Talk:Georg Katzer

Hörspiel or radio drama
The editor's comment states that he wrote the music for Hörspiele and not for radio dramas. 'Hörspiel' redirects to 'radio drama', and I am not aware of any difference in meaning between the German word Hörspiel and the English phrase 'radio drama'. I therefore think that the article would be improved by replacing 'Hörspiel' with 'radio drama'. Coyets (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since that is the way the redirect goes, there seems little point in doing anything else. I think it was two or three years ago, probably on the talk page for Hörspiel (which I would suppose has either disappeared or somehow been merged with the talk page for Radio Drama), when I had a strenuous discussion on this subject with a resident of Berlin who had worked in the radio there, and stoutly maintained there was no difference at all, and that the articles should be merged. My position was that this may well be true for Berlin, where I have little experience, but that it was quite a different matter in Cologne (admittedly my information from there comes second-hand, but from impeccable sources), where many productions of the Hörspiel section could not conceivably by classified as drama at all—for example, the sound-collages they commissioned from John Cage, Peter Handke, Ferdinand Kriwet, Richard Kostelanetz, or Charles Amirkhanian, one of whose works was even literally impossible to broadcast. (This difference was made explicit under Klaus Schöning's direction of the Hörspiel section at WDR 3, though in 1991 the name was changed to Studio Akustische Kunst.) Since Georg Katzer worked in Berlin and not in Cologne, this line of argument is only of peripheral interest here, but should at least be footnoted somewhere in the "Radio drama" article, supposing that it includes mention of the German term. Thanks for calling this to my attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article 'Radio drama' does not include the word 'Hörspiel', although it redirects there. I have looked into the matter of adding this reference, but I have come to the conclusion that it should be done by someone with more specialist knowledge about the subject than myself. However, I have changed this article as discussed. Coyets (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the references and will add the requisite information.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox?
The infobox as shown was removed. What do others think? It's not just yes or no, but talk about parameters. Without the infobox, I suggest much more lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One way or the other, the lead is too short right now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Will you, please? After that death, I faced a tenor and soprano who died, - I'm exhausted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

New day: The infobox was (after another user restored it) removed a second time, now with an edit summary referring to WP:BRD. I don't believe that it applies, because I don't think adding an infobox is anything bold. It's meant to help readers with less knowledge of English, look for a specific fact, are vision impaired, want an overview. But here we go with formality, and discuss. In the meantime, Jerome, I urge you to expand the lead!! Readers have now to go far to see where he studied, the organisations he presided, the awards, and even a place of death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you believe this, why did you bring this to Discussion after I Reverted your Bold addition? In any case, it is under discussion now. Thank you. And, FWIW, I have already expanded the lead, twice, including a mention of what is perhaps his most important award. Perhaps more expansion is needed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You reverted my addition, and I never revert a revert, bold or not, vandalism or not, to avoid edit wars, so came to discuss. Picking only one award and making it the Federal Republic one leaves his long history in the GDR behind. Mentioning three, as the proposed infobox does, seems a little fairer to me. Your turn, because for me, writing an infobox is easy, but writing well-balanced prose is hard. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "I don't think adding an infobox is anything bold". You are wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Adding an infobox is natural article expansion for some whether that expansion is liked or not. Removing because "I don't like it" seems a weak reason and certainly has no policy support for changes to any article. Edit warring, and yes I reverted too, does not really fall under WP:BOLD. So here we are, same old same old. An info box allows for a quick scan of information. An infobox is useful for those who don't want to read an article but just want one or two facts. An inbox is useful as an overview. Whether it's this article, or any other this why I support inboxes. As far as personal taste. I like the look of it but then I also like an overview, a sense of the whole, before I look at the specifics. There may be something in the overview that draws me in. Some readers are less likely to read a whole article if they are unfamiliar with the topic. But here again these are the same arguments in most info box discussions. What we have to take into accouNt seems to me is that there are more than one kind of reader and an inbox may appeal to some even if not all. I won't revert again because I hold myself to 1RR most of the time but I also don't support the article with out the ibox. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Littleolive oil: I cannot tell from what you say whether or not you are aware of the long (and rather tiresome) history of discussions on infoboxes for composer articles, as Gerda and SchroCat certainly are, but I should have previously provided a link to the position statement by the WikiProject Composers, which requests that addition of composer infoboxes be discussed and editorial consensus be obtained on a case-by-case basis.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken part in a several discussions on infoboxes, am familiar with the ArbCom case on inofboxes but no, was not aware of the position statement which is quite outdated and shockingly biased. Wow! You reverted as Bold with an edit summary that implied, I don't like it. I guess you could say I boldly reverted since there was no true policy reason for your revert. I am discussing this here now. But for me this is the situation. I'm not going to fight about this. It's the same thing over and over. And I do see both sides but don't agree with one side. It's that simple. As for the position statement it doesn't jive in any way with much of the editor position I've seen on ibox discussions. As I said, I both won't go into this further, (I'm am due to leave town in few minutes for the day anyway) unless someone can come up with something new and brilliant, and won't revert again. By the way, I would be more convinced of your arguments if you had reverted based on more than dislike and then Bold then when questioned referenced an outdated biased essay which doesn't make sense-does every editor who writes an article have to discuss adding content in this case an ibox. Even had you been the main contributor to this article I might see logic in your revert, but while you wrote the stub you didn't reference it at all, as far as I can tell, for 4 months and this was a BLP. I cannot see you or anyone else claiming stewardship of the article. So Gerda was in her rights to add an info box and I don't see a single good reason for removing it. This is what makes the box discussions tiresome. How can anyone argue with what seems to be with out logic. