Template talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removing quotes around foreign nicknames[edit]

Could someone point out which guideline or policy demands the removal of quotes around "Nannerl" and "Bäsle", as in this recent edit by Reywas92 (talk · contribs). I would have thought that nicknames in a foreign language are two arguments for using quotes. Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Georg Nissen[edit]

Georg Nikolaus von Nissen wasn't Mozart's relative --მოცარტი (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct, he wasn't — at least not directly. Do you think he should be omitted altogether from this template or should he be place under "Biography"? I think he should stay where he is. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

you're right--მოცარტი (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Add "Mozart and smallpox"[edit]

I propose to add the article Mozart and smallpox to the template, after Mozart family grand tour:

Any objections? Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Background color[edit]

An editor changed the background colour from "tan" to "wheat" because it "provides better contrast for the text". That may well be so (although I'm not convinced about the overall aesthetics), but many other composers' template also use this colour, and I think such a change should be discussed first, probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers. Following WP:BRD, I'll revert that change. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates was just a silly nightmare scenario that would never ever happen in real life! Just when I think my opinion of Wikipedia couldn't be lower, something like this happens. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. James470 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Where do you see an edit war? This is simply Wikipedia's bold, revert, discuss cycle at work. As for the essay you quote, it also says: "Standardization is generally a good thing." And while it advises against a revert, it fails to apply a similar caution against the initial change. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe no one could see World War II brewing back in 1934. Or maybe I'm wrong here and there won't be an edit war over this silly thing. Regardless, I see far more effort being put into details like this than on trying to use more than one source for articles or at least giving proper credit to the one source we fall back on for a whole crapload of articles. James470 (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mega template[edit]

