Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

My edits to the infobox providing basic information have been repeatedly undone (by Nikkimaria and Opus33) citing an inline comment that invited not to change the lead – even though I left the lead wording alone.

1. How are somebody’s birth name and most importantly his literal children not worthy of mention in an infobox? It’s not like he had a million kids whose names would clutter the template.
2. Plain unlinked names for the birth and death cities? I’ve never seen that in infoboxes, it’s frankly ridiculous and it omits important information when it comes to historical personalities. Template:Infobox person is clear that it is advisable to state the country name, and link it when it is historical. Salzburg and Vienna were not in modern Austria at the time, it is valuable information for the reader to know which polities they were part of.

Any inputs? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I recommend that you repeat here exactly which parameters you'd like to change, for those who didn't follow the history and to ease the discussion of what other users would support or oppose, per parameter. Compare a discussion at Talk:W. B. Yeats#Parameters. For background see Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 16, closed that "the general consensus here is that it is desirable to present basic biographical details in an infobox", and the question remains: how basic? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Mainly filling birth_name and children as well as completing birth_place and death_place – seem pretty basic to me. I had also made changes to the parents and spouse params, but those are relatively minor and a matter of preference. See the latest revert. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but can you say precisely how you'd fill them, as in the Yeats discussion? It's in the article history, but tedious to look up and not trivial to support or oppose. I'd do it for you but am busy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ve linked it above. You can easily see it in one click. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I know that you linked above, and I saw it before when it happened and I knew it would be reverted. I said it's not easy to discuss, therefore differences here:

1. father = Leopold Mozart

   yes (but parents is also fine) --GA

2. mother = Anna Maria Mozart

   yes (same) --GA

3. birth_name = Joannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart

   no (not basic, covered by article on Mozart's name) --GA

4. birth_place = Getreidegasse 9, Salzburg, Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg, Holy Roman Empire

   yes (I find Holy Roman Empire more important to place him in history than the complex name of Salzburg, which I'd prefer to pipe to Salzburg, instead of the repetition.) --GA

5. death_place = Vienna, Archduchy of Austria, Holy Roman Empire

   yes (but without link to Vienna, a current capital) --GA

6. spouse = Constanze Weber (m. 1782)

   yes (the added year doesn't hurt) --GA

7. children = 6, including Karl Thomas and Franz Xaver Wolfgang

   yes (children seem as important as parents, especially with articles, and supplying the number sems basic) --GA

My 2ct --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Overall, I like your proposal. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the present version is appropriate. There is a link provided to Mozart family for readers to find whatever detail they like about the family. As for the polities, this seems to add needless complexity. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The polities are part of contextual historical information. His children are his direct relatives just like his parents. It’s absurd to me that one should have to go through all the names listed at Mozart family just to find his only two surviving kids. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It's rather normal for infoboxes not to contain children - in fact they are often removed from article text as well. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Not if they're notable and have articles here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It’s standard practice to only include the number of children unless, as just stated by Michael, one or more of them have their own independent articles—which is precisely the case here. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

IvanScrooge98, please tell us: what is your level of knowledge about Mozart? Have you read books about him? Have you listened to most of his music? (Other editors have.) Your own edit record (if my quick check is valid) seems to have nothing about Mozart, or about his time, or even about classical music in general.

If you don't have extensive knowledge about Mozart, then I think you ought to withdraw from debates about what should be placed in the infobox, which is the most conspicuous part of the whole article. I don't think you would have a good basis for judgment. Opus33 (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this discussion? What is your level of familiarity with Wikipedia infoboxes about people? I am not allowed to say that this article does not align with the vast majority of other articles I have dealt with? Do you believe you own this article and I shouldn’t make changes you dislike even when they are improvements? How about you stay on topic and formulate an argument as to why it’s better to leave the infobox half-assed? Thank you. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my suspicion. I am on topic, and I'm sorry you do not see my point. As for me, I am, alas, way too familiar with Wikipedia infoboxes about people. Opus33 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The point is clear: dismissing my arguments not by reasoning but by implying I shouldn’t even be here in the first place. Meanwhile you haven’t expressed a single concrete thought on the matter. I’ll wait for the intervention of users who are more interested about collaborating than they are about owning this article. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Good luck with that on this page or any others for well known classical musicians. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, I know that many other pages about composers lack the infobox altogether, and to be honest, it seems to me like a better alternative than having one that does only half of the job of providing info—in spite of its very name. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

