have difficulty finding this information in the opening sentence of a standard-format biographical article? Really?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Considering that I am evidently literate and can form complete sentences it would appear that I do not have difficulty finding that information in the opening sentence of a standard-format biographical article, however Ludwig van Beethoven, Johann Sebastian Bach and George Frideric Handel all have a box that has that information, so what's up with all the hostility about this? Rather than making a person mentally do the math to figure out how old Mozart was at his death, a box like several other major composers have would appear to be reasonable. A.S. Williams (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Suggest you read the entire discussion preceding your message, including (especially) the archived discussions linked near the beginning. You will discover there that there is considerable opposition to inboxes, from editors who would be more than happy to support removal of the ones at the articles on Beethoven, Bach, and Handel, should the opportunity arise. Their various reasons are to be found in that voluminous discussion, and the links provided therein.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need to "mentally do the math" when the lede already mentions "portions of the Requiem, which was largely unfinished at the time of his early death at the age of 35" (bolding mine). There is only a need to read more than the first sentence of the lede. Double sharp (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you just respect the dislike of some editors against a summary, - it's a waste of time to fight them. Of course, the normal biographical summary (which our MoS forbids) of where someone was born and when, died and when, and why we have an article on him, would not hurt. Beethoven got an infobox per community consensus. Those who don't like a box could even say so in their preferences and would not see it. But now it came to be a topic for an alleged war (see Pierre Boulez), and to stay away may be more productive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I am a bit confused, can you clarify what the Manual of Style forbids? Also, I don't have to respect anyone's like or dislike about something. I'll respect a well-founded argument. I am more than happy to read a rebuttal sans the sarcasm and condescension. A.S. Williams (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The MoS is against mentioning places of birth and death in the lead unless significant, so for Mozart you have to dig in the lead and only find where he spent his last years, not where he died. An infobox has them nicely together, as also most encyclopedias I know. It would be good for Mozart if you ask me (see the last previous discussion, one of many) and Boulez (see the linked discussion) but it seems to ruin the peace of mind of some editors. The latest arbitration case (2018) didn't change much (if anything). I did my share, and came to better spend my time elsewhere. Love's Labour's Lost, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification! It's remarkable the silly things that people will go to the ends of the earth over. I came to ask a question and literally the next responses violated 2 of the first 3 guidelines at the very top of the page, Be Polite and Assume Good Faith. A.S. Williams (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You don't need to tell me. The case was about civility, tempted to quote you, "remarkable ..." ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"It's remarkable the silly things that people will go to the ends of the earth over". My thoughts about IB warriors exactly, particularly the ones who claim to "rarely talk about infoboxes", and yet find the time to talk about them frequently, even to the extent of keeping a hit list of those that are removed. Such obsession is neither collegiate nor constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(What you said has nothing to do with Mozart. So I do the same.) I noticed that today you removed an infobox in an article you never edited, while the principal editor - although being around - did nothing. I noted the article, because next week I will have forgotten. Call that a hit-list if you have to. I call it a sad list, and hope it will stay short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
And? The person who added the idiotbox has also never edited the article, and left absolutely no rationale for adding one. As to your hit list, the last time you had a page dedicated to listing IBs that were removed, it was deleted as being disruptive: it seems like that lesson wasn't really learnt. – SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You are so right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
ps: for those who don't remember, from years ago, it refers to the talk of this my 2013 creed, which didn't change, and is not likely to change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not an info box "warrior" and I had not the slightest inkling about any of this until I asked the question in this talk page and was met with over the top hostility. A.S. Williams (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
If you consider that to be hostility, then you should practice what you preach and try to assume good faith. It was a straight answer you received, perhaps mildly pointy, but not hostile. (Mind you, if your opening statement is to try and criticise a post from six months ago, I do wonder why you bothered). And if you came for birth and death dates and age at the time death, all these are in the lead – two of them are even in the opening sentence. – SchroCat (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I bothered because I saw that there wasn't a quick reference for that information, namely the age at death which is the primary reason I came to the article. Yes, I could do the math for the age at death or I could scan the entire first and second paragraphs and find it in the next to last sentence. Or there could be an infobox that instantly displays that information. You and I have differing opinions on what constitutes hostility and in my opinion sarcastic answers to honest questions qualifies. I'm not going to push for an IB on this article as it apparently constitutes a land war in Asia, so you can rest easy there. But in closing, I feel like the arguments against IBs amount to "Why buy a pizza already made when the ingredients to make it yourself are all there?" and the answer to that is convenience and time. Not everyone who comes to an encyclopedia is resting in their comfy chair in the den with a spot of tea looking for a deep and enriching experience. Sometimes people want information as quickly as possible. A.S. Williams (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Odd. It took me less than 10 seconds to find dates of birth and death and age at death. I have no idea what pizza has to do with Mozart, but I guess I'm too dumb to understand; enough brains to come to a text-based encyclopaedia and find three minor facts in less than ten seconds on a mobile phone while standing on a crowded commuter train (rather than sitting in a comfy chair in a den), but still too dumb to understand the pizza metaphor. Mileage varies, I guess, but having been around WP for several years, I can, at least, differentiate between hostility and mild pointiness. – SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
See this is precisely what I'm talking about, this "I did it, how can there possibly be any other perspective since it was so easy for me, other people must be mentally deficient." Give me a break, please. A.S. Williams (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Who on earth mentioned anything about anyone being mentally deficient? Take the straw man arguments elsewhere please, I've heard them all before. - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if it's not necessary or required, it's an extremely common and useful resource for an article to have. My personal (unprofessional) opinion: This article should not be "held hostage" and pervented from having an infobox in an effort to challenge the norm. AvRand (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If you have a new argument to offer, then please offer it. "Common and useful" and "personal opinion" do not constitute a sufficient response to what has been said ad nauseam here already.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree on the need for an infobox. I came here looking for simple information about his sons and don't want to hunt through a huge article for it. Brted (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
To judge from the infobox on Johann Sebastian Bach, whose sons were much more famous than Mozart's, I would guess that you would be disappointed. It appears there may not be a parameter for progeny. Have you tried searching the article for keyword "children"? There is also a table of contents just after the lead paragraph, where you will find a link to just what you are looking for. Well, almost just what you are looking for, since the list includes daughters as well as sons.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Also agree on the need for an infobox - if there are nuances associated with why an infobox would be confusing exclusively for composers, as compared to other groups of people for whom infoboxes are a prevalent practice then we should address them perhaps via the infobox template for composers, via guidelines, or by some other technique other than blocking them. Wikipedia users have become accustomed to perusing information at a glance in infoboxes; search engines are able to extricate key information from them, having data structured on the internet this way is extremely valuable for people and machine understanding. I think it's a shame that composers should be treated as a different class of people than other noteworthy people on this platform. I really wish we could reconsider the current consensus. Utility and accessibility are genuinely positive reasons and should not be dismissed. By using infoboxes we are ultimately making content on wikipedia generally more accessible to more people, including casual audience members, who may benefit from learning at a glance key attributes about composers that would aid them in their learning journey Mmkaram (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Google seems to do just fine presenting WAM's salient vitals without the aid of an infobox here – including his children (sons and daughters) – so that old argument is a furphy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Mmkaram still has a point that there's no reasons composers are any different from anyone else. I've been saying that for years. No one has ever come up with a good reason why either. What Google does isn't relevant to Wikipedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose addition of an infobox. Unnecessary. What Mmkaram says above "search engines are able to extricate key information from them, having data structured on the internet this way is extremely valuable for people and machine understanding" is a very good reason not to have the things imo, I don't want to write for machines and deeply resent being expected to be an unpaid volunteer for Google or Bing.Smeat75 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

