Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Schuke

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Karl Schuke

(
)
Organ in the Gedächtniskirche
Organ in the Gedächtniskirche
  • Reviewed: Söderala vane
  • Comment: Sorry, I'm a day late - again. I struggled all day yesterday to make a viola player fit for DYK and failed - and forgot this one. - If the image is a problem as the Commons say because of the stained glass, can we perhaps make a crop which leaves so little blue that it's no longer a piece of art? - The two places are Berlin landmarks of architecture after World War II, - I'd love to mention how international the workshop operates but it would get too long. See pics of their organs - some day we should translate the workshop article.

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 08:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC).

  • General eligibility:
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - The article says that the company built the organs, rather than Schuke personally.
  • Interesting: Unknown

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I think it's better to use the full name of the church in English, that would make a more interesting and accessible hook for English speakers. (t · c) buidhe 00:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, and sorry that I made the nomination in a rush and didn't complete the article at least the next day. (When you see an article by me without an infobox, you know that happened.) I added the pic to the article. It goes without saying that no person builds such an organ alone, and organ builders are identified with their workshops, - you say Silbermann organ etc, but if you prefer we can say:
ALT1: ... that organ builder Karl Schuke began a branch of his father's workshop in West Berlin in 1953, which built the organs of the Gedächtniskirche (pictured) and the Philharmonie?
Perhaps it's just me, but I am reluctant to mention the old emperor after whom the church was named when built. The new building, with this organ, and next to the ruin of the first one's tower, has been identified much more with memory of the war than memory of that person. Nobody I know says "Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche" (although still official), only "Gedächtniskirche". I don't know if "Memorial Church" would work. I think if we may use the image, it will be attractive enough with any name. The blue windows are quite recognizable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
buidhe, should I have pinged? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not convinced about the interesting-ness of ALT1. Churches and orchestras are often where organ makers build organs, what makes Schuke's firm interesting or unusual? (t · c) buidhe 02:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The Memorial church is perhaps the most iconic building in Berlin, as a document of the city's troubled history, and the Philharmonie is among the leading concert halls in the world. The firm moved to West Berlin on the founder's initiative, so success right there seems worth mentioning. The firm became more international after his death, but mentioning that may be better for an article about the firm, not him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, but I just don't see how that's accessible to those who are not familiar with the area (i.e., most DYK readers). (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Those "most readers" would probably not enjoy the article anyway. Berlin tourists will have come across the church, - many, unrelated to Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Perhaps:
ALT1A ... that Karl Schuke's company built the organs of the Gedächtniskirche (pictured) and the Berlin Philharmonie?
ALT1B ... that Karl Schuke's company built the organs of the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church (pictured) and the Berlin Philharmonie?
Noting Gerda's preference in using the original German name, the English name is nevertheless offered as an option in case the German name doesn't work out for whatever reason. Just a question though: is the church the most iconic building in Berlin? I would have thought the Bundestag, Brandenburg Gate and the Fernsehturm were more iconic. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Since I have higher standards than some other reviewers I am asking for a second opinion just for the interestingness of the proposed hooks. I don't believe the photograph can be used as there are copyright restrictions on photographing indoors. (t · c) buidhe 06:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that the main hook fact (that his company made the organs for an iconic Berlin church and a famous concert hall) has potential provided that some context could be provided in the hook that they are famous (although I'd be personally fine with approving ALT1A/ALT1B as-is had I not proposed them). As for the issue of copyright, Germany has freedom of panorama for public places so the picture is probably okay. the image has been kept after a discussion, where it was argued that the windows fall under de minimis.Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
IDK about the window but the organ is probably copyrighted. (t · c) buidhe 07:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think organs have ever been thought of as pieces of art with a copy-right, but always learning. (I wonder about this whole copy-right business for building which are inviting the public to enter for free.) - We don't have to say Notre-Dame is iconic, I guess. Actually, readers might smile if we did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Are organs really considered to be copyrighted or are they considered functional? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not easy to copy an organ, seriously. File:Katholische Kirche Idstein 006.JPG is only one example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Out of curiosity, with whom would the copyright lie, if the organ was considered copyrighted? Would we need simply a waiver from the church, or rather the company that produced the organ – or both? Or rather the creator's closest relatives/heirs? (Sorry I can't contribute anything more substantial, but I would like to avoid such issues with my DYK in the future, and thus am trying to learn as much as possible about copyright.) I would also like point out that the deletion discussion explicitly also mentions the organ, which @Ruthven, a Commons admin and OTRS member, deemed a "utilitarian" object.
I intervene to clarify a Commons procedure that might not be familiar to wikipedians. In the photo, the copyrighted material are the stained glasses of the church, not the organ. The organ is an "utilitarian" object, meaning that everyday objects like a car or a piano cannot be copyrighted because they are not artworks (even if they require a specific craft to be made). You can read Commons:To be utilitarian or not to be utilitarian if you like, where the organ is to be compared to the car or to the CD (which contains copyrighted music, but is not the music). On the other side, the stained glasses, which are a piece of art, are de minimis, meaning that they are in the background of the photograph, so the photograph itself was made without the intent of representing them. This is why, even if they are copyrighted, there is no infringement in this photo wrt the stained glasses. Ruthven (msg) 07:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I think this paragraph is what the problem is, it says that views from indoor are not considered "panoramic", even if access is public and free. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
We have hundreds of images inside images of churches. They become a problem only if they contain something specific deserving ccopyright. To my humble knowledge, that may be a sculpture by an artist who isn't dead long enough, but not an organ, and I think that is what Ruthven explained better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the copyright issues, we still need an opinion on whether or not the main hook fact (that Schuke built organs for the two mentioned buildings) is interesting enough. I lean yes but other opinions are also welcome. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think we can safely say that the copyright issue has been resolved per Ruthven's explanation above; the tags have also been removed. And the hooks... I am also leaning towards yes, based on the prestige of the buildings (the Gedächtniskirche might not be that known internationally, but it is quite well-known within Germany). It's a little weak for my taste, but it's still the best one possible from the article. At least I don't see a better one. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ready for a new review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok. A day late but Gerda works hard. Looking at the article, I'd prefer a more consistent image formatting but it's fine for DYK. Article is long enough (and was in March). For ALT0 and ALT1, the explanation in the lead seems to match "a branch" of the family workshop, but in the article body it isn't as clear; I see that the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church is the same thing as the Gedächtniskirche, even my limited German tells me that's not a translation, but even if it was it would be better to have the word in the hook added to the article body as well; Philharmonie is cited in text. ALT1a has the same Gedächtniskirche issue, while ALT1b meets all requirements. AGF on German sources. Some (more) minor article tweaks would make all the hooks satisfactory, but it will be good to go with 1b. I find the hook(s) interesting. I would recommend a crop of the image, not because of the copyvio concern (background glass is probably DEMINIMIS), but because having it tight to the organ would make it much clearer at MP size. The image looks great in the article, but the shine and lines of the organ make it blend a bit too much with the background for my liking when it's smaller. Kingsif (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

