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

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)

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

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)
• 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)