Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Infobox 2

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Mozart, c. 1781, detail from portrait by Johann Nepomuk della Croce
Born	Joannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart (baptized name), other names (1756-01-27)27 January 1756 Getreidegasse 9, Salzburg, Holy Roman Empire
Died	5 December 1791(1791-12-05) (aged 35) Vienna, Holy Roman Empire, cause disputed
Occupation	Composer
Works	List of compositions
Spouse	Constanze Mozart
Children	6, two survived infancy: Karl Thomas Mozart Franz Xaver Wolfgang Mozart
Parent(s)	Leopold Mozart (father) Anna Maria Mozart (mother)
Relatives	Mozart family
Signature

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)

@DeCausa: Upon reading the resulting discussion I have some thoughts I'd like to contribute to this conversation.

1. As mentioned by @Avrand6: 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 Wikipedia: 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 Avrand6 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)

References

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)

Suggested Merge

The following discussion 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.

---

I accidentally bumped into Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and the Catholic Church. The material in this second article was de-merged from this main article by Opus33 to keep the main article to a reasonable size and allow the section of Mozart's Catholicism to grow. Usually when this happens, it's because the sub-article deals with something so large that it can't be dealt with adequately in the original article, which retains a short paragraph summarising the information, and a "main article" link to the article dealing with it in depth. In this case there is almost nothing in the main article about Mozart's faith, and merely a buried link to the second article deep in the section on character and appearance, and adjacent to some stuff about scatological humour. This means that a reader is extremely unlikely to find the second article. The sub-article simply isn't working as intended. I therefore propose that the material be merged back again.

Less happily, I wonder why there is so little about Mozart's Catholicism in the main article? If it's important enough to need the second article, there should be more here, and if it isn't important enough, then the second article runs the risk of looking like a biased point of view. I am therefore also suggesting that if the merger doesn't go ahead, we should introduce some summary of Mozart's Catholicism here, to give a better link to the other article, while if it does, we should discuss how much material to merge back without creating a lop-sided article here. Elemimele (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Elemimele, this article is missing enormous amounts of information on Mozart's music and legacy, so it is not surprising (and perhaps not pressing) if religious information is missing as well. As for the merge, such requests tend to sit around for years upon years until anyone actually goes ahead and does a merge (if there is agreement in the first place, that is), so please keep that in mind. To your point, the sources of the current Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and the Catholic Church does not convince me that it is a topic in itself, given that they are all general overviews, not specific studies. Aza24 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – I think the reasons for splitting this aspect from the main article are still valid. Given the state of the WAM & Church article, such a merge would not improve the main article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Michael Bednarek I'm inclined to agree that the WAM & Church article isn't great. I'll come clean: to me it looked possibly like a point of view on Mozart's religious convictions being pushed in a separate place to the Mozart article to avoid scrutiny by those who watch this article. Can I clarify, is your objection to the merge that the other article is bad (so you don't want a load of stuff from there brought to this article), or is it that Mozart's religious convictions are a sufficiently large topic that they can't be dealt with in the main article (so you think the existence of the second article is necessary)? If the former, I'm wondering whether it's a case for AfD?

  Aza24, yes, I was rather afraid things might just linger for ever. I don't think the current situation is right. Either that second article does have valuable information, in which case we need to link to it properly from here, or it doesn't, in which case we need to get rid of it. I don't know enough about Mozart to assess which is true. Or am I being over-simplistic? Elemimele (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  The other article isn't great, so a merge would be a disimprovement of the main article, but it isn't unsalvageable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Elemimele, you are correct that (unconsciously or not) the split was certainly done to remove scrutiny from this article, which is why the current article has so little comparable information. I do not think an AFD would result in deletion. I find it difficult and rather overwhelming to judge and contextualize this specific situation in light of the huge defects of the main Mozart article, so I don't know what I can say to help. Aza24 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2022 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

change "Badura-Skoda, Eva, and Paul Badura-Skoda. Interpreting Mozart: The Performance of His Piano Pieces and Other Compositions (Routledge, 2018)" from "Further reading" section to (Routledge, 2008). The publication year is wrong. Ws143bach (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done – Not necessarily. There is a 2nd edition 2018. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Mozart and the Miserere myth