...but you're fine being an unpaid volunteer for Wikipedia? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. We are all volunteers here, this site is funded by donations. If what I do here is helping multi billion dollar corporations like Google or Microsoft make more money I should be paid. The lamest argument ever for having infoboxes "machines can read them and it helps google and bing."Smeat75 (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The simple truth about infoboxes is that they efficiently convey key information about the subject. I see no reason why Mozart shouldn't have an infobox, when Beethoven does. HAL333 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but read Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 13#Give this an infobox. (more if you look for "infobox" in the archives): it seems a waste of time to argue about a topic where almost religious beliefs prevail. (I am the one who proposed Beethoven's, and was happy when it was installed as the community consensus.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd prefer an IB, also. Most people do, it's just a small group of editors who oppose it, for whatever reason. At least the “I don't write for google unpaid“-argument is kinda funny; what on earth has google's practice of information-gathering or -presenting to do with making an article more accessible to wikipedia readers? But I guess that has to do with perspective; wikipedia, a mere tool to present information! used to be about the readers - you know, these ungrateful, disruptive, money-donating idiots somewhere out there, who won't, or more likely can't contribute to anything wikipedia -, these days it's more about the authors, writing for themselves and presenting their style and opinions.

ImHo, every article about a person needs an IB. Because the fact that a reader can find the information -that's easily presented in an IB- somewhere else in the article - that's no argument. Following that logic we could delete the article altogether because the info therein can be found somewhere else on the internet.