No objections to proposed additions, to the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Given no further inputs and the opposition of only 3 users vs 5 who generally agreed with the additions, I proceeded to apply the new apparent consensus and amended the infobox as suggested by Gerda. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not appropriate at this stage - consensus is not determined simply by counting votes. Reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeed it isn’t, I was merely summarizing but the new consensus is clearly not for keeping the infobox in those poor conditions. I’ll restore the agreed upon version. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

the new consensus is clearly not for keeping the infobox in those poor conditions. I’ll restore the agreed upon version. It is not possible to assert an "agreed upon version" that is not the status quo at this point, so please don't be "restoring" your preferred version. Again, consensus is not established by counting heads. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The consensus is established by reading the conversation and the arguments used in it. The consensus is clear. Further discussions belong here as well. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that you feel your arguments are the most persuasive; I feel the opposite. That's why asserting consensus for your own position and then edit-warring over it is problematic. Please self-revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m not edit warring. I’m applying consensus and you are the one reverting it. And what are the arguments against me that are so persuasive in this discussion? Perhaps Opus telling me I don’t know anything about Mozart so I shouldn’t touch his precious article? Because that’s basically all there is. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m not edit warring. I’m applying consensus. Even if such a consensus existed, "applying" it is not an edit-warring exemption.

what are the arguments against me that are so persuasive in this discussion?. The relevant guideline is MOS:IBP: The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Some infoboxes need to use more than a handful of fields, but information should be presented in a short format wherever possible, and should exclude unnecessary content. Your proposal adds detail which is duplicative and unnecessary, and privileges details that are comparatively trivial over what is key about the subject. (While I disagree with Opus' framing, it is true that having a better understanding of Mozart may have helped to mitigate that problem). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Those are not irrelevant details but basic information about his life and times, as explained above. Stripping the infobox of those few notions that are not already worded in prose in the lead (and mind I said lead, not the whole article) makes the infobox almost useless. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary, if something doesn't merit being included in the lead, that's a very good indication it probably doesn't merit being given a place of even greater prominence. Nor is it necessary to unduly complicate existing parameters - and it appears that even people you vote-count as agreeing with you are not in support of your position on that matter. For example, Gerda suggested it was unnecessary to provide the full title for Salzburg, yet you did so anyways. Who other than you presented arguments in favour of that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I obviously did it to pair it with the full title “Archduchy of Austria” below, duh. A mere question of consistency. Not a big deal if we want to shorten both tbh. Again, regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't make it necessary, duh - and a good indication that in your haste to count heads, you've overlooked what disagrees with your claimed "consensus", and where addition discussion is merited. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t overlook anything. I had read the entire conversation over before proceeding. And Gerda wasn’t harshly saying “we must not have this or that”, they mostly agreed with me and just voiced a preference for a shorter version of the birth place, which I now proceed to apply so maybe you will find some serious argument instead of diverting the attention through a personal judgement about how “hasty” I am – when I edited the article 18 whole days after the last comment had been left here. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

"overlook" was more charitable an interpretation than "ignored".

Your new version presents a WP:GEOLINK problem. You also still haven't addressed the issues of giving undue prominence to comparatively trivial detail (I don't see any substantive argument put forward above in favour of marriage date, for example) or of duplicative content. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

1) There is no “duplicative content”; 2) I already addressed the “trivial detail” characterization (care to read above); 3) there’s a literal {{marriage}} template specially designed for infoboxes, which is used on thousands of biographical articles, I didn’t think I had to explain why we should simply align with the overwhelming number of cases in Wikipedia practice instead of messing up this one article as we please. I don’t think I have anything else to add on the matter. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You are asserting consensus for a "version", ie for all of the changes you want to implement; that does mean you need to be able to put forward substantive arguments in favour of all of those changes - not just "whatever". Per MOS:INFOBOXUSE this is determined at the per-article level. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