In Rome, he heard Gregorio Allegri's Miserere twice in performance, in the Sistine Chapel, and wrote it out from memory, thus producing the first unauthorized copy of this closely guarded property of the Vatican. is plain false; as shown even by the sources cited here to support it (for ex, Chrissochoidis 2010, p. 86-87, states, right after describing this, that the only documentary evidence of this is a letter by Leopold Mozart, who did in fact, as one would say, slightly embellish things elsewhere, and that "there have been concerns about aspects of the story, particularly the claim that this was the first unauthorised copy of the work"; and describes [p. 87-89] multiple performances in London c. 1740 (a full three decades before Mozart's supposed unauthorised transcription), and that Mozart, having met "every important musician in London" in 1764-65, is far more likely to have been acquainted with the piece at this point than in Rome. This is also, if with less details, given in Byram-Wigfield 2017.

This should either be removed entirely, or, preferably, rewritten to explain the status of this little story as, indeed, not much more than a little story. 173.179.105.16 (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

See also the rewritten Miserere (Allegri)#History for a way in which this could be done (although obviously would require a significant summary for this article). 173.179.105.16 (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I rewrote the section to clarify that this is more of an urban legend than an accurate historical account. Please ping me if you have further corrections. Thanks for your request :) Actualcpscm (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: Might just do with altering this footnote:<ref>{{harvnb|Gutman|2000|p=271}}. For details of the story, see Miserere (Allegri) and Mozart's compositional method.</ref> to something like this,<ref>{{harvnb|Gutman|2000|p=271}}</ref>{{efn|For further details of the story, see Miserere (Allegri)#History.}}

173.179.105.16 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Implemented, after no technical struggles whatsoever. To ensure that you will never again struggle with wikitext, I recommend WP:SIRH. Thanks for your suggestions! Actualcpscm (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Michael Bednarek: 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)

[1]. 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. Yannn11 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)

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)

German

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

This is a reasonable question, but the reasoning here is irrelevant to the article. For our purposes, Mozart's nationality is whatever reliable sources say it is. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Please look at the history and the maps of the Holy Roman Empire and tell us that all those born there ought to be categorized as German. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

To be fair I don't think the OP is saying that being born in the Holy Roman Empire means they should be described as German. They're saying that at a time when there was no German state, why is it that two ethnic Germans (Bach and Beethoven) are described as "German" and another (Mozart) isn't. It is a question of how each of the three are described in reliable sources. I haven't checked but I suspect the RS may well have double-standards be inconsistent by convention. Mozart is normally described as "Austrian" in RS. Rather than describing the other two with then equivalents (?Thuringian, Saxon, Westphalian?? Not sure exactly) probably RS go for the more convenient and recognisable "German". DeCausa (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Little-known fact: as a teenager in Salzburg, he started the first classical rock band, called "Wolfgang and the Holy Romans". Levivich (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You have no respect. EEng 18:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Mozart & Bach were born in what's now Germany, while Beethoven was born in what's now Austria. Don't know why there's inconsistency among them. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't generally do anachronism. Brueghel isn't "Belgian" and Muhammad isn't "Saudi". DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have that mixed up. Mozart was born in Salzburg, which is now in Austria. Beethoven was born in Bonn, which is now in Germany (it was the capital of West Germany from 1949 to 1990, and the seat of government of reunited Germany from 1990 to 1999.). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently so. Well then, what are we gonna call Mozart? All three were born in 'then' the Holy Roman Empire. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not a matter about which Wikipedia editors can decide for themselves. As pointed out above, it's down to how reliable sources describe his nationality. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Mozart Infobox RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is that an infobox should be included. The main opposing arguments were that an infobox would emphasize decontextualized or unimportant facts over more pertinent information about Mozart's work that needs to be in prose, but the general consensus here is that it is desirable to present basic biographical details in an infobox. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