It simply doesn't matter if the dates of birth, death etc. are somewhere else in the article. Info-Box = faster, easier and coherently. Faster and easier = good. Period. Plus one can opt-out of being shown IBs? Perfect. Lastly, you could just, you know, I know it's a crazy idea, but ... just don't fucking read it. No one is forced to read an info-box. It's just a tool, a possibility, and to use it is up to you. Taking the IB out does in no way improve the article; it just reflects what you like, or don't. On the other hand, an IB does nothing to diminish or change the article, you could easily ignore it. It just helps those people who quickly want to look up some basic facts. An improvement only helps those using it, of course. You clearly don't use it. But that's certainly no reason to deny it every other person, especially since it couldn't bother you, anyway. --Gott (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

On a side-note: There are 3 (well, 2 1/2) users opposing infoboxes; one was already sanctioned by ArbCom regarding infoboxes, the second is retired, and the last doesn't like google, or whatever. Wikipedia at it's best. --Gott (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Could you avoid talking about other editors or their opinions in a derogatory way, please. Focus on the content, not the contributors. Just for the record, the problems with many IBs, particularly this one, means I am also in favour of leaving the thing off the page. - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
SchroCat You asking other people to not be derogatory is a lot coming from you. But back to the content, just for the record, what is the problem with many IBs? HAL333 23:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Given you're trying to kick start a discussion from two months ago by opening with a dig against me, I'll pass (Particularly ironic given you've been notified of the ArbCom restrictions regarding civility in this area). - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
SchroCat So what are your reasons? Please tell HAL333 19:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I assume your silence means you have no solid reasons against IBs, right? HAL333 21:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I won't speak for SchroCat, but such an assumption is utterly false. As to your question: there are reams of material discussing the merits of infoboxes. Instead of asking to repeat them, it's reasonable to expect editors to catch up. Which policies/guidelines/discussions have you consulted so far? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have consulted multiple guidelines and discussions, such as the one above, but I very few, if none, clear statements from my friend SchroCat, and would like them to state them so we can have a discussion over them to resolve this issue. HAL333 01:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • HAL333, I have had to ask you at a previous IB discussion not to continually ping me. I repeat: stop pinging me. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree with those who claim that an infobox is unnecessary. It's not about consistency, it's about providing a quick overview which many people appreciate (usually dates and places of birth and death, age at death, citizenship or allegiance, spouses, etc.). Not allowing such an overview to be added to this article seems quite arbitrary and just another venue where those with top Wikipedia editing hats can wield their power as they see fit. That is neither democratic nor productive. Add an infobox and be done with it, and stop throwing pseudo-scientific reasons at people for not doing so. The sheer length of this discussion on the Talk page proves many people would like to have it included, so refusing to do so is clearly just antagonistic and negative in stance, and there's no room for that in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, long before I was an editor, I was a reader. And the first thing that I look at on an article is the infobox. It conveys information fast, information that I would have to spend multiple minutes searching for. At its root, an infobox is about efficiency. And even if there is an infobox and I don't look at it, there are NO negative effects. It doesn't harm me whatsoever. HAL333 21:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup. There are no arguments against IBs. And simply repeating "search for the arguments somewhere buried in the archives" doesn't help, either. Been there, done that. There are no arguments besides the personal dislike of a very tiny, very vocal and uncivil minority of editors.

I like to keep things simple and rational; an IB does take nothing away from the article. For people who prefer an IB that's a service, an easy addition w/o negative effect.

People who dislike IBs, on the other hand, can just not read it. Crazy idea, I know.

Or they can simply opt-out being displayed info-boxes.

Considering the opt-out possibility it's very clear that these editors aggressivly opposing IBs are only about strong-arming their personal tastes and opinions, and not about presenting information in the best and most reader-friendly way possible. --Gott (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Almost all famous people have an info box. I do not understand the objection. I also I came to this article thinking that it would have an infobox that showed his birth and death, age at death and family for quick reference. Telecine Guy (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not expecting to affect any change, since I've been in situations like this before, but I want to at least express that I find the lack of infobox bizarre to say the least. It makes the article look broken and in need of repairing, and I was only frustrated at not being able to see basic information at a glance that is normally available on most articles. It definitely makes sense to have the same information presented at differing levels of detail and at differing levels of convenience, and it's also import to make use of the principle of least surprise. The article seems to only accomplish being different for the sake of being different, at the expense of readability. Sahuagin (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should an infobox be added to the article: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart[edit]

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.
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 determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. The current status of policy & procedures is in line with this guidance. This means that editor preferences are really the only basis on which to judge infobox discussions and should not be discarded solely on WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. The discussion below shows a clear preponderance of editors by nearly a 2:1 margin against an infobox on this article and should be respected.
Whether there should be a moratorium on further infobox discussions was not addressed by enough participants to make an assessment of consensus but there is a clearly-expressed fatigue with infobox discussions on this article. Any further discussions or RfC's on this issue should proceed only with the greatest caution. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Question: Should an infobox be added to this page?