For the last time, I assessed the contributors in this discussion before proceeding. Minor variations that more or less align with it are not “asserting” anything. If anything it is you who are trying to impose a trimmed version of the infobox that few users here seemed to appreciate. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "imposing"; I just asked for you to demonstrate the consensus that you claim exists for all of the changes you want to make. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Replying to Nikkimaria's "On the contrary, if something doesn't merit being included in the lead, that's a very good indication it probably doesn't merit being given a place of even greater prominence.": I think this is wrong. Our MoS seems to expect an infobox, and tends to move details there instead of the lead. Most recently, we had a discussion, resulting in mentioning honorific titles in the infobox but no longer also in the lead. Earlier, it was decided that the places of birth and death belong in the infobox but no longer in the lead. Same for the details of a politically correct description of these places, why not have them, then? A link to the current Salzburg means little in the context of Mozart's life. A link to the history section there would be better, but then why not directly Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg? It could be piped to Salzburg if regarded as too long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

See my latest discussion below for latest infobox details. Absolutiva 06:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it's a fact that Mozart was extremely influential, but it's not necessary to indicate it in every sentence Paboks (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you. We want to get across that Mozart does rank very high in the Classical-music pantheon, but what we have right now is overkill, I think. Just as a suggestion, perhaps we could remove the last sentence of the first paragraph, which reads:

Mozart is widely regarded as one of the greatest composers in the history of Western music,[1] with his music admired for its "melodic beauty, its formal elegance and its richness of harmony and texture".[2]

Thanks for bringing this up. Opus33 (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Update: Now that Charlie Faust has brought this article into the "Good Article" process, I've gone ahead and implemented this. I also removed a "gush" from Alfred Einstein later on in the article. Probably there's even more gushing that could be appropriately removed. Opus33 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This article is no where near good article status, and the nomination should have never been made (and it has since been removed by another editor). The citation needed tags, among many many other issues would be an instant fail anyways. I am not sure why the only legacy information in the lead that is actually cited was removed. If folks are going to be this haphazard, this article will linger for a while longer. Aza24 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you about citations, Aza, particularly in the lead. On the other, when I made my edit I was trying to fix a different problem, i.e. the gushing problem. One problem at a time ...

It would also be helpful if you specify what you mean by "among many other issues". If you just tee off, it only lowers morale, but if you make constructive suggestions that can be more helpful. Thank you in advance for your input. Opus33 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Opus, although I can sympathize with your request for more specific feedback, but the issues here are quite systemic and large-scale, so I'm not sure specific feedback would be as helpful as you may think (although I will attempt). These are some big-picture issues, not even touching more specific problems:

• The music section should be at least a ~2000–3000 word overview by genre or some other dividing factor, like all of our composer GAs and FAs. Every major work by the composer should be talked about, and cited to modern, high-quality reliable academic sources. This simply does not exist at the moment
• At the moment, the large "Style" section is more or less completely uncited, and since this is the vast majority of the music section: the music section is completely uncited. Of course, there are citations, but they are either entire books (no page numbers = no verifiability... = not a real citation) or sources from 70+ years ago. Aside from the long, and probably undue emphasis on the Rosen quote, the only exception is Solomon 1995, ch. 8.
• We do not need an entire section on the Köchel catalogue... a single sentence would suffice
• The instruments section should be moved to a note, or removed entirely. It was added by an SPA a few years back who spammed numerous composer articles with highly specialized information on the composers' instruments.
• The life section is almost solely relying on Solomonn... we need at least 3–4 biographies to be sourcing from equally here...
• The legacy section, of course, is a series of random trivia and weak observations. It is no where near the 'zoomed-out' legacy sections in our Mahler, Wagner, Debussy articles etc.
• There are very scant sources since 2000. Mozart is one of the most written about figures in the history of music, and scholarship has certainly continued heavily in the last ~25 years... there is no excuse to be using any source before ~1990, in general. Plenty of hugely important sources in the further reading section which are uncited
• There is practically no German scholarship

I mean the list goes on and on, and there are places all over the article which are uncited or evidently under false citation premises (i.e. there's a citation and the end of the paragraph, but in reality it only covers the final sentence, not the whole paragraph. Aza24 (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Aza, this is helpful.

