Template:Did you know nominations/Gerhard Klingenberg

Gerhard Klingenberg

(

)

Klingenberg in 2010

~~... that Gerhard Klingenberg, who stepped in to play Camille in Büchner's Dantons Tod at the Burgtheater in Vienna at age 18, managed the theatre from 1971 to 1976?~~ Source: [1]
- Reviewed: to come

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 2109 past nominations.

Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC).

The article is new enough and long enough. Sourcing is proper; everything is in German so generally AGF on the sources. QPQ is still pending. I did not find any close paraphrasing. Article was on ITN's Recent Deaths section so it remains eligible for DYK. The issue is the hook: it fails WP:DYKINT as it is reliant on specialist information that general audiences may not have (a reader who doesn't know that the Burgtheater is Austria's main theater might not get the importance, and why is Camille singled out?). It's also too complicated and has too many facts; ideally it should focus on only one primary fact. There's also the issue raised by 4meter4 in the past that these "actor stepping into roles" instances are not actually that interesting or unusual as that's what understudies tend to do. Given that WT:DYK is not a fan of these "people doing their job" hooks, here are some possible alternatives; I've struck the original hook due to the issues raised above.

ALT1 ... that Gerhard Klingenberg took on his stage name due to a prohibition on students at his school taking up acting?

ALT2 ... that during his tenure as the manager of Austria's Burgtheater from 1971 to 1976, Gerhard Klingenberg often directed plays with analogies to a divided Europe?

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

ALT1 - in my humble opinion - is trivia which neglects his importance in the theatre world, and focuses on the Austrian bureaucracy. A you aware that this man recently died?

ALT2 has it, but is very general in the second fact. Why not mention the precise play, which is unusual? Stepping in at 18 seems more interesting to me than the analogies, and more interesting than taking on a stage name.

I hate to name a play in English that was played in German, but for our crowd's sake:

ALT0a: ... that Gerhard Klingenberg (pictured), who stepped in at Vienna's Burgtheater at age 18 to play Camille in Büchner's Danton's Death, managed the theatre from 1971 to 1976? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue with ALT0 isn't whether or not the play's title is in German or English, but rather the nature of the hook itself. Multiple editors within the DYK community have objected to these "performer plays role" hooks as they're basically about these people doing their job, which isn't what DYK is looking for. ALT0/ALT0a, as mentioned earlier, also fails WP:DYKINT because, again, the hook is heavily reliant on specialist information or context and thus general readers won't get it. I have struck ALT0a as well for the same reasons. You need to propose a completely different angle here, or agree to ALT1/ALT2, because otherwise the nomination will be failed for lack of a suitable hook. To answer your question about Klingenberg's death, him dying recently does not change the issues with the proposal. Just because he died recently doesn't mean a hook about him should be exempt from DYKINT. Is there a problem if ALT1 is "trivia"? Because when you think about it, DYK hooks are supposed to be trivia: that's why they're called hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

We will have to disagree. ALT1 boils down to "he took a stage name" which is trivial and nothing personal, no achievement. Better no DYK than that. I learned "only good about the dead", and I understand that it is "Did you know ...? interested in passing knowledge. I also claim that a play title such as "Dantons Death" is interesting, and that ALT0b is less interesting.

ALT0b: ... that Gerhard Klingenberg (pictured), who stepped in at Vienna's Burgtheater at age 18, managed the theatre from 1971 to 1976? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a fundamental disagreement about DYK's purpose because how DYK hooks are meant to be written, per DYKINT, is if they are interesting to a broad audience. That is, if they are likely to be perceived as interesting by non-specialist readers. Highlighting a person or subject's achievements or even claim to fame is at best a secondary reason but not a primary one and definitely not something that is explicitly or even implicitly suggested by the guidelines. The opposition to "trivia" here is surprising considering that, in practice, DYK is intended to promote "trivia". That's why there's so much emphasis on highlighting unusual or eye-catching facts, even if that isn't what the subject is best known for. There is a reason why DYK nominators and reviewers generally prefer hooks that go "DYK that Winston Churchill was an amateur bricklayer?" and not "DYK that Winston Churchill was a British Prime Minister?"

In any case, ALT0c is rejected for the same reason as ALT0a and ALT0b: it is reliant on specialist knowledge and the average readership will not get why it is unusual or interesting ("why is it important that Klingenberg managed the Burgtheater for five years?", "how is his tenure significant or unusual in any way?", "what's the Burgtheater and why is it important?", "what does "step in at age 18 mean?", or "is stepping in at age 18 even unusual or interesting?") If you would prefer the nomination fail rather than agree to a hook that targets general readership then that's your prerogative but ALT0's hook fact by itself simply does not meet DYKINT and thus cannot be used. If you cannot propose a completely different angle from ALT0 and/or accept ALT1/ALT2, then the nomination will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Before having read your replay I asked an independent user t look into this. I have no time today, travelling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

After reading AirshipJungleman29's talk page, maybe an alternate wording of ALT2 could work as well. At the very least I'm certain it will attract more attention to the article than any hook involving him stepping in for a role or any hook about any of his specific roles. Such an angle could work given that the context involved (history) is a lot more accessible than European theatre. If the goal is to promote Klingenberg and allow more readers to click on the article, this angle might do the trick:

ALT3 ... that Gerhard Klingenberg, who decided to leave East Germany following the construction of the Berlin Wall, directed plays with analogies to a divided Europe?