Hopefully we can have a civil and polite conversation.HAL333 22:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


  • Support An infobox would be an asset for this page. It would help catch the attention of potential readers. It serves as a helpful summary of the article. At a glance, a reader would quickly be able to find critical dates and locations in his life, a list of works, among other things. Without an infobox, this article seems to lack structure, and the reader is likely to be confused when similar articles such as Ludwig van Beethoven, Johann Sebastian Bach, George Frideric Handel, Richard Strauss, Johann Strauss II, Dieterich Buxtehude, Alessandro Scarlatti, Robert Schumann, and Edvard Grieg possess an infobox. There is no tangible downside or cost to including an infobox. It only offers another medium from which the reader can access information.HAL333 22:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Articles without infoboxes are incomplete. Dimadick (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Discussed many times before - the most recent being only 5 months ago - where a consensus has been formed each and every time not to have one. Once again, people like HAL333 cannot accept the result of these discussions and want to keep obsessively pressing the matter until they get the answer they want. I would lay my life-savings on it that if it were the other way, and it were a case of the infobox wanting to be removed, those who kept asking would've been banned a long time ago. But we all know the powers that be at WP are biased in that respect. I wouldn't mind if you have a vested interest in this article, HAL333, but your grand total of 0 edits overall suggests to me that you don't. I think, HAL333, someone needs to take you to ArbCom for Infobox disruption. That I would support. CassiantoTalk 13:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this was most recently discussed above for around two years, but little progress or compromise came from it. The next step, according to dispute resolution, is to establish a RfC, as I did. And we are currently discussing the viability of an infobox, not my validity as an editor. The fact that you rely on ad hominems makes me think there is little reason behind your hate of infoboxes besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT.HAL333 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
"little progress or compromise came from it": a discussion does not have to result in either "progress" or "compromise". very often the status quo is the decision of extensive discussions, as it was here. I can't remember just how may RfCs you've opened on IBs, but it is rather tiresome having to go over the same ground again and again and again just because you don't like the consensus of the previous several ocassions. - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
As I have laid out in the discussion section of this talk page, no consensus has ever been established on whether an infobox should be added to this page. Cheers.HAL333 20:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Correct. Each discussion has rejected the idea. That is the consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Just spouting the same lie again and again won't change anything.HAL333 23:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not this shit yet AGAIN? How many times do we have to dance round this particular maypole just because of agenda-driven editors who can't accept a long-standing consensus? To claim an article "lacks structure" because of a lack of infobox is untrue; it does not serve as "a helpful summary of the article" (they never have and never will: that is not the role of an IB) and cherry picking some composers who do have IBs is a straw man: I can give you twice that number who don't have one. Which means we're back to WP:IDONTLIKEIT as the only reason the same people continue to push such a narrow and disruptive agenda. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's be civil here. Please.HAL333 23:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Coming from someone who has insulted other editors, said that I have lied, and gone digging the dirt on my block list, I suggest you take your own advice. And please don't keep bludgeoning people just because they don't agree with you. Just pipe down for a change. - SchroCat (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. I entirely agree with Cassianto and SchroCat. But alas there are a few info-box militants who will try, try and try again to overcome the consensus that they are a rotten idea for composer life-and-work articles. They should be resisted. Tim riley talk 14:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Considering that about half of the articles for composers already have infoboxes, I don't know if there really is much of a consensus.HAL333 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it's less - and it's certainly less for the quality end of the article pool. IBs are great in some instances, but for the 'liberal arts' end of biographies, they are as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle and will mislead more than inform. - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
We have over 50 classical musician life-and-works featured articles; over 50 of them are unencumbered with info-boxes. I'm not sure if in Hal333's two years and 19 days as an editor s/he has encountered the FA process, but for his/her information it involves typically two detailed reviews (PR and FAC) by about a dozen experienced reviewers, often including some with a particular expertise in the topic. If there were any kind of consensus among experienced and informed reviewers that info-boxes were wanted, it would have come up frequently—and it hasn't. – Tim riley talk 08:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cassianto, ScrhoCat and Tim riley. What they said. I agree. Smeat75 (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Infoboxes are not compulsory and repeatedly trying to force them is disruptive. Also, please fix your look-at-me signature. Johnuniq (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you referring to mine?HAL333 22:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An infobox would not be helpful at this article. The well-written Lead section is more accurate and balanced than any infobox would be, and I agree that it is disruptive to repeatedly open this subject, which has been discussed many times before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons I have stated elsewhere - namely that an infobox contains nothing that isn't already in a well-written lead. Jack1956 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing in this discussion has changed my opinion from the several previous times this has been proposed. In fact, the heat self-generated by just one editor merely reinforces my conviction that an infobox is a supremely bad idea in this case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, once again.--Lubiesque (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The only argument being proposed in favour here is that all composer articles are incomplete until they have an infobox. I think the Arbcom decision rules out such a generic argument. William Avery (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per the discussion below- a well-written lead does the readers a greater service than factoids about his life. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Because we have the templates to do it, I often would like to know the age people lived to. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Infoboxes are good for bios of politicians & sports athletes, only. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per everyone above as well as per consensus which only occurred 5 months ago, I'd support HAL being topic banned from infoboxes. Would be interesting to know if HAL is a former CU-blocked user. –Davey2010Talk 19:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It would make the article more clear and be a benefit to our readers. The lead alone is clearly inadequate. Also really Davey2010 going to cast aspersions on a DS topic that they need a CU block? If anything things like that make it look like you could use a topic ban. PackMecEng (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Topic banning over one comment is OTT and laughable at best, If you would like me topic banned feel free to start an ANI report. –Davey2010Talk 20:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The whole comment went right over your head huh? Such a shame. PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Your entire comment didn't make any sense and I was pretty much second guessing here, Maybe try writing in proper English in future and maybe people won't misunderstand you. –Davey2010Talk 21:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I mean looking at this comment makes me question if English is second or perhaps a third language for you. So I am not sure any kind of English would help you. If there is a particular part you have trouble with let me know and I will see what I can do to help you though.Face-wink.svg PackMecEng (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The irony of your comment is unreal!, Given Tim is also having difficulties understanding you I'd say it's your English that's the problem here, That being said sure my English isn't the greatest in the world and I've always admitted such however to my knowledge everyone's understood me and my English has never been questioned .... so again my English isn't the problem here, If I ever need help with my English I'll consult the dictionary thanks,