---

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

• Pinging every editor who has discussed an infobox on this talk page in 2022 or 2023: User:Aza24, User:Thrakkx, User:Melodia, User:Gerda Arendt, User:Danial Bass, User:The helper5667, User:AHI-3000, User:DividedFrame, User:Mottengott, User:Antiok 1pie, User:Michael Bednarek, User:DeCausa, User:CactiStaccingCrane, User:Avrand6, User:Chefs-kiss, User:Onetwothreeip, User:OliveYouBean, User:Nikkimaria, User:Aneson, User:Maxeto0910, User:Spy-cicle, User:SuperSkaterDude45, User:Jojhutton, User:Yannn11, User:TheFriendlyFas2, User:Paragon Deku, User:Damilaville. If I've missed anyone, please ping them. Levivich (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I will simply quote an editor from a discussion seven years ago: Usually, people, once a consensus is reached, consider it as the golden yardstick to which everybody may conform. Even more so if the process of consensus building is reiterated more than once with identical results: the “golden yardstick” becomes a “platinum stick”, almost untouchable and immovable. To me, that a certain choice is questioned time and again, is in itself a sign that the consensus building process has a fatal flaw. In these cases we ought to follow the path of inclusion, not that of censorship, as much as possible. On the question on hand, if you consider Wikipedia to be a strongly multimedia encyclopedia, an audio-visual tool for the advancement of knowledge, where words play a role in union with many other actors, than you will agree that an infobox is almost indispensable, even when it repeats the lead: what is different is the format. Any means are welcomed to catch the attention of potential readers. Wikipedia isn't read in the calm rooms of a Bodleian Library or in any other library, it's read everywhere in the world but in libraries. So let try to build some robust multimedia pages, with infoboxes, quotation boxes, images and any other audio and visual helping device. Thrakkx (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support adding an infobox. Almost all biographical articles on Wikipedia have one, and Mozart shouldn't be an odd exception. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support an infobox. An infobox benefits the reader by collecting basic information in a familiar and easily accessible location. The reader suffers when this information is deliberately scattered throughout the article because some editors could not agree on adding an infobox. Aneson (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support I've made my previous arguments in favor of a userbox nearly a month ago as of writing this but as an extra opinion: It's pretty obvious that there is a new consensus that's for an infobox rather than against one and nobody here seems opposed to its inclusion, SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I'll just copy my previous comment from the foregoing discussion:

An article of this length and popularity about such a historically relevant person, the details of which have been spread over several main articles, must have an infobox. Apart from frustration among readers and edit wars among editors as well as regular discussions about it on the talk page, nothing results from the largely unfounded rejection of an infobox.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I’m strongly in favour of inclusion here. The infobox would help readers access key information quickly and uphold the values of Wikipedia in making the world’s knowledge easily accessible to all. Damilaville (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• In favour: I think there is various reasons in favour:

1. As brought up by another user on this talk page that for people not familiar with this particular issue on wikipedia will be caught off guard

2. I'd like further elaboration on why exactly the Mozart infobox spreads misinformation

3. When bringing this up with other members I was told that wikipedia prject regarding classical musicians just don't like infoboxes however pages are there to inform; and also for public use.

4. I understand the idea of controversy within a field but if that argument is to be used then literally every academic can come out of the woods and say that no infoboxes should be present in any article. I do understand wikipedia uses academics as references (this is not an impeachment of that policy) however the fact that there is some facts not 100% confirmed doesn't mean that an infobox cannot be included. Infoboxes can be edited as the academic landscape changes.

