Template:Did you know nominations/Wolfram Röhrig


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wolfram Röhrig

 * ... that Wolfram Röhrig, who was responsible for "entertaining music" including jazz for the broadcaster Süddeutscher Rundfunk, recorded Max Reger's Der 100. Psalm? Source: several
 * Reviewed: Remote sensing (geology)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 13:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New, in time, long enough, sourced, neutral, inline hook citations check out, QPQ done., how about "entertaining jazz music" rather than "entertaining music and jazz"? Since jazz is a type of music, it feels redundant. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sigh, and see the discussion on classical music. How about: "including jazz". The department was called "Leichte Musik" in the 1950s, which translates to Light music, but that article describes something very British and different. The broadcaster had jazz as a sub-department of it, which feels strange, at least today, at least to me. Compare Hans Otto Jung, "Swing Under the Nazis: Jazz as a Metaphor for Freedom". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Works for me. Changed to "such as jazz" to avoid adding another clause into the sentence. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain why I don't believe in jazz being entertaining (only). Could we say "entertaining music", in quotation marks I mean, indicating that it is the translation of a name rather that a description of music? Could we please not change nominated hooks when the very thing discussed here is now no more there? - Well, I could also let it go as is ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, misunderstood your previous explanation. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)