- 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 Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hainer Hill
Hainer Hill c. 1956
... that Hainer Hill (pictured), who took hundreds of photographs documenting Brecht's Berliner Ensemble, designed stage for Hindemith's Mathis der Maler for the new Opernhaus Dortmund in 1966?Source: several
- Reviewed: Whoosh!
- Comment: He was an apprentice to be a house painter, then trained to be a painter, then went to stage design, did it in Berlin where he also took all these now cherished pics as a document of Brechts work, then came The Wall and he had to find something else, and found it in the new house in Dortmund. I'd like to mention this opera because "Mathis the Painter" matches his life. The other interesting one, world premiere of Eli, is planned to follow once that opera gets an article. - I found him as a red link in a recent article, we missed his birthday, - next best would be day of death 20 August.
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
- Mandarax, thank you for pointing out that Mathis der Maler was just a redirect, and to the wrong target. Discussing a move, but for now, just take the crazy present article name.
- Comment Gerda, rather illogically, "designed stage" isn't idiomatic in English (even i think AmEng) - "was the stage designer" is probably best. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry. It was "designed stage and costumes", - then I deleted the costumes for brevity's sake and forgot to add "the". Your wording might push it beyond 200 chars, and I like to see him active ;)
grammar fixed: ... that Hainer Hill (pictured), who took hundreds of photographs documenting Brecht's Berliner Ensemble, designed the stage for Hindemith's Mathis der Maler for the new Opernhaus Dortmund in 1966?
- No, this doesn't fix the grammar: no native user of English (including American English) would write "designed the stage". The following is 186 prose characters omitting "(pictured)":
- ALT2: ... that Hainer Hill (pictured), who took hundreds of photographs documenting Brecht's Berliner Ensemble, was the stage designer for Hindemith's Mathis der Maler for the new Opernhaus Dortmund in 1966?
- If you prefer, "did the stage design" could be used instead of Johnbod's "was the stage designer", though the latter is more commonly used. —BlueMoonset (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, and I don't prefer "did the stage design". In German, we learn not to use these week verbs (was, did), - I will try to remember. What do you say then for designing stage and costumes? Just for my education. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Just "designed" or "designed the stage and costumes" would do it, I think. I see that was what you had in the first place, nearly. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wasn't I just told that no native English (including American ...) would write that?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. I disagree that "designed the stage" would be used in this context. However, "designed Hindemith's" could work. Just because a verb is one you don't use in German, doesn't mean that it won't work in English. But how about "created the stage design"? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- ALT3: ... that Hainer Hill (pictured), who took hundreds of photographs documenting Brecht's Berliner Ensemble, created the stage design for Hindemith's Mathis der Maler at the new Opernhaus Dortmund in 1966?
- I don't think a simple "designed" would work, because then we would not know what (stage, costumes, light ...) - He designed the costumes also, quite regularly, but let's keep it simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. I disagree that "designed the stage" would be used in this context. However, "designed Hindemith's" could work. Just because a verb is one you don't use in German, doesn't mean that it won't work in English. But how about "created the stage design"? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wasn't I just told that no native English (including American ...) would write that?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Just "designed" or "designed the stage and costumes" would do it, I think. I see that was what you had in the first place, nearly. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, and I don't prefer "did the stage design". In German, we learn not to use these week verbs (was, did), - I will try to remember. What do you say then for designing stage and costumes? Just for my education. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
New enough (at the time of nomination), long enough, and superficially appears to be thoroughly sourced; QPQ done. Hook ALT3 is now sufficiently idiomatic, (barely) short enough, and (barely) interesting enough. Earwig found no significant copying. Assuming good faith for offline source for "hundreds of photos". However, the source for the stage design for Mathis der Maler is inadequate even for a good-faith pass. It just says "Mathis der Maler (in German). Oper Dortmund. 