I do wonder about "every major work should be talked about" -- that would make for an extremely long article; and many of the works do already have their own article. But in general I think your suggestions are on the mark and with time I will try to work on them (of course welcoming other editors' participation). Opus33 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Isaac Newton, a Good Article, includes a lot of praise from fellow physicists under "Legacy", such as the following from Einstein: "The whole evolution of our ideas about the processes of nature, with which we have been concerned so far, might be regarded as an organic development of Newton's ideas". This is apt. In physics, it helps to know that Newton influenced Maxwell who influenced Einstein. In poetry, it helps to know that Homer influenced Virgil who influenced Dante. In music, it helps to know that Haydn influenced Mozart who influenced Beethoven. Mozart's influence goes beyond Beethoven, of course.

Johann Sebastian Bach, a Good Article, includes compositions influenced by him, up to and including Heitor Villa-Lobos's Bachianas Brasileiras. This is apt. It would be apt to include pieces influenced by Mozart, such as Tchaikovsky's Mozartiana. Artists, like scientists, stand on shoulders of giants. Demosthenes Taylor (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

William Shakespeare, a Featured Article, features praise from poets and critics from Ben Jonson (the "Soul of the age, the applause, delight, the wonder of our stage") to Harold Bloom ("Shakespeare was larger than Plato and than St. Augustine. He encloses us because we see with his fundamental perceptions.") Maybe we do and may we don’t, but those quotes are apt as they attest to the influence of a giant. Using Shakespeare as a template, it is absolutely apt to include quotations on Mozart's influence.

I agree that the language of an encyclopedia should be neutral, particularly in a biography section. I removed "prolific" from the opening sentence (that he was prolific is illustrated by the fact he wrote more than 800 works). Rather than telling people he is influential, it’s better to show it through examples. The opinions of experts are worth noting. If I say that Don Quixote is the greatest novel, that is not encyclopedically significant, as that’s my opinion, which is of little consequence, and is original research. If I say that Harold Bloom considers Don Quixote the greatest novel, that is encyclopedically significant, as that is the opinion of an influential critic. Quotes are an apt way to illustrate influence. Demosthenes Taylor (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you, Demosthenes, that a modest number of these comments -- i.e. views of later composers and critics -- might work well. Best of all would be gushy comments that provide insight into why Mozart was wonderful; these are harder to find. Opus33 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, I, at least, think Einstein's quote about Mozart's music seeming to have been "ever present in the universe" is apt. Yes, he was a genius in another field, but he was a genius, and many people have said similar things.

Influence is illustrated by works inspired by an artist. Chopin wrote Variations on "Là ci darem la mano". It merits mention. Demosthenes Taylor (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Today is Mozart's 270th birthday, and what better way to celebrate than getting this article to Good Article status? (And, eventually, Featured Article...) Charlie Faust (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Charlie Faust (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I moved the template to the top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Points I see:

• Piano concertos have to be mentioned in the lead.
• The sentence about the Requiem there needs more elegance, if it's lead-worthy at all.
• The image of Mozart's family is difficult to place, painted late, of a fictional scene. It causes sandwiching of tet where it is.
• There seems to be overlinking and duplicate linking.

On vacation, so just starters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree about the Requiem. Such an elegant composition deserves elegant prose.