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The same is true if you spin it around. "I don't see a single good reason for adding it and Jerome Kohl was in his rights to remove it". Such broad sweeping statements (mine version as well as your original) without even considering the actions of others (and ignoring AGF entirely) don't advance the situation one iota. Just because you can't see the logic doesn't mean that there isn't any. Some people think having an IB as a default position as an article to be an illogical position - we're all different, but I look forward to the long pointless thread of no new arguments, someone soft canvassing (or at least continuing to do it), and the occasional drive by editor saying "yes, I always expect to see an IB, without actually engaging their brain and thinking about the purpose, benefits and drawbacks. Such is life. - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand what I said. I see the logic of the revert; I don't agree with it, and the logic itself seems illogical. Your assumptions of poor faith on my part are also sweeping and also untrue. I can only lay out the concerns I see with the reasons given for the revert. And I did enumerate them clearly. Do they attack the editor who made them? No. Frankly, I expect an editor to lay out what they think, as well, and to rebut me. I don't have to agree and I don't have to think the reasons were good or logical, and editors are welcome to do the same with me. I am not going to think less of an editor who doesn't agree with me than one who does. And I am not going to accuse him/her of anything.   Maybe you can see that unless, as I note in my first post, there is a brilliant [new] idea we will always be in the same place we have always been with info boxes. I said I would say very little and I said I wouldn't revert more than once. Those are overarching assumptions of good faith in this process. And so please, just accept that some editors do edit in good faith, do disagree, yet still carry no animosity towards those they disagree with. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly concur with your last statement. There are, however, those who just keep pushing the point endlessly - adding boxes and then, if they are removed, 'soft canvassing' by mentioning it at several talk pages. I don't think you are one of those people, by the way, and discussing things with you is always civil. But let's look at this case here. Your revert of Jerome Kohl was on the basis (according to your edit summary) of '"I don't like it" is not a good reason to remove'. Now that's an interesting one, but what JK said in removing the box was "much better without an infobox (this one was particularly ugly and distracting, sorry, Gerda)". While you may think "better" and "ugly" are akin to "I don't like it" (a somewhat moot point, particularly given the sensitivity around IBs, particularly when edit warring over them), describing it as "distracting" is not "I don't like it". It's a very important point that should be considered. I'll give you a parallel example: when I re-write an article I will occasionally add a quote box. One of the MoS regulars hates them and we have had harsh words in the past over their use. One of the arguments he gives is that the use of the quote box draws a reader's attention away from what has been written to focus on what is in the box, and this, he says, is a Bad Thing. (He's a proponent of IBs, but I don't know how he squares that particular circle). IBs are distracting, and a friend of mine who struggles with dyslexia and concentration issues tells me he finds them hugely distracting: the eye is drawn to them, and he finds himself struggling to move it away from that. (He complains to me that he can't ever understand a subject on WP because he ends up being dragged up to the IB and images). No, you can't please all the people all the time, but why the actual need for some people to force the issue endlessly is beyond me. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify. "This one was particularly ugly and distracting,..." is a subjective negative judgement on the visual value of something which I equated with the less specific and less emphatic, "I don't like it." No big deal just the way I saw the statement. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Infobox not needed as it contains nothing that is not included in a carefully written lead, adds nothing to an article and does not encourage readers to read further. Jack1956 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Tape (band?)
(Compositions) Tape makes no sense. Suspect it is a translation error and should be "band" (German "Band" i.S.v. small instrumental group). Jmar67 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Pardon? Tape (= Tonband) is rather common in electronic music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but the younger generation may not be familiar with such an old-fashioned technology! I suggest "electronic sounds", which would more accurately represent compositions not actually recorded on magnetic audio tape.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Could not find German term, assumed incorrectly. Sorry. Not an EM fan. Agree with your change. Tape loop might work. Jmar67 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are thinking of electroacoustic music? That would certainly be a valid alternative. (BTW, where I come from, "EM" stands for "Early music").—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry again. I thought we were trying to translate "Tonband" ("tape loop"?). I just made EM up (lazy). Jmar67 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see! No, the German word for "loop" is Schleife, and "tape" is Band (also with the senses of "ribbon" or "belt"). To be absolutely clear just what sort of tape is meant, the compound Tonband is used. A "tape loop" is a Bandschleife or Tonbandschleife.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know German well enough. What I do not understand is the source of the original word "tape" in the article, which I had mistakenly changed to "band" in the instrumental sense. I then began to believe the source for "tape" was "Tonband". Tape loop is a technical term I thought might apply in this case, i.e., could serve as a figurative translation of "Tonband". Jmar67 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)