Chefs-kiss (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, an infobox is sorely needed. Brad (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes It should not get into subjective items such as "influenced" "influenced by" "known for" etc. But dates, places of birth and residence, etc. are frequently searched and it's helpful to have that information and context up top. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. For the reasons I mentioned above, I think the burden of argumentation lies on those opposing an inclusion of information already verifiably provided within the article. Additionally, I believe exclusion is more a result of the transformation of this page into an ideological battleground against infoboxes period rather than for any reason this page in particular should not have one. Given clear desire from non-involved editors for an info box, inclusion seems beneficial. Paragon Deku (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support There are clear benefits to adding an infobox to organize information in a way users expects to see it, it makes the article more useful for the reader. In the above current discussions I didn't see an argument why it shouldn't be included except to look at the archives from years ago. Mousymouse (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - even though I personally prefer infoboxes limited to politicians, royals & athletes bios. I must accept that infoboxes in bios, is (IMHO) the general consensus on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support I have no real clue how to use this site, but I just want to say as a frequent user and non-editor, it feels like people chose a hill to die on with this article, when the infobox thing is incredibly useful and popular. Deeply invested people can often lose sight of the trees. Even if only the most concrete information is included, that's still useful. As it stands, it looks like an unfinished article compared to what people expect. 2405:6583:3060:2200:C20:EC8:79F7:139B (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Beethoven has one, Mozart should have something similar. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I believe that the infobox exposes useful information about the article in a way that is consistent with other composers. In the same way that one can expect to find the subject's birthday at the start of the lead, so too can one expect to find certain details in the infobox. Yannn¹¹ 14:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As someone who intially supported an infobox in the previous 2020 RfC, I have changed my mind on the matter after reading more about it, and do not think infoboxes particularly suit composer articles, including this Mozart article. I am not going to repeat all the other reasons why people oppose infoboxes here as they have already been made numerous times.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I .ean can you at least discuss them please? So that we understand why you dont agree? Chefs-kiss (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Others have already made such arguments so there is not much point in me rehashing them here. You can read them below or in the talk page archives.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging users who previously participated in the 2020 RfC who have not already been pinged: @HAL333, Dimadick, Cassianto, SchroCat, Tim riley, Smeat75, Johnuniq, Ssilvers, Jack1956, Jerome Kohl, William Avery, Jip Orlando, SusanLesch, Davey2010, PackMecEng, Davey2010, Serial Number 54129, A s williams, Eliteplus, and Isaidnoway:.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Missed a ping @Michael Bednarek:  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I use them often, most often "death_date" to determine a subject's age at death. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support I'm not necessarily a big fan of infoboxes in the sense that they can sometimes become a focus for obsessives who get bogged down in complex issues such as, in the case of bios, nationality, religion etc. But if they are used for basic indisputable data in bios such as birth, death dates etc then I don't see why this artcle should be different to any other bio article. Per SPECIFICO. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See Signpost report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the information in the box must already be discussed in the body of the article and the Lead section, and likely has also just been seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts. (3) The IB's overly bold format would distract readers and discourage them from reading the text of the article. (4) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa), and vandalism frequently creeps in that is hard to detect because of the lack of referencing in the box. (5) Boxes in liberal arts biographies like this attract fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (6) IBs in arts bios distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Although it is, of course, legitimate to hold the opinion that "most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not" benefit from infoboxes it's difficult to dispute that most articles in liberal arts fields do, in fact, have infoboxes. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Discussion of each the issues listed above
  

  Issue 1. The idea that factoids about he died, what age he was, where he was born, his parents etc are irrelevant is somewhat curious
  

  Issue 1.1: Most of the times the WP: Lead section does contextualize and can add information, there's no reason for one invalidating the other
  

  Issue 2: The Infobox often acts like a summary, most often sections will repeat when the person was born and where, in addition to that most articles have a personal life section which elaborates even more.

  Issue 3: The fact is that people sometimes just access wikipedia to look up a quick fact like where a person lived. We shouldn't forget that we want articles to be accessible
  

  Issue 4: There is no issue with updating things as scholarship changes. As I mentioned above most fields have controversy, if the idea is that infoboxes cannot be included if there's controversy a lot of history articles would never get an infobox
  

  Issue 4.1: Regarding vandalism and citation we can establish the precedent that the infbox must have references by including them at the time of creation or the other proposal of including an infobox that indicates

  Issues 5: Well if people would elucidate on a list on what they find controversial we can include factors that aren't controversial OR look to the academic consensus for sources

  Issue 6: The idea that people focus on infoboxes when editing seems a value judgement. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ssilvers, who makes cogent arguments. SN54129 22:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Infoboxes are a valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Wikipedia. Data analysis of Wikipedia articles show that users find the information contained in the infobox valuable.[2] Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities. It is understandable there's reluctance to adopt something new, but infoboxes have been around long enough that they are an expected part of the user interface. RfC's like this pop up and each time support for the infobox increases. Eventually it will be included in this article as the community accepts infoboxes. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I think things have moved on a lot since 2013. Infoboxen are in almost all lengthy biographies now (even Homer has one and there are far more objective facts about Mozart than about him), so readers are used to using them as a way to access basic information (dates and places of birth/death, link to "List of compositions", links to articles about family members). Infoboxen are also capable of far more subtlty than they once were. Sidenote: it strikes me that the lead for this article is very unusually short and doesn't really give much of a guide to the contents (contrast Beethoven). I wonder whether that is because editors have been worried about too focussed on using the lead for the basic information that should be in the infobox. Furius (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. An infobox at this article will tell readers nothing of note about the individual: it contains no important information that helps readers "get a quick overview", but worse: it will likely misinform or mislead them. The pertinent information is in the lead, where it is presented with context and nuance. Looking at the [last version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart&diff=prev&oldid=1143604215] that was added most recently we have the following entries for Mozart:

Name: we have a whole article about Mozart’s name and its various permutations

Cause of death: another area of disagreement about which there is another article looking into the various theories

Family: apparently we need four different entries to provide details, which gives more weight to his family than his profession

Signature: because that really explains a lot, doesn’t it...

