Template:Did you know nominations/Tilmann Köhler

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Tilmann Köhler

(
)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 12:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Tilmann Köhler; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • @Narutolovehinata5: Have your concerns been addressed? If not, what needs to be done to get this approved? Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720: Neither the hook issue nor the sourcing concern have been addressed yet. Will wait for their resolution before proceeding. The explanation above didn't really address my concern about the source specifically being more about the performance in general rather than Köhler's direction specifically since, as I mentioned, he's only mentioned by name once and the wording of the article doesn't seem to make it clear that it's about his direction. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried to explain that the director is the one behind the direction of the scene, - what is so hard to understand? Here you have a full interview with him also mentioning Figaro. You can't expect in a review of a piece with more than 10 singers and all the other participants that anybody will be mentioned more than once. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This review has his name first and calls the production a Volltreffer.
This review says: "Now everything is back to square one, in more ways than one. The new "Figaro" in a clever, light but not harmless production by Tilmann Köhler, which is once again imaginable for decades to come, is a triumphant start to the new General Music Director Thomas Guggeis' term of office." - for decades to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Narutolovehinata5's complaint about ALT2 is that when Köhler directed an opera, something interesting happened which was not his doing. I believe that that is not a valid complaint.
The something-interesting is in the article and sourced. And it happened to an opera that Köhler directed, on his watch. That is valid. If the events in the performance were not Köhler's doing, then the hook is on the same principle as a hook such as " ... that shortly after architect X designed X building, it was demolished to make way for X roadway". (or was blown up in a war, or was bought by a celebrity, etc.). A hook is a hook to bring the punters in. It can be a celebration of the biography-subject, but it does not have to be. Having something interesting happening to a play that X directed is an interesting hook, whether the event was directly caused by the director or not.
What is more, women are "in" and thus hooky at the moment. We have just inadvertently missed International Women's Day on DYK, and this hook partially makes up for it. So I vote that we keep ALT2 as a valid option.
Oh, and actually Köhler did make the interesting thing happen, because that's what directors do. They make plays and operas interesting, and people want to hear about it. Directors direct. Hooks can dare to mention that fact, if the result of the direction is interesting - which it is in this case.. Directors can do one or all of several things. They can make the performers do certain things. They can prevent the performers from doing certain things. They can tear up the script and tell the performers to do what they heck they like within certain parameters. They can be useless directors so that the performance is a disaster. In all those cases, and whatever happens onstage, the buck stops with the director. So you can't say that anything that happens in the performance is nothing to do with the director.Storye book (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I have to make it clear: the issue was never interest, it was sourcing. The source for the hook does mention the quotes in the hook, but they are not specifically attributed to being about Köhler. The issue I raised is that the hook is saying something that is not directly stated in the source but at best only indirectly, with the connection not actually explicitly stated. Attributing the quotes to Köhler specifically without the source saying so would arguably be
    synthesis
    . I get the point above, but it's still an editorial interpretation rather than something the source actually explicitly says. That was the issue with ALT2 and not interestingness.
In the interest of disclosure I am fine with ALT2 in terms of interest and am actually willing to approve a version of it. However, that would require changes to either the article or the hook (but really both) to better reflect the source. ALT2 as written won't work because of what was discussed above, but I'd be more than happy to approve a revised version. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: What you say doesn't make sense. There is no implication in the hook or source that Köhler spoke or wrote the quotations that are in the hook. So the attribution of the quotations is not a matter of confusion, misunderstanding or misattribution. The hook does not mislead the readers in any way. And as I have said above, it doesn't matter whether Köhler made the interesting events onstage happen, or whether he did not. We do not have to establish whether he did nor not. He was the director. When he was the director, something happened on his watch. The hook already makes that clear and it is not ambiguous in that respect. There is nothing wrong with the source in that respect. As with my examples about the building being designed by the architect and then being bombed (or whatever), it doesn't matter who did what. Somebody made something, and then something interesting happened to it. We have nothing to prove in that respect. But if you want to suggest a different form of the hook, please do. Storye book (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say the hook was misleading. I said it did not exactly reflect the wording of the source. Yes he was the director, yes he directed it, but the article (I read it) had those quotes and they did not specifically refer to him. They were speaking in general about the performance, rather than his directing specifically. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The performance is his directing. If you cook a meal for your friends, that is a creative process, as is directing. Whether your friends puke up, or whether they say it's delicious, that's your creation, and your fault or credit. Same with the director. The article does not have to say that the director directed the interesting bits. Of course the director directed the interesting bits. If a bit of scenery had fallen and injured somebody during a performance, and you put that in the hook, you would not have to prove fault in the hook. You just need to say that it happened. ALT2 basically says, that the director directed this opera, and something interesting happened onstage. Simples. If you don't like the hook, make another one, and (hopefully) one of us will approve it for you. Storye book (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Okay, I have taken a second look at the source once more. This is a really weird case. The paragraph in question does seem connected to Köhler after all, but in a rather indirect way. From what I can tell the paragraph is mostly talking about Köhler and his team's work in direction, but not about Köhler specifically staging the work. One possible solution to this, in order to at least match the source more closely, could be a minor revision to ALT2 like:
ALT2a ... that Tilmann Köhler directed Mozart's Le nozze di Figaro in 2023 with playful "serious games" in which the women win by "wit, cleverness and presence of mind"?
How does this sound? Rather than having the staging wording, which isn't directly supported by the source, we could just simply focus on his direction and have a slightly more concise hook in the process. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
That is a neat concise hook, and I can live with it. However, it leaves out two things of extra interest: that he came from drama (hadn't heard an opera until a few years before this, so had a fresh approach), and that this wasn't just any Figaro but that he was invited to stage the beginning of a new era at the opera house of the year. Why would we play it low-key? - If we don't mention the importance of this performance, we should better turn to Traumgörge , as the more interesting piece. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I could also approve ALT2a, except that the "with" is misleading, or at least confusing. In that hook, the "with" appears to be about the directing itself. To me that use of "with" seems to mimic its use in the context of other types of work, such as "The teacher taught geometry with playful and serious games, because children can learn by having fun". Or - "The jockey races with a whip, to speed up the horse". In other words, it sounds as if the games are a tool for explaining to the performers how they should perform. If you put "he staged" back, it would make sense, and I would approve ALT2a in respect of the use of the English language. Storye book (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
And another thing: re the above objection to "staged". Yes, it is supported by the source, because staging in that context is just another word for the directing, so that you don't have to say "directing/directed" twice in the hook. It means he made things happen on the stage. (Staging can also mean the job of the theatre manager who tracks down patrons to help pay for it, controls the building and seating, hires staff, pays wages, arranges ticket sales, and so on - but there is no confusion with that meaning in the hook). Storye book (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Given the above comments and in the interest of this moving forward, I am self-approving ALT2a as a rewording of ALT2; other hooks are no longer in consideration. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tilmann_Köhler&oldid=1216357942"