# Talk:Franz Schubert

@Zingarese: suggested that infoboxes are becoming more common with composers and that we should add it. Now there's another reason to do so, which is that there's a mistake in which hovering over Schubert's name in another article shows his signature instead of portrait. I believe adding an infobox will most likely fix this issue.
Please share your thoughts. If nobody responds to this request I will assume that nobody opposes it. Cheers. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't replicate the mistake that you mention. If it's still an issue for you regardless, I don't imagine that your proposal would resolve it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you mean please? Are you saying you tested the infobox and it didn't work? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean the present version works fine for me. If the present version doesn't work for you, it would be helpful to identify why that is, because without knowing that it's unlikely you could fix it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
And when you hover over Schubert's name in another article (without actually clicking it!) his portrait is what shows up instead of his signature? Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes. If that's not what you're seeing, I'd suggest you try clearing your cache as a first step. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Please say what you see if you visit Symphony No. 8 (Schubert) and hover the mouse above "Franz Schubert's" at the start. As mentioned in the section just above, Page Previews is showing the signature for at least some of us. If you see the signature, please perform a dummy edit on the article (add a space to the end of a line and save the edit). Because page previews are cached on the servers, it may be a day or two before an edit to the article causes the preview to be updated. Also, as I speculated in the above section, the unusual wikitext might be causing Page Previews to mistake what is the first image. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Well I added a space after the file, hopefully that'll fix it in a few days if I understood you correctly Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it okay with everyone if I swap the main image of him for one that was made in his lifetime? On Mozart's page it was decided that accuracy was more important, so we should do the same here. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No, we have a portrait that is of higher-quality. See WP:OTHER. GuardianH (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't mean we should be inconsistent across what we do across articles. Either the more accurate or "higher quality" portrait should be used for the wikipedia articles, and whatever we decide we shouldn't change unless there is a good reason to do so.
As for why the more accurate portrait should be the one used, have a look at MOS:IRELEV: "images serve as an illustrative aid and "should look like what they are meant to illustrate"." Another argument they made was the following To give you an example:
for most who have ever heard of Scott McCloud, this image will be the most recognizable - I'd bet far more people could identify that than could pick an actual photo of him out of a lineup. But we use a photo as the lead image for his article. (To be fair there's a copyright complication there, but I'd suggest even if the comic was free we still should use the photo for his lead). " Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
@GuardianH What does WP:OTHER have to do with this? Zingarese talk · contribs (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) 13:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
[X] article has [Y], so this article should also have [Y] is a very old argument that has rarely been accepted, not mention that it is a textbook fallacy. A decision for a portrait of Mozart on Mozart's page does not automatically apply here on Schubert's page ("On Mozart's page it was decided that accuracy was more important, so we should do the same here"). And what makes the lower-quality image here more accurate? Both artists lived during, and presumably met, Schubert. Rieder even befriended Schubert at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna and their brothers were close friends. On top of that, Rieder even painted multiple portraits of Schubert. His watercolor got this attention:
Some portraits of the composer were executed by artists who knew him personally, and many later illustrations are based on Wilhelm August Rieder's famous watercolor, considered to be "the most like him" by Schubert's friends. – The Cambridge Companion to Schubert
Looks like Rieder had a good sense of who Schubert was and what he looked like. We have no reason to doubt him. Being posthumous =/= being inaccurate. GuardianH (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
He may have known Schubert, but the one made in his lifetime was possibly drawn while he was looking at Schubert, which would make it even more accurate. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
"was possibly drawn..." – Until there is evidence that it actually was "drawn while he was looking at Schubert", any assumption is moot. We don't pick and choose on whims, hence WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
What I am certain about is that the other portrait was certainly NOT drawn while he was looking at schubert. All I'm saying is that the other one is not guaranteed but more likely to be more accurate. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked today, and see the Rieder as both lead image and in context. I think that's not needed. What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You're more experienced and I don't really care about this anymore, so I trust you. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Charles Rosen's book "The Classical Style" to the list of references. In the epilogue, it has a short but very interesting discussion about the relation of Schubert's music to that of Beethoven. I am not a musicologist so I cannot evaluate Rosen's analysis. I was struck by his discussion of a Schubert piano sonata movement clearly modeled on a Beethoven piano sonata movement, in which Rosen finds a lack of formal clarity in Schubert's music compared to Beethoven's, but concludes with the statement that the Schubert piece is "unquestionably greater than its model". 67.254.171.9 (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)