So an IB will show two fields where there is considerable academic and popular disagreement, four fields about his family and a pointless signature. I’m not sure how this confusion is actively going to help readers. The short answer is that it won’t. By choosing one disputed factoid over another for an IB field, we mislead and do readers a disservice. We should not be deciding which one we prefer.

I see, as usual, a lot of IDONTLIKEIT votes where there is no recourse to either policy or guideline, or to how an IB is relevant on this article, or how useful it would be to display misleading factoids that will confuse our readers. Studies of reading patterns on WP show that at any point in an article, a reader’s eye is unwillingly drawn to images, boxes quotes - all the non-body parts of an article. This is true of IBs, where they act as a distraction and one, in this case, which will contain misleading information. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

As noted by the closer of the last RfC, the ArbCom case only really leaves IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT as the basis for a decision: Like all infobox discussions, the reasons to include or exclude given below are almost entirely couched in terms of personal preference. Current Arbcom guidance on the issue is that (w)hether to include an infobox...is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. The current status of policy & procedures is in line with this guidance. This means that editor preferences are really the only basis on which to judge infobox discussions and should not be discarded solely on WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. DeCausa (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That was a terrible basis on which to make a close, and I hope one that is not repeated on any RFC. It goes against all guidance on how to determine consensus and specifically breached the ArbCom strictures relating to their various decisions on IBs. Deciding whether to have an IB or not is not solely based on personal preference (I’ve formed articles with them and without them, only including where they are of benefit, for example); to claim that discussions are only down to IDONTLIKEIT was utterly wrong. That method of closure is rather lazy and ignores any well-founded comments from any party and is simply vote counting. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find any evidence of the close being challenged on that basis. Having read that RfC (I didn't participate) I came to the same conclusion as the closer. only including where they are of benefit seems another way of saying ILIKEIT. I'm sure the closer of this will address the point in their close. DeCausa (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how putting disputed factoids in an infobox is much different from putting them in the lead. To take death for example: "his death at the age of 35, the circumstances of which are uncertain and much mythologized" (lead) and "* Death: 5 December 1791 (aged 35) Vienna, Holy Roman Empire, cause disputed" (infobox) are basically the same. Neither is more misleading than the other (the piped link in the lead is currently a bit of an easter egg, but of course that is changeable). In my opinion (and admit it is an opinion), the presence of "disputed" right there alongside the objective facts of date and location draws more attention to the scholarly debate and the existence of WP's article thereon. Furius (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I have come to regard infoboxes as part of the essential style of Wikipedia, at least for articles that could be considered part of a group, where they allow at-a-glance access to the information fields (or navigation) common across that group. I consider composers, or even just biographies, to be legitimate such groups. Particularly where we already have a portrait, it seems natural to extend the portrait box with some concise data points.
  I see some concern that those data points could be misleading, but I don't see any reason why the inclusion of an infobox would require us to put misleading information in it.
  Additionally, when it comes to ranking the fame of composers, Bach, Beethoven and Mozart stand out as a near-undisputed top 3, and I believe it is valuable to have consistency between them. Naturally, the other two have infoboxes. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support adding an infobox as it summarizes encyclopedic content valuably for someone this famous and notable. Anyone who wants to read further is still able to, and I have seen very little evidence presented here that this infobox, on this page would mislead readers in any way. Instead, I see evidence that other users note consistency, mirroring the LEAD's facts, and collating and presenting facts that are normally spread across several articles. I find all of these arguments persuasive. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per SchroCat and others. No purpose any more for infoboxes, now that searxh engines (Google, Bing) have mechanisms which display basic info (datea fo birth and death etc.) automatically. It would be nice if instead of fatuous arguments over infoboxes some editors could take the trouble to improve the very feeble article here, but I get the increasing feeling these days that there are active editors, some of whom support this proposal, who are more interested in the fancy icing than in the substance of the cake.--Smerus (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  I’m a bit confused by the argument that Google/Bing/search engine of choice can provide a summary of key facts about a person better than Wikipedia editors. This can lead to inaccuracies. For example, at time of writing, a search for “Mozart nationality” yields the rather quixotic result of “Roman”.