Thank you for looking! Charlie Faust (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The Queen of the Night aria is included on the Voyager Golden Record. His music was chosen to represent our species. Only a few composers were so honored, among them Bach and Beethoven. This is encyclopedically significant, and should be under Legacy. Demosthenes Taylor (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

If an artist is included in the Library of Congress, say, that is plainly encyclopedically significant. Being one of a handful of artists chosen to represent Earth is plainly encyclopedically significant. Demosthenes Taylor (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not a mere "cultural reference". If I pointed out that the Requiem was featured in The Big Lebowski, that would not be encyclopedically significant, as it has featured in several other films. (I love that film, but that's not the point.) The Voyager Golden Record is sui generis, a record of our species cast into the cosmic ocean that may outlast the Earth. (And, again, only a handful of composers were so honored.) Even if we send a similar message, there will only be one Voyager. Demosthenes Taylor (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Two, actually, each carrying a copy of the Golden Record. Masato.harada (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. (But the records are identical copies, so my points still stand.) Demosthenes Taylor (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Demosthenes, please take a look at MOS:CULTURALREFS. It explains that we're not supposed to include such references and gives the reasons. The material you describe belongs in the article about the Voyager Golden Record. Opus33 (talk)

We had the Flute and Harp Concerto listed in our paragraph covering the outstanding works of the mid to late 1770s, but I've just taken it out. I had been reluctantly willing to keep it in, but then, while I was re-reading my Rosen for other reasons, I noticed what he says of this work:

[It is] hackwork: it it true that Mozart's hackwork is a lesser composer's inspiration, and his craftsmanship is evident even here, but it would be doing Mozart less than justice to discuss this work alongside the great concertos. (The Classical Style, page 214)

I also have the feeling that critical opinion in general does not consider the work one of Mozart's masterpieces. In this respect it differs from the contemporaneous Sinfonia Concertante, covered in the same article paragraph, and for which Rosen uses words like "miracle" and "radical departure". Idomeneo is also important, marking Mozart's maturity as an opera composer.

So I hope people will not mind my taking the Flute and Harp Concerto out. Of course it does have its own article, so we are not neglecting it. Opus33 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I've put in a larger-than-usual addition and should discuss here. In brief, my experience reading books about Mozart for purposes of WP editing has led me to understand what an enormous scholarly enterprise exists here: dozens or maybe even hundreds of experts around the world attempting to understand Mozart and document his work. Since we are an encyclopedia, I feel we should link up with this enterprise closely. So talking about the main scholarly edition of Mozart's works and the main catalogue of them seems appropriate to me. Also, it's good to tell aspiring musicians that they can get one of the very best editions of the music for free on line. I also put in a sentence about the complete recorded editions. I hope this (mostly) new section is judged appropriate; comments welcome. Opus33 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I've made another longer edit. This is a two-paragraph sequence, at the beginning of the biography section, laying out the evidence that is available for reconstructing Mozart's biography. The point of the section is (1) The evidence is (roughly) a fixed set of documents, available to any biographer; (2) The evidence is not easy to interpret, and different biographers have arrived at different conclusions. I have also included footnotes to help interested readers read the sources themselves.

My thinking in adding this was that we should be honest with our readers: there is no "authoritative" biography of Mozart, only what various intelligent people have been able to make of the evidence. Also, I hope to give readers a sense of what sources are more likely to be trustable. Lastly, I included extensive footnotes so that readers can consult the primary sources if they wish. I hope this is a helpful edit. Opus33 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Editor Masato.Harada has, with the best of intentions I'm sure, reverted my edit trying to source the letter of Mozart's mother suggesting that he played differently once travel had given him access to pianos. Let me try to get the sources right (which I may have unintentionally screwed up).

The German original is posted by the Mozarteum. The site address for this letter (27 December 1777) is: . The text reads:

der Wolfgang würd überall hochgeschäzt, er spillet aber vill anderst als zu Salzburg dan hier sind überall piano forte, und dise kan er so unvergleichlich tractieren, das man es noch niemals so gehört hat.

In her 1993 article, Smith translates this into English as:

Everyone thinks the world of Wolfgang, but indeed he plays quite differently from what he used to in Salzburg, for there are pianofortes here, on which he plays so extraordinarily well that people say they have never heard the like.

My German is not great but this seems like a pretty good translation of what Maria Anna wrote. Also, it is not by me, so I'm puzzled at MH's assertion that there is "OR" (Original Research) here.