Also it's a shame you had to make this so personal and it's a shame you felt you had to jump in to take issue over something that was said nearly 2 weeks ago especially a comment that even the guy I requested CU for didn't even care ..... Somethings just aren't worth caring over.... –Davey2010Talk 00:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Somethings just aren't worth caring over I think we can at least agree on that. Perhaps it is time to collapse this whole side show. PackMecEng (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Woolly comments such as " It would make the article more clear" (how?) and "The lead alone is clearly inadequate" (in what way?) are not really helpful. Some constructive suggestions to back up such flocculent asseverations would be beneficial. Tim riley talk 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know, I might be one of those evil info-box militants! Seriously though it is inadequate as a quick reference for biological information about the person. Which is how it would make the article more clear as well. PackMecEng (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
"Looking at this comment makes me question if English is second or perhaps a third language for you", to coin a phrase. What you have written seems to me to make no sense at all. What biological information do you want in an info-box? His blood group? What would such biological information tell a visitor to this page about Mozart and his music? Tim riley talk 23:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Even assuming that such biological information might be of use or interest, if an infobox is inadequate as a quick reference, surely that is an argument against, rather than for one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jerome Kohl: I think you might be confused. My comment above is that the lead is inadequate for such information, which an infobox would help with. Specifically I said The lead alone is clearly inadequate. No where did I state an infobox is inadequate... PackMecEng (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see, way back at the top of the discussion. But more recently you said, "I don't know, I might be one of those evil info-box militants! Seriously though it is inadequate as a quick reference ...", which makes it sound like you have changed your mind. So, you did not mean "it" to refer to its most proximate antecedent, "infobox". I was confused. Thanks for the clarification.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah I can see how that could happen, I was actually quoting Tim riley from their oppose comment above. My mistake I will update my earlier comment and sorry about that. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry, PackMecEng. You may not be very good at making yourself clear (though it might be prudent to refrain from making sneering remarks about Davey2010's command of English, which unlike yours, if I may say so, is beyond reproach, on the evidence above) but I still wonder what biological information you feel is lacking. Tim riley talk 00:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah hahaha!!! Cool story, bro. But anyhow, what about something like {{Infobox classical composer}}? It seems to fit the bill and address all the concerns you have brought up here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Completely unsuitable. I think {{Infobox anatomy}} might be at least a little closer to what you want.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Ha, perhaps. Though I am curious, why do you think it is unsuitable? PackMecEng (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, {{Infobox classical composer}} hasn't any relevant parameters.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
What parameters would you like to see that this one lacks? Perhaps we could work something out to add them. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not a question of what parameters I would like to see. I am quite indifferent. I was only observing that your preferences on the subject are inadequately addressed by {{Infobox classical composer}} (one could even say not addressed at all), whereas {{Infobox anatomy}} would be a better fit (even though still not very good).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Well no, it is exactly a question of what you think is missing. When you say hasn't any relevant parameters while not being able to list what those parameters are that is not very helpful. Let's try another way, why do you think an infobox about anatomy is a better fit for an article about a classical composer than the classical composer infobox? PackMecEng (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean, "When did I stop beating my wife?" I don't think an infobox about anatomy is a good fit for an article about a classical composer. In fact, I don't think that infoboxes of any kind are a good idea on articles about classical composers. Whatever gave you the idea that I did?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
That saying does not make sense in this context, but that is not the point. I did not think you supported an infobox given your vote above. Though when you said it lacked certain parameters I thought you had a valid reason for not using one. Unfortunately that appears to not be the case, my apologies. PackMecEng (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng: You should pay attention to what you write. You demanded a quick reference for biological information about the person. Don't be surprised about responses that take your words literally. While I'm here, I repeat my Oppose from 2018. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek: No, I got the joke. I was just trying to be the adult in the room. PackMecEng (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Ssilver and Tim riley in the discussion below. Very convincing and coherent arguments against, in my opinion. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I've said it a few times before already, but I personally feel that all biographies on Wikipedia should have infoboxes. Most Wikipedia biographies have them because they are an extremely convenient source of quick facts for readers browsing the article. An infobox would benefit this article for the same reason. The same arguments being made here to oppose an infobox could just as easily be made to any article with an infobox, and yet somehow most articles have them. Eliteplus (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Allows readers to quickly extract infomation from the article at a glance with no major disadvantages.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support For reasons mentioned two years ago. There is absolutely no reason to make people RTFA when they are looking for quick facts. I'm not saying an IB should summarize the article, I think all biographies should have pertinent dates like Birth and Death. For those arguing against it, I'd like to know why they haven't gone to say, I don't know, George Washington and whacked that IB because, "People can scan the article for that information." It's an obtuse and nonsensical position to say that. But like I said, banning IBs seem to be the Raison D'être for some editors who become the nastiest pieces of work and immediately go to DEFCON 1 over the suggestion of one on this article. A.S. Williams (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons mentioned in every other bloody discussion, of which there have been too many already. Support moratorium on infobox discussions for this article. Support topic-banning anyone who WP:BLUDGEONs this discussion. ——SN54129 11:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