  Relying on third parties to infobox-like synopses of Wikipedia articles is, in my mind, as misguided as eliminating the leads of articles to let ChatGPT write them. Damilaville (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  The SEO will sometimes pull from wikipedia itself, since search engines...search information from already existing sources. the SEO usually pulls from infoboxes since it is brief and maximizes keysearch terms Chefs-kiss (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Won't it just pull this data from wikidata in the absence of an infobox? Furius (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  I can't confirm that but I imagine the algorithm is configured to pull from infoboxes and if not going to other sources. Checking the knowledge clips that google pulls out such as "When was Mozart born and died?" the algorithm pulls from operaphila, not WP Chefs-kiss (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty sure search engines pull that data from infoboxes. Levivich (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per opposers. The last one added (diff above) was completely useless, despite being rather long. It is often difficult to find the right things to put in an infobox for figures from the arts, and that is especially the case here. For example, you can't just call him a "composer" when he was possibly the most famous virtuoso pianist of his period. Giving all his children, but none of his compositions is just ..... words fail me. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean....he was a composer. That was his work. Perhaps it could also include pianist. People know Mozart was significant. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  And your point is? Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  That we can list composer. DaVinci is still a painter and Socrates still a philosopher, and they both did incredible pioneering work in their profession. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  also what do you mean by the "last one added (dif above)" to which comment are you referring to? Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  [3], given a bit above. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  It did give a link to List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, which the reader otherwise does not encounter until the start of section 3 (over halfway through the article). Furius (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes but to learn the very basics of his life which "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" WP: INFOBOXPURPOSE. Yes the compositions are crucial to his contribution but perhaps not a key factoid. That however is a personal judgement on my end but the key factoids about his life can be included in the infobox, and it does need to exclude the composition. Again if a user wants to learn more they can always scroll down Chefs-kiss (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, I generally find infoboxes useful and am not convinced by arguments here to the contrary.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnbod's, Ssilvers' and others' arguments. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ssilvers, SchroCat, and Smerus. Infoboxperson's are good for sports and political figures (and others), but are uniquely challenging for arts figures. See Francis Bacon (painter) for an example of a figure that is better off without one. We should encourage the reader to read the article and not rely on factoids without nuance. An infobox tells the reader the what but not the why. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  "We should encourage the reader to read the article"

  It should be up to the reader to decide if they want to read the whole article or just look up some key information. It's very patronizing to force the reader to read the article by deliberately omitting a potentially useful infobox.

  "factoids without nuance"

  Could you clarify what you mean by that? I cannot comprehend how information in the infobox are "without nuance". Most information in the infobox are merely objective facts, and more disputed information can be explained in more detail with an explanatory note or link to the corresponding section in the article or, if given, to the main article.--

  Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Infoboxes allow readers to find key important details very quickly without needing to read an entire article or section and there is really no downside to having one in any article. If a specific parameter should not be used, then just don't use it. Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Without question. Displaying essential details for quick access is a HUGE benefit on the pages that have them, and has literally no downside. It's not our place to dictate to users how they should use the encyclopedia - if some users don't need to access basic facts quickly, they have the option of simply not reading it. There is literally no downside to including one. PianoDan (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Infoboxes provide readers with basic information about the subject in a quick and easy to access format. It saves the reader time, not having to skim paragraphs of prose to access the basic information. In some cases it can be more accessible to readers with disabilities than lengthy prose. It can also be a handy navigation aid by providing links to sub articles and related articles, eg to list of works, where they can be quickly and easily seen and clicked (near the top of the page). I am not convinced that the weaknesses of an infobox (eg oversimplicity) even come close to outweighing the benefits. Levivich (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Infoboxes are an integral part of editing and more importantly of the reader experience. They allow us to cater both to the reader who is looking only for the basic facts concerning the person quickly and easily presented and to those who want a lengthy and more detailed artcle. The "repetition" argument is simply a canard. The Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't have a problem with "repetition" via infoboxes [4]. Nor does the Australian Dictionary of Biography [5].

The other "oppose" reasons are equally weak.

•They contain "unimportant factoids"?? The dates and places of birth and death, the subject's primary occupation are not factoids, they are highly salient and essential facts of a biography which is why music reference books include them in the first sentence of an entry. Not the current WP artcle, though. As for the omission of [virtuoso] pianist from the box, well this is also missing from the WP lede and given quite short shrift in the article overall. Simply add pianist to the occupation field, although I should add this is not what Mozart is primarily known for, c.f. his entry in Grove.