It does lose the mention of the Burgtheater but that is to prevent information overload and allow a direct focus on the main point; I could propose a slight revision that includes it if you wish. I really don't think the "stepped in" angle is going to withstand scrutiny given how WT:DYK has often raised complaints about role hooks. My main concern with this angle is the context of "analogies to a divided Europe"; the wording is rather vague if the plays themselves were the ones that had analogies, or he directed them in such a way that he incorporated said analogies, but I guess that can be worked out in the article itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, but the greater miracle in his career was that Brecht made this Austrian come to East Berlin, and on that background, the way back seems less dramatic, just a way home more or less, not - as the hook would make me believe - as an East German dissident. I am also not sure that he directed these plays, - he was great - as almost all obituaries say in other words - in attracting the most wanted European directors of the time to do the actual directing job. I see coming that you say that our readers don't know these directors, if you think that they don't know the most important drama house for the German language, and would not be willing to look it up.

ALT4: ... that after a career as actor and director at Austrian theatres, Gerhard Klingenberg (pictured) followed Bertolt Brecht's invitation to work for his Berliner Ensemble in East Berlin? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue here again is always the reliance on specialist information. Most readers do not know who Brecht or the Berliner Ensemble are and thus would not have the required context to appreciate the hook. It's been repeated to you many many many times already, but what keeps happening is that you insist on hooks that primarily appeal to you and not to the general public. You are an expert in European classical music and theatre and most readers are not, so the goal is to appeal to the lowest-common denominator and target the widest audience, not the smallest. ALT3 is probably not the ideal option (I actually somewhat prefer ALT1 myself), but it would almost certainly get more attention than ALT4. I understand you deeply care about these people and their circumstances, but the way things are going, you are really just writing hooks for yourself and not for others, something that AirshipJungleman29 noted in your discussion with him. In any case, I have struck ALT4 for failing to meet WP:DYKINT as relying too much on knowledge or context that the vast majority of readers do not have. Again, I get your goal is to educate readers about these subjects, but again, that's the goal of the article, not the hook. The hook's goal is to attract readers to read the article, and then they will learn. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Pinging again due to a typo. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Well of coure ALT3 is more interesting. If Gerda really wants, she can post ALT3 and ALT4 at WT:DYK and ask which one is more interesting, but like with Anna Nekhames we all know how that will go, for probably the thirtieth time at this point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I have come in to bang heads together, as usual (that expression means making two children shake hands and make friends), and to support one of the hooks.

Firstly, Narutolovehinata5 and Gerda Arendt: the DYK hook process, as you know, is primarily about truth, then about appropriateness as a hook, and then about compromise. Most of what you both say, here, is about a reluctance to compromise. Compromise takes two to tango. You are as bad as each other. Everyone has to compromise, not just the other guy.

So I suggest ALT2, (with picture if promoter agrees) because (1) Narutolovehinata5 proposed it, and (2) Gerda Arendt accepted its truth, and did not totally dispute it. Also, to move this nom on, I offer one of my spare reviews: Jake Bates. Storye book (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Storye book, I understand your intentions and want to help Gerda as much as possible. However, you tend to comment on her nominations whenever they encounter issues and particularly after Gerda messages you (see for example her message inviting you to this nomination). This can give an impression, whether fairly or unfairly, of canvassing to other editors, especially when it is known around DYK circles that you are the editor closest and most sympathetic to Gerda. My suggestion would be that, to avoid concerns about canvassing, you avoid commenting on her nominations if Gerda specifically asked you to do so; however, it might be safer for you to do so out of your own volition, as in commenting on her noms independently of any ping or message. To Gerda, I would also suggest avoiding messaging Storye book specifically regarding your nominations, again to avoid concerns about canvassing. Asking for a second opinion from other editors is not inherently problematic, but when it's usually the same editor, and one known to be sympathetic towards you, that could give others the impression of canvassing, which we'd really want to avoid.

In addition, the QPQ donation is appreciated, but I would advise refraining from doing so in the future except as a last resort. As Gerda is DYK's most prolific editor, she should be very much aware that DYK requires a QPQ within a week of the nomination and a message about it. She should be allowed to fulfill the request on her own, and donating QPQs whenever she forgets to do so could be seen as unfair to other nominators whose nominations get stuck or rejected due to a lack of QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please note that I said "just look" in my last message to Storye book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The comment wasn't about just this nomination but rather the general pattern. Over the years it has been common for you to message Storye book in particular whenever other editors have concerns regarding your nominations and hooks. If it was just a one-time instance, it probably would have been okay, but it wasn't just a one-time thing, and it's a pattern that it's Storye book specifically that you message rather than messaging no editor in particular or even messaging a variety of editors. I understand both of you have good intentions and Gerda wants help from someone knowledgeable, but the focus on Storye book specifically can lead to the impression, whether fair or not, that canvassing is involved. This is especially considering Storye book tends to be more sympathetic towards Gerda's hooks and nominations compared to other DYK regulars.

To be on the safe side, my suggestion for Gerda would be that, whenever you want a second opinion or help, you message multiple editors or at least a variety of them rather than just Storye book (the earlier ping to B was a good start, but B may not have been the best option given he is not a DYK regular and has been largely inactive lately). For Storye book, again my suggestion would be to avoid whenever possible commenting on a Gerda nom if she specifically asked you to do so; it might be safer to comment on them independently regardless of any pings or message if desired. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict, and I have no time to read your last comment, sorry. There's real life. - What I wrote:

I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch. - Klingenberg, an article nominated for deletion after he died (!), found some interest already, and it was perhaps crazy of me to hope for a bit more interest via DYK. RD has a way of review (by multiple people, looking for referencing and facts) that works better for me. Today is Kafka's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)