Here's a little background for editors who have just arrived. If you try to edit the infobox, you will see a message saying "please do not add an infobox, per the consensus established on the Talk page, in Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 8, Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 10, Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 12, and Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 13." But this is very misleading. There was no consensus established at Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 8. There is only a link to a discussion from 2007. In other words, there was no consensus established in Archive 8, but yet these entrenched editors have listed it as so. In Archive 10, which dates to 2011, a small discussion arose from when a new editor asked as to why there wasn't an infobox. But there was no clear consensus for or against adding an infobox. Three editors are in clear opposition to an infobox: SandyGeorgia, Nikkimaria, and Kleinzach. One editor, ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫, muses about what will come from a debate. And there are three editors in support of an infobox: Harizotoh9, TuckerResearch, and Lhb1239. So much for an "established consensus". In archive 12, there are two very minor discussions, one with only two comments, and the other three. In these two discussions, two editors oppose an infobox, and the other three support it. Meaning that in Archive 12, a majority actually supports an infobox. Archive 13 is the only one which actually contains a large discussion on the subject of an infobox. There are 5 editors in support of an infobox, and 6 editors opposed to one. Hardly a consensus. In others words, whichever anti-infobox fanatic editor posted that message is deliberately twisting the truth. NO STRONG CONSENSUS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AGAINST AN INFOBOX SPECIFICALLY ON MOZART. As a result of this manipulation, I will be deleting the misleading message.HAL333 20:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that, despite your capitals and bolding, a majority voting for something is neither here nor there: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and votes carry limited weight. It is strength of argument that carries the day, and your first argument at your !vote was full of straw men, inaccuracies and false premises. Thanks for trying to say that someone is an "anti-infobox fanatic editor", and I will remind you that the topic of Infoboxes is under ArbCom sanction - see here, in case you've forgotten (although I think you will already have been given the warning template for it previously). - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I never said that Wikipedia is a a democracy. In-fact I said quite the opposite. The editor who posted that message claimed that there was a consensus solely because one more editor opposed an infobox. I love how you are accusing me of rhetorical fallacies, when your entire opposition is based on A Priori Argument, and your first response to my proposal is to attack me with ad hominems and to use an appeal to closure and act as if the continued discussion of this is outrageous.HAL333 20:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed - completely outrageous. I should be banned from WP until I stop being a naughty boy and start agreeing to add IBs to all articles. (BTW, that is a complete mischaracterisation of my opposition to an IB on this article, but I'm sure that doesn't bother you at all – or the fact that you are happy to label another editor as an "anti-infobox fanatic editor", but will then complain about ad hominem comments. Bye bye, HAL333. I’d rather not have to dance around this same pointless little point over and over again, but—and I say this without any bad faith, or it being an ad hominem comment—the continued pressing for IBs on several occasions and over several articles is disruptive. It would be wonderful if such disruption could be curtailed, but as long as there are people who refuse to accept a long-standing consensus that has been confirmed on several occasions, then this sort of rubbish will keep festering over and over again. IBs have been the cause of better editors than you leaving the project, and one of the great shames about this sort of behaviour is that there is no comeback on those who keep driving editors away with continued shenanigans. – SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not "refuse to accept a long-standing consensus," because there is no long standing consensus, as I have explained above. And may I point out SchroCat, I have never once been blocked from Wikipedia, yet you have been blocked 9 times.HAL333 21:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Which has absolutely fuck all to do with having an IB on this article. As you're scraping the bottom of the barrel with this, I'll leave you to fester here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
"IBs have been the cause of better editors than you leaving the project" --- I, for one stopped editing pretty much at all for years (and still keep it way scaled back) quite a lot in part because of the anti-IB editors. Though I'm sure I wouldn't fall into your categorization given I must be disruptive for disagreeing with you... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I was not going to comment on this thread at all, but given the pointy comment... No, Melodia, you do also fall into the same category, and it's a shame that you - and many others - have had to leave or step away. The IB kerfuffle has been a disruptive timesink for ages, and its fair to say that it has not seen WP at its best - and that is on all sides of the debate.
I have not said that people are disruptive for disagreeing with me (that is the rather pointy bit of your comment): I have said (rather clearly, really) that "the continued pressing for IBs on several occasions and over several articles is disruptive". I stand by that. Although the IB discussions are a shadow of what they formerly were (thankfully), the continued pressing at frequent points to change the status quo on a small number of articles by a small number of people is disruptive. Again, I stand by that. - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration 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 most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs 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. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Info-boxes are useful when they give the visitor to the page a quick overview: a cricketer's statistics, a politician's posts, an animal's taxonomy, a place's geographical details and so forth. But for composers they cannot give the reader any useful overview. As Hal333 instances Robert Schumann, let us look at the i-b there. It tells us the name of his nine children and nothing whatever about his music. What could be added to tell people about his music? That he wrote some. What would we include? What criteria would be applied to the choice? The lead mentions some (not all) of RS's best-known works. We'd look pretty silly repeating them immediately alongside in the info-box. What is the best-known thing about Schumann apart from his music? That he went mad. Do we put that in the info-box? The musical artist info-box is designed for people in popular music: "label", "genre", "associated acts", "website". The works of classical composers do not lend themselves to being summarised in a few words, a fact realised by whoever added the staggeringly unhelpful info-box to Beethoven's article, which tells the reader his place and date of birth and death and then, God save us!, asks the poor reader to click into a different article altogether where he/she is confronted with a list of 148 compositions, with no indication of which are the most important. That is frankly an insult to our readers. The info-box guideline says that i-bs are "'at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts'". What facts about Mozart could we usefully put in an i-b? No, let us give a pithy overview of a composer's life and works in the lead section and not pretend we can adequately summarise them in an info-box. – Tim riley talk 09:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You know, THAT right there may be one of the only times I've seen a proper good argument why there's a contingent so vehemently against them, it even basically avoids the whole "why have an IB when the lead makes it redundant" which, really doesn't make any sense given that should be true for pretty much ANY article, and doesn't make sense anyway given that there's nothing inherently wrong with it being redundant in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Melodia. Like several of my fellow editors, above, I use info-boxes in articles I work on when the topic lends itself to them. I am currently working on various Archbishops of Canterbury, and my current one is, I think, as good an example as any of a useful info-box: dates of key events, details of key posts. I could instance articles by others, above, who, like me, object to info-boxes for composer articles but use them in other articles, where practical. I only mention this to dispel any misconception that people opposing an i-b here are against them in general, because we aren't. Tim riley talk 17:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Well @HAL333:, I suppose different folks will have different views on whether there is/was a longstanding consensus for no infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
User:GoodDay Consensuses change and develop my friend.HAL333 23:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't see it happening here, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't either.HAL333 00:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Quite so. Kudos to Hal333 for acknowledging it. There seems a consensus – 12 pro versus 3 against – that this article does not need an info-box, for the reasons stated above. Do we now need an admin to close this review? Tim riley talk 18:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you'd better have an admin close this RfC, yes. But it should be open for a month first. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC).
We already have both. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
How many years do you have in mind? Fifty sounds about right to me. No, make it more than that.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I was pinged. I don't comment (did enough in the previoous discussion). I said that I'd rather bite my tongue than participate. Peace and the happiness of editors are higher values than an infobox for Mozart. My model for a possible compromise is Brianboulton's featured article Percy Grainger. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • An info box gives a reader a quick overview of the person. Most notable people pages have an info box for that reason. Why is anyone against an info box, when it is the normal. I came to this page to read the info box. I came the talk page to see why there was not one. Telecine Guy (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    • And have you read it? If you do you will then see why. Tim riley talk 19:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes and it makes no logic at all. Is Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart so special he cannot have an info box? I do not care how "well written" the opening is. Wikipedia, for someone like Mozarta, that will be seen by many, should have a box, so a quick glance will show key dates and relationships. Why hide this quick look at key info? Johann Sebastian Bach, Robert Schumann, George Frideric Handel and Ludwig van Beethoven all have a box, some are short - some are long. Telecine Guy (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
        • See above for explanation of why e.g. the Schumann article, which you mention, is ill-served by a useless info-box. It shows "key" nothings about his music. And your highly selective list of composer articles lumbered with a useless info-box conveniently ignores the majority of Featured composer articles that don't insult our readers with such idiocy: they include Arnold Bax, Hector Berlioz, Georges Bizet, Benjamin Britten, Claude Debussy, Frederick Delius, Edward Elgar, Gabriel Fauré, Gustav Holst, Albert Ketèlbey, Gustav Mahler, Jules Massenet, André Messager, Claudio Monteverdi, Maurice Ravel, Gioachino Rossini, Camille Saint-Saëns, Charles Villiers Stanford, Arthur Sullivan, Ralph Vaughan Williams, William Walton and Richard Wagner. They have all been reviewed by numerous editors who have some understanding of how to present information about composers, and are wise enough to see that you can't give helpful summaries of a composer's work in an info-box. Tim riley talk 21:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Honestly, I'd rather stick my face in a blender than fight this war again. There are some people so fanatically devoted to the complete eradication of infoboxes that they will go to the very gates of Hell and back to keep them off this page. I simply do not care that much. I made my argument, it still stands. An infobox would be nice and helpful but it would very obviously and clearly be the end of life as we know it. A.S. Williams (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
          people so fanatically devoted to the complete eradication of infoboxes? Not in this discussion, and I'm not aware of such devotion elsewhere. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
          • I write an info box for "key dates" and "relationships" and you write "helpful summaries of a composer's work". You are the one that wrote "summaries of a composer's work in an info-box", you are the one not wise. How sad. I do not want "summaries of a composer's work in an info-box". That is why all the long worded replies to no box is not logical. They are Straw man arguments. That is writing against something the other side does not ask for ("summaries of a composer's work in an info-box"). I will reply no more, as logic and wisdom are not here. Telecine Guy (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2020 (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.