•This is the most recently removed infobox. There is nothing in that box which is misleading, requiring nuance, or not part of essential biographical information.

•There is no evidence for the assertion that vandalism is harder to detect in infoboxes than in the article text. In fact, if the "oppose" arguments are taken at face value, the deleterious attention grabbing nature of infoboxes should make it even easier to detect. Note also that infoboxes can contain refs and/or footnotes if required. I have used them on rare occasions. The additional proposal that Mozart's infobox will attract "fan cruft" is frankly preposterous.

•The notion that an infobox attracts less valuable editors and its absence will somehow make them edit the article text instead is equally preposterous and patronizing to boot. Editors do all kinds of valuable work that keeps WP working for our readers, from adding categories to patrolling new artcles. The main thing is that we are producing an encyclopedia that benefits all kinds of readers on all kinds of devices, not simply our own notion of how they should be using it. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support I don't think infoboxes are useless. If they were useless, then we should also remove them from other articles (but I don't think that would be a good idea). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Try to be less...simplistic! I don't think infoboxes are useless either. My comment was (very clearly) about the specific infobox linked to on this specific article. I set out my views on when infoboxes are and are not useful several years ago, in particular here and here, and various people have thanked me for them over the years. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    This RFC does not propose any specific infobox. (Intentionally.) It asks whether the article should have a infobox, not the "specific infobox linked to on this specific article" (I am unaware of any such specific infobox BTW; there have been several infoboxes added, and they were different -- I checked before launching the RFC, to see if I wanted to propose a specific one). Levivich (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    • Sigh! linking for the third time in this section. It's rather revealing that you've looked at several versions of a Mozart infobox, but don't feel able to put any of them forward. In general, I think such RFCs work better with a specific proposal to discuss. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

      My impression from reading the “oppose” comments is that they oppose any and all infobox versions in this article. Full stop. (They’re basically all versions of Infobox person with varying use of parameters.) In my view, it’s better to establish the general principal first. Is it the case that you might be in favour of Infobox person but limited to certain parameters? Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

      Jonbod's criticism of the framing of this RfC is a fair point. Being British, I'm reminded of the Brexit referendum (!) Leave...ok, but on what terms? 4 years of chaos follows because "leave" didn't mean a single, specific and clear outcome. DeCausa (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

      Please feel free to discuss below. Nemov (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

      I take your point but as far as I can see, the “oppose” folk basically want a “hard Brexit” in this article and so far have indicated that no version of an Infobox would be acceptable to them. I could be wrong though… Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

      • Yes, you could well be wrong. My view is that I don't see the necessity for an infobox, and if we have one it should be as short and useful as possible, not filled up with nonsense cruft like his many middle names in Latin, address at birth, excessive family details, and hardly anything (and partly inaccurate) on his music. We do all realize, I hope, that for the majority of our readers, using mobile, the infobox appears at the end of the lead? Contrary to what someone says above, there is a link to the list of compositions in the 2nd line of the lead, not that most readers are likely to find that helpful so early on. One might ask hard-liners like Gerda whether there is any article that should not have an infobox in her view. In fact making a useful box for Mozart would be rather difficult, much more so than most supporters seem to realize. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

        • Johnbod, if we have infoboxes for similar articles, then there is no reason to prevent this article from having one as well. I personally think it's rather baffling to oppose having basic information neatly outlined in an infobox. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