If someone, particularly Masato.Harada, can explain what is going on, I would appreciate it. My goal at present would be to include Smith's translation in the article, along with a link to the German original. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I am German, but of course, the language was different at Mozart's time. In present-day German, "hochgeschätzt" would be "highly estimated", and "unvergleichlich" would mean "incomparable". Next question is if a translation should be idiomatic, reflecting the old style. My expert for such things is Moonraker. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't have access to Smith, so I don't know what her translation is. My concern was that a different translation was being added. My German also is not great, but when I looked at Mozarteum's translation it was quite different from the new version. Therefore, I reverted that version and suggested we should stick with the previous version of the article. If you're going to include Smith's translation in the article, along with a link to the German original, then that's fine with me. Masato.harada (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah! What I was missing is that the Mozarteum provides its own translation. To be clear, this is as follows:

Wolfgang enjoys high esteem everywhere, but he plays very differently than in Salzburg, for here there are pianofortes everywhere, and he can handle them so incomparably that they have never heard it this way.

I must say I like Smith's translation better. I have read (i.e. in the preface to Spaethling's translation) that most translations of the Mozart letters are excessively "correct", so that they fail to reflect the vernacular style of the authors. I think Spaethling's criticism could be applied to the Mozarteum translation. Maria Anna grew up in great poverty and never really got much education, and so we wouldn't expect her to use a very literary style.

I would be happy for anyone to deal with this but will take it on myself if noone else does.

Thanks for your help, Gerda and Masato. Opus33 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The thing that strikes me about "hochgeschätzt" and "unvergleichlich" is that they are plain language. No one should be surprised about an uneducated woman using them, but "highly estimated" is fancy and pretentious, "incomparable" is literary and/or upper-class English. So if I were translating them I should go for much plainer English. Moonraker (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there is any substantial difference between the translations. "high esteem" and "incomparably" are literal translations of "hochgeschätzt", and "unvergleichlich" – same register in both languages. Smith is more verbose, (intentionally) avoiding word-by-word translation – which is fine. However, I don't like the reverted version of the article which paraphrases the quotation and results in an overly long sentence. I prefer Opus33's version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue here should not be whose translation we prefer, but who is a reliable source. If I translate a German WP article into English then I have some latitude with it. If I have a German quotation needing translation, then I should only do my own translation if there is none available from a reliable source. If I have a translation from a reliable source then I should use that, even if I personally prefer a different translation, such as Opus33's. In this case, we have two reliable sources: Smith (who I do not have access to); or Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum (which appears to be human, not machine, translated). I don't know which is the most reliable source: this article uses Smith extensively, but the ISM is the authoratitive centre for Mozart studies. So, perhaps it is safer to leave this article as it is, paraphrasing the letter and linking to the original German. Masato.harada (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

In this previous discussion above, that makes no consensus. But its too excessive, trivial, and no original research. This current consensus via RfC to include a minimal infobox as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Unlike other composers with minimal infoboxes, including Johann Sebastian Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven, etc. Absolutiva 06:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

~2026-15199-53 (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

yes

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. InfernoHues (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The sentence "He enjoyed billiards, dancing, and kept pets, including a canary, a starling, a dog, and a horse for recreational riding" should have the embedded link on "a starling" corrected to point to the more specific wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart's_starling ~2026-17665-94 (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't understand what you are saying. The word "starling" as you describe it is already linked to Mozart's starling. Opus33 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

In the lead, there is mention of Le nozze di Figaro and Die Zauberflöte. Elsewhere in the article, they are referred to as The Marriage of Figaro and The Magic Flute. Fair enough, but for consistency's sake, shouldn't they the same throughout the article? What does the MOS say? Charlie Faust (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand why our articles on operas sometimes use their English names, but I also find it a bit grating if those operas in the composers' articles are named that way. Obviously, they didn't use those, so in the interest of authenticity and encyclopaedic rigour, I prefer the original spelling in this and other biographies. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Michael, - change them to original. This is consistent with FAs Wagner and Rossini. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)