1968". There is no indication whether this is a book (and if so which pages are intended), a recording of a performance, an ephemeral performance, an unlinked web page, or what. Searching for the exact phrases "Mathis der Maler" "Oper Dortmund "1968" both on the open web and in WorldCat's book catalog led me no closer to understanding or verification. As such it cannot be verified by other editors, even those with access to whatever kind of source it might be, and it fails the DYK sourcing requirements. Most of the other footnotes are equally bad. Footnotes need to provide sources that other editors could use to verify claims, not merely be telegraphic notes to yourself about where you found some information. Additionally, the photo is dated 1956 (recent enough to be in copyright), appears to be scanned from a publication rather than originally sourced from its photographer, and is claimed to be CC-licensed but without any information about who may have made that claim or why they have the right to do so. So I do not find the claim that it is free to be credible. As well as the sourcing problems, this needs to be fixed or the photo removed from the hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into it. I could take a photo of the opera program which I own, or would you just believe me AGF, as other book sources? Gatoclass (if I remember it right) told me that I can use the programs I collected as sources (years ago), and it has been accepted many times. In the 1960s, there was no online documentation. Some houses later made a database, - Dortmund didn't. - Other references were taken when translating, - I'll check - I'd like the hook fact because of the painter-painter quirkiness, on top of my personal memory. - The hook could simply go without photo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda, I do not recall the discussion you mention, but I would say an official opera program would be reliable enough. However, your cite does not mention that the source is an opera program, so I think you would need to rectify that. A date and some other information would also be useful. No comment on the other stated issues, as this is David's review, not mine. Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you can determine that the opera program is accessible in some library somewhere then it would be verifiable (it doesn't have to be available online), but it should be more clearly marked as being an opera program. If it is in your own personal collection only, then I think that would go past the kind of availability described in WP:SOURCEACCESS and into unverifiable territory. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. How do I indicate in the cite web template that it is a program for a play or opera? The years are given, I have the dates when I went to see them, but couldn't afford premieres, so the dates would not be publishing dates.
- David, I could reduce the works only sourced to programs, but found it interesting when digging in personal papers that - after the strong Brecht connection - he did La Bohéme and Hänsel and Gretel ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- David, I added an online source that the Mathis production existed, Schott, click on Performances, then search for Dortmund. Sadly, they only give the conductor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: any progress on this? It's been more than two weeks. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- ALT3: ... that Hainer Hill (pictured), who took hundreds of photographs documenting Brecht's Berliner Ensemble, was the stage designer for Alban Berg's Wozzeck at the reopened Staatsoper Berlin in 1955?
- I had that in mind for the director, also sees Hill in Berlin and nowhere else, but well ... - it was a well-documented performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Given that you still want Hill to be pictured, have you addressed at all my comments about the image copyright? Also sources 9-14 are still as unverifiable as they previously were. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry about my English. What I said above was "The hook could simply go without photo." Is that unclear. If the offline sources bother you even when not for the hook, I can remove them but I wonder where AGF went. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not a question of good faith that you have in your personal collection old opera programs that you think verify these claims. It is my belief that (1) sources in the personal library of a Wikipedia editor do not count as verifiable reliable sources by Wikipedia rules, and (2) you have still not formatted these references in a way that makes it possible for anyone to even tell what they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Didn't you see that I removed them? (... leaving his late career a bit colourless) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not a question of good faith that you have in your personal collection old opera programs that you think verify these claims. It is my belief that (1) sources in the personal library of a Wikipedia editor do not count as verifiable reliable sources by Wikipedia rules, and (2) you have still not formatted these references in a way that makes it possible for anyone to even tell what they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry about my English. What I said above was "The hook could simply go without photo." Is that unclear. If the offline sources bother you even when not for the hook, I can remove them but I wonder where AGF went. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Given that you still want Hill to be pictured, have you addressed at all my comments about the image copyright? Also sources 9-14 are still as unverifiable as they previously were. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: any progress on this? It's been more than two weeks. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda, I do not recall the discussion you mention, but I would say an official opera program would be reliable enough. However, your cite does not mention that the source is an opera program, so I think you would need to rectify that. A date and some other information would also be useful. No comment on the other stated issues, as this is David's review, not mine. Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Good to go with ALT3, but without the photo. Article still long enough after edits. Source for stage design of Wozzeck verified. Offline source for "hundreds of photos" taken on good faith. Both claims properly sourced in the article, which now meets DYK sourcing rules. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