          Yes, I can see you find it baffling! In fact many figures from the arts don't have infoboxes, though many do. You put your finger on the issue with "basic information neatly outlined". That is emphatically not what the linked-to infobox provided - that would be more like "unimportant personal personal details spread out in a sprawling format". Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Voceditenore, who makes cogent arguments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - per the very good arguments raised by others. How sad that people are still arguing about this all these years on. 92.40.219.203 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  @92.40.219.203: With all due respect to the editors advocating against an infobox, I would say Voceditenore does a fine job refuting these "very good arguments" SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support — I see no reason to not include an infobox, and hopefully this discussion—lasting over a decade at this point—can be put to rest. I'll add that infoboxes can be queried. DuckDuckGo uses information from infoboxes to display information on the right hand side of search results. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. One could argue that the fact that this conversation keeps occurring might mean that the consensus is in fact not established. Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Or even that there IS a reasonably strong consensus, and it is being strenuously opposed by a few very active members of the minority. PianoDan (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean when I asked around on the discord all I heard was that the project in charge of this page doesn't like infoboxes....which like ok? Wikipedia pages aren't owned. And despite me asking for concrete listing of why exactly the infobox spreads misinfo i have yet to receive an answer. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Its very readonable to have an infobox in an article. I see no reason why one cannot be included here. JOJ ^Hutton 16:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As a first-timer to this debate, I would like to point out that Infoboxes are not mandatory. This policy, rule, what-have-you should remain so for certain classes. This is one of them. These classes should be defined by the project that is in their purview (and not the general editor or drive-bys who have no stake in the article or its subject). They do not care for the intensive article's progress from infancy to maturity here; or the article tone; or the nuance needed to impart and enhance the understanding of the subject. This project does not need the overwhelming "I want it easy, and I want it now," thinking of the influx of many new editors here (many who history has shown will be gone five years hence).

This article—and ones like it—is much better without the McDonald's, instant-menu board (what I consider the typical IB to be), and should instead be viewed more like a fine dining experience to be read or savoured slowly and deliberately. These are some of history's greats—their articles should be treated as such. Please leave one of the classiest parts of Wikipedia alone and un-marred by un-needed infoboxes. (And let's get rid of the one at Beethoven too.) Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

should be defined by the project that is in their purview (and not the general editor or drive-bys who have no stake in the article or its subject). Per WP:OWN that sort of thinking has no place in Wikipedia, thankfully. DeCausa (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) It is important that wiki articles cater to all guests, not just the classy ones. (2) By virtue of being an encyclopaedia, wiki is always going to be more towards the fast food end of the spectrum (I mean, "wiki" literally means "quick"). For those who want to savour, a book on the topic will always be a better option than a wiki page, because it can go into greater detail and is a secondary source.

I don't think it helps to think in terms of new/old editors. All we ever have are current editors. If the current editors have a different opinion in five years, they can reconsider this 'issue'. Furius (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

But does the "fast food" reader want to know all Mozart's middle names in Latin, or the names of his relatively undistinuished children? They would be much better off just reading the lead. Like many figures from the arts, Mozart can't usefully be summed up in a handful of standard infobox factoids. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll never understand this kind of logic.

When some readers prefer the fast food style of content accessing, e.g. simply because they are not particularly interested in Mozart but just need some key information about him as fast as possible without much effort presented in a clear manner, then why should they be forced to read the article if they are not interested in it?

You can still enjoy a "fine dining experience" by simply reading the whole article carefully if you like; the infobox won't hinder you from doing so. You lose nothing when an infobox is added, but it's very beneficial for many others.

Not to mention the fact that Wikipedia is first and foremost a source for quick information retrieval, and not intended to provide an amusing reading experience (well, at least the aforementioned informative aspect has a higher priority and should not be impaired in favor of this).-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This project does not need the overwhelming "I want it easy, and I want it now," thinking of the influx of many new editors here (many who history has shown will be gone five years hence). You want more than a five year commitment from editors? 😂 Levivich (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that from the author perspective we shouldn't have the "lets be quick about it" mentality for sure. However I think what the general feeling is that while we as contributors should definitely not consider the page done and easy, most users do not contribute to wikipedia and instead use it as a quick way of getting info. I think that's what they are trying to convey, not that the issue of mozart is closed and done. The issue is the general public, after all wikipedia at the end of the day is an encyclopaedia. Chefs-kiss (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. He doesn't have an infobox? wat? An infobox has become an invaluable format of information, and not because it has become a standard. It's true that most articles have an infobox, but I believe it to be a positive evolution towards utility. It is the organizing and formatting of information in a plain way that benefits readers and compliments the article text. Their utility comes from being structured data, distinct from prose and beneficial to adding a structured overview. Infoboxes do not distract readers or editors from the prose. There is comparatively very little information to the prose there, and most of that information is stuff that is immutable (do dates of birth change each year?). Content disputes (incl. vandalism) in the infobox are some significant reason for opposing it, but to me those seem to be typical content disputes (or typical vandalism). To me, I see that an infobox should be used in biographies unless there's, like, zero information that goes into the infobox. SWinxy (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

I have the question as to why the infobox would spread misinformation? Chefs-kiss (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.