The recent radical expansion to a "mega template" needs to be discussed before implementation. I find the large template entirely unhelpful because it is just too large; see WP:NAVBOX, WP:NAV. Apart from this fundamental objection, some specific errors in this implementation jump off the page: the numbering of the "other" symphonies (Posthorn Serenade is Symphony No. 320? etc.) The link to Masses? The "Missing" group contains exactly what? The piano concertos 1–4 are the subject of 1 article, but should they each be linked to what turns out to be the same article? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek - Thank You *Very Much* For Your Comments - No Problem Whatsoever - My Preliminary Mega-Template May Need Some Improvements - Some May Find The "Mozart Mega-Template" Ideal For Navigation Purposes (I do for one) - Other Composers Have Similar Mega-Templates (See => {{Antonín Dvořák}}, {{Camille Saint-Saëns}}, {{Sergei Prokofiev}}, {{Ludwig van Beethoven}}, {{Sergei Rachmaninoff}}, {{Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov}}, {{Dmitri Shostakovich}}, {{Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky}}, more) - There May Be Some *Very* Easy Ways To Shorten Wordings On The "Mozart Mega-Template" Of Course - And To Respond To Your Other Concerns I Would Think (the noted Pn concertos could be combined into 1 link; Mass (music) may be a better wikilink; may wish to check the "missing groups" [optional] on some of the other noted templates; the word "Symphony" could be abbreviated - or possibly omitted?) - However, Perhaps You - Or Others - Can Suggest Other Solutions More To Your Own Liking? - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary "Mozart Mega-Templates" Are Copied Below - Suggested Improvements Are Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This really seems to me far too large to be seriously useful- it's actually rathe offputting, one's head starts to reel. With this much info you are surely better to start a page List of Wikipedia articles concerning Mozart and then linking to it.....--Smerus (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I created something similar, {{Benjamin Britten}}, - difference: Mozart's works have more articles. I agree with Michael and Smerus that mega-Mozart is beyond being helpful. Would it be possible to collapse the single genres within, so that on opening "Mozart" you would see one line "piano concertos" which you could open? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "Nesting" Templates May Be A Worthy Idea To Consider - "Trimming/Abbreviating" The Individual Listed Items May Also Be A Worthy Idea To Consider I Would Think - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree the mega template is too large. Its seems like something done as a proof of concept rather than something that is useful. All of the genre-specific navboxes link to List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart which I think is sufficient.DavidRF (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU For *All* The Comments - Seems The Biggest Concern May Be The "SIZE" Of The Mozart Mega-Template - One Possible Solution May Be A "SHORT VERSION" (w/ standard music abbreviations?) - See Copy Of This Newer Template Below - Perhaps This Short Version (or some equivalent?) Would Be Better? - And More Useful & Helpful? - Further Comments Welcome Of Course - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I find this even more confusing and alarming than the previous version. Can you explain exactly what the objective of this megatemplate is,what purpose it it supposed to serve, who exactly is likely to benefit from it and how? It seems to me that you are spending a lot of energy on something which may be technically interesting but is effectively of no practical encyclopaedic use. If we cannot specify exactly what the purpose is, and cannot provide an evidence-base of some sort that such purpose is required and would be welcomed, it ends up just being a raree-show.--Smerus (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Smerus - No problem whatsoever - I'm just trying to improve navigation of the relevant Wikipedia articles with others who might find such aids helpful - my rationale is the same as for other composer mega-templates as noted earlier - many readers may benefit from such mega-templates I would think - I use such navigation aids all the time - they seem to help me more easily identify (and access) relevant articles on Wikipedia (besides composer mega-templates, I find, in another context, the {{Mars}} template to be *very* helpful) - to me, at least, such aids are *very* useful - and practical - others may have other (maybe even better ways?) around Wikipedia - please understand, that's *entirely* ok with me - as before, I'm just trying to share what seems to be helpful with other like-minded readers - thank you in any regards for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I think an issue here is that people who create such things - understandably - enjoy them - and I don't hesitate to give credit for the effort involved; but there's no evidence-base that the end product is in any way useful, appreciated or adds to the value of the article. The ingenuity of the megatemplate is unarguable - but its usefulness or appropriateness - for composer topics - seem to me to be negligible. Sorry, but I think if you propose to land such a giant object on an article or group of articles, it has to be justified by demonstrable need or demand. But no one has asked for this, or is flocking to this page (as yet anyway) to support it. So, as you gather, I'm agin it.--Smerus (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for your comments - I *entirely* understand (and appreciate) your POV - nonetheless, if a use for such a Mozart Mega-Template is ever thought justified - and/or helpful - a somewhat completed effort (based on the present List of Mozart's compositions article) is now available here - and - with a bit of minor tweakings - may be helpful to many, I would think, if made officially available on Wikipedia - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Drbogdan, you need to leave enjoyment out of this and realise that the WP:CON here is against your intention. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
@Toccata quarta - Thank you for your comments - yes, seems present consensus for the notion could be better - actually, my own enjoyment w/ this project (a learning opportunity for me) was *before* posting - sharing w/ others is also enjoyable - whether - or not - the project is finally found to be useful - I *entirely* agree w/ WP:CON - and the somewhat related WP:BRD - on this - and similar projects - for me, I have no problem whatsoever w/ any of this - no matter what is finally decided - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Michael for reverting; I think a huge template is not a good idea. Drbogdan's comments are very polite but also perhaps a bit evasive. Opus33 (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
@Opus33 - Thank you for your comments - seems I could have been better in some ways - if so, I apologize for any missteps on my part of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - A Newer "Mozart Mega-Template" Effort Is Presented (suggested earlier by Gerda Arendt) - The "COLLAPSIBLE VERSION" Is Copied Below - Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As Smerus wrote above, this may be technically interesting but I can't see how it is of navigational value beyond what Category:Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart offers. It has been pointed out in various discussions on Wikipedia that most users will not discover the "show" buttons. Those who do are then confronted by eleven further collapsed sections, one of them titled "Music" This is helpful? Example: Where is the Posthornsonate? Under concertos? Under chamber music? No, under orchestral works – which is a really unhelpful section name. I made some further comments at Template talk:Ludwig van Beethoven about even more problems arising as more articles get written. Can we please finish this and the Beethoven discussion and conclude that there is no need for either mega template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Some users will not find the show-button, but for those who do, the result is much better organized than the category (simply by alphabet) which will stay anway. Why not help those readers also, in one line extra for the articles? - Details of the categorization can probably be sorted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Brief followup - technical note - by default, *any* of the Collapsed groups (or sub-Groups?) may be either Collapsed or Un-Collapsed as preferred - for example (and for demonstration purposes here only), the "Influences" section has been coded as Un-Collapsed in the Mega-Template above - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I like it too - @Gerda Arendt => Thank you for your comment - yes, I like it too (as do others here closer to home) - but some others on Wikipedia do not seem as impressed (and perhaps w/ good reason - the template "show" buttons may not be easily understood by most readers?) - of course, a consensus (per WP:CON) in favor of the notion would be needed for further progress and implementation - @Michael Bednarek => Thank you *very much* for taking the time and effort to comment - as perhaps suggested earlier by DavidRF, the Mega-Template efforts may be more Proof of Concept than Finished Product - the "Orchestral works" section in the Collapsible Version could easily be changed to some better name (suggestions welcome) - and/or - the presently listed items (including the Posthornsonate?) could be listed under a section heading other than "Orchestral works" (suggestions welcome) - in any case - Thanks again for *all* the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)