Requested move 3 May 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wolfgang Amadeus MozartMozartWP:COMMONNAME a google result shows 132,000,000 results for "Mozart"; while "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" pings 54,000,000. An example for a similar discussion is Beyonce Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Poe's Law is strong with this one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE "neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness" and apart from people who's first name is unknown I can't think of anyone who is titled here with only their last name (WP:CONSISTENCY). Also MOS:DABPRIMARY gives Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as an example for using his full name on Mozart (disambiguation) even though he is primary for his surname. I don't think most people who know something about him would only know his last name per WP:NCA unlike Madonna for example not being known by her last name much at all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While I hate Amadeus, and Mozart never used that himself, and in article prose I always use just "Mozart", I don't think that's a fair article name. Sounds a bit like Madonna to me. Look at concert programs, listen on radio: announcers usually give him a first name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per advice in WP:CONCISE and WP:SINGLENAME to retain the title as-is. -- Netoholic @ 09:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per those above who have read the actual guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seriously? Against guidelines.Smeat75 (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. By this logic we should move William Shakespeare to Shakespeare. WP:CONCISE says, "Neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness. Thus Oprah Winfrey (not Oprah)." — the Man in Question (in question) 19:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Virtually all first-rank classical composers are routinely referred to by their surname alone (with the weird exception of César Franck), but that is a far cry from naming their articles accordingly. This would be the thin edge of the wedge for Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff and all the rest. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:20, 3 May 2020 (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.

Today's revert[edit]

I just undid a wiki data edit by a sock which produced an infobox. I've never seen this type of code before and as it was not the normal splurge of coded diarrhea you usually get with infoboxes, I reverted it. As this was inadvertently done against my restrictions, I've self reverted. I wouldn't, of course, put up much of a protest if someone were to revert me. Just sayin'. CassiantoTalk 10:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek, I couldn't possibly comment on your revert of me, but thank you. ArbCom would now want me to challenge you for being "disruptive". I of course, won't. Many thanks. CassiantoTalk 10:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)