From the discussion on DYKTALK:

I think you said it needed to say Berlin or use the image, because you think the image identifies it? While I agree it would be a nice image to use, I promise you I could show that image to everyone in my town and only 50% would even know it was an organ, I don't think anyone would be able to place it in Germany let alone specifics. Remember, very few people know anything about opera/classical music. So if you think the hook needs to have location specified, the image won't do that. Kingsif (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It has to be noted that none of the hooks proposed in the nomination mentioned that the church is in Berlin (perhaps because maybe there was an assumption that people know it's there?), so I'm not sure why it suddenly seems to be problematic that the approved hook did not mention it being in Berlin. In fact, the hook works perfectly fine without the location being made explicit. But if clarity on location is needed, how about:

I've gone with the English name as the German name may be too niche to international readers, although I have no real preference either way and the German name can be used if needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Berlin needs to be mentioned because it was the big step in Schuke's life to move his company (split off his father's company) to Berlin (West Berlin, where the money was, coming from Potsdam in the East). That was mentioned in the original hook, but was dropped in ALTs. The image is from a church destroyed in World War II, and the ruin kept next to the new modern church as a memorial goes well beyond classical music. The destroyed church was named Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche (Emperor William Memorial Church). It became a memorial to the victims of the war, therefore - said aboce - I don't like the emperor's name. Germans know it as Gedächtniskirche (Memorial Church). How about a piped link, Berlin's Memorial Church?
Also approve ALT1C. D doesn't resolve the "Berlin" issue. Kingsif (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
How not, bringing up Berlin to the front?? - I took the liberty of fixing C's links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
What Naruto said: D doesn't actually say either building is in Berlin. It treats "Berliner Philharmonie" as a proper noun, and remember that "Berliner" doesn't mean "of Berlin" (or anything) in English - we recently had a nom about a Canadian newspaper called "Berliner", even. But, even if it did have a meaning in English, it's wikilinked as part of the noun with Philharmonie, and so isn't connected to the vague "Memorial Church". Also, having an article (here, "the") in front of "Memorial Church" would separate it from the Berlin/Philharmonie completely, even if "Berliner" meant something in English and wasn't linked to Philharmonie. Kingsif (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I thought the issue here was that it wasn't clear that the church was in Berlin, something that ALT1C was supposed to resolve. As it stands, ALT1D is too vague about this "Memorial Church" and it doesn't even allude to it being in Berlin anymore. Plus this is the English Wikipedia and not the German Wikipedia, so usually we'd go by a subject's most commonly-known English name. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, the main hook fact here is his company building organs, so the mention of West Berlin is probably unnecessary in the hook since it doesn't add to the hookiness or provide clarification of an unclear point. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I've cropped this image, but I'm still not sure it actually works at this size. It's a great image, but at this size to me it simply looks like a piece of modern art. —valereee (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Karl_Schuke&oldid=1023716320"