Talk:Tamás Király

Did you know nomination

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) 11:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Tamás Király

• ... that no one knows exactly what statement fashion designer Tamás Király (pictured) was making with a 1989 hat resembling the Hungarian Parliament dome? Source: "No one could tell what statement Király was exactly making ... Was it a joke? Was it a political protest? Was it quite simply just a cool hat?" Articles of Interest, 15:05
  • ALT1: ... that Communist police questioned Tamás Király (pictured) over his hat resembling the Hungarian Parliament dome, but could find no cause to arrest him? Source: "And right away they got stopped by the police. Of course they come and ask them what they are doing. Király and his model had to show them their IDs. ... If anybody [could], he could talk himself out of such situations. OK, what did he do? I mean, you can't arrest somebody just because he takes pictures of a woman in a garden, not even naked or anything indecent. No one could really say anything. Again, it wasn't illegal." Articles of Interest, 13:55
  • ALT2: ... that Tamás Király (pictured) made "clothing sculptures" out of found objects, including trash bags and bank notes? Source: "during these fashion walks they would dress up in very outfits made out of unusual materials such as trash bags or pieces of [mirror?]. They would just put on these outfits and walk down the street. They used tar paper. They used bank notes to make vests." Articles of Interest, 2:25
  • ALT3: ... that when Communist authorities denied Tamás Király's (pictured) grant application for a fashion show, he used their rejection letter as its poster? Source: "In one of the fashion shows, the poster of the show is a rejection letter from the arts fund." Articles of Interest, 18:48
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bronisław Malinowski
  • Comment: Yes yes, I know that he got friggin' murdered by a prostitute, but I'd prefer we go with a slightly less crass hook if possible. The photo is nicely evocative, so I'd love to see it included.

Created by Sdkb (talk) and Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 06:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Tamás Király; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• This article is largely sourced to a podcast on Substack. Under what reading of WP:PSTS and WP:RS is that acceptable? — Biruitorul ^Talk 08:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking a look at the article, Biruitorul, and valid question. As with any source, what matters is that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not what format they're published in. Podcasts have a very wide range of quality, from self-published junk to something like TAL that's fact-checked more rigorously than most academic books. Articles of Interest is pretty clearly toward the upper end of the quality spectrum: It's hosted by Avery Trufelman, an established American journalist, it's backed by the podcast network Radiotopia, and it has received praise from highly reliable sources like The New Yorker ("her writing and delivery are unaffectedly intelligent"), The New York Times ("heroically researched"), and the BBC ("carefully crafted"). Given that, I think it's clearly reliable. It's also clearly a secondary source, given that Trufelman is interviewing experts and drawing on academic literature the same as a journalist producing print work would do. Podcasts are never my favorite format to cite, given that it's harder for readers to verify work through them than through newspaper articles (granted, still easier than offline sources), but there's nothing that makes radio journalism any inherently less reliable than print/web journalism, and in this case the best English source happens to be a work of radio journalism. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I may add my 2 cents: I feel the source publishing the podcast is reliable enough (not because of the praise, but because of its publisher being the Public Radio Exchange). I do however see grounds for an objection in terms of WP:ATTR: the podcast is a medium for opinions, not established facts, and so any claim about facts should either be attributed to the source or referred to as factual if and only if another more conventional source backs them up. If any hooks here are based on the podcast alone, they should be introduced with "reportedly" and the like. Dahn (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Verifying and backing up with additional citations should be easy to do for someone with interest in the topic and access to native print sources. I personally find it poor show when an article written about something inherently tied to country X uses no sources from country X. Dahn (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Dahn: Woah, it looks like you did a very thorough overhaul! I'll check it out later when I have some more time, but overall it's really nice to have someone working on it who knows Romanian; I do not, which is why it previously used only a few Romanian sources.

  Regarding the podcast, just like they have a wide range of quality, they have a wide range on the fact-to-opinion spectrum, with nothing inherent to the format. Articles of Interest is most akin to something like a magazine feature article of the sort we use at DYK all the time: There are a few moments where Trufelman veers into opinion, which we'd want to attribute if citing, but by and large, it's a factual reported story, including at the points cited above. That said, if you want to swap out the sources above with others that support the same hooks, feel free. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  I beg to differ on one point, Sdkb. The podcast, like a radio show, may include anecdotes that do not go through the same vetting as magazine articles; they count more as statements made during an interview. This is not to say that the reputation of the source in question, just that all forms of orality have a degree of uncertainty, relying for instance on memorized facts, which may be (more or less subtly) transformed in the process. For instance, the Parliament hat incident as recounted in the podcast (as you render it, presumably very closely to what it says -- I haven't listened to the podcast and I fully trust you to have cited it correctly) highlights an anecdote that no other source in the 30-plus years has ever apparently considered (I can safely claim that, as I have access to a database of the Hungarian press, which I used for sourcing). Though various sources refer to the hat, they never mention TK's supposed run-in with police, though you'd think their press would also view it as a juicy fact. It is also a tad suspicious: Hungarian communism was the "happiest barrack", where by 1985 or so you could publish just about any irreverent comment about the nature of communism, and where in 1987 national magazines had pictures of TK's shows showing full-frontal nudity. It may be that the police bothered to make sure he wasn't up to create an incident, but they didn't even prevent him from taking photos of the display, and these were published in explicitly anti-communist papers that were widely circulated in Budapest at the time. One of these magazines, which I cited, has a picture of the thing, and claims it was done to advertise precisely that magazine -- therefore, something overtly political, which was already common at the time. It also dates the event to June or July 1989, which is the very last of the very last stage of Hungarian communism, when bureaucrats were simply closing up shop and going home.

What this means is not the the podcast's claims on this topic (and others) are unreliable, but they are bit sensationalist or purely-literary in nature, and focus on details that Hungarians don't seem to even remember. I don't advocate stripping the source or questioning the article as is, but I would welcome, again, if accounts exclusively from that source are attributed or, if used as hooks here, qualified as reports, not as verified facts. Also note that "could find no cause to arrest him" goes beyond what the source actually says (and both go beyond what may have actually happened, but that's an aside); the quote you provide from the source does not imply that police were looking for reasons to arrest TK, just that there were no such reasons. Dahn (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who works in journalism, I don't know what you mean by The podcast, like a radio show, may include anecdotes that do not go through the same vetting as magazine articles; they count more as statements made during an interview. Secondary sources are built off of primary sources — both a magazine and a reported radio show will use interviews that they quote from, as written quotes in the former case and soundbites in the latter, in both cases using editorial judgement and factual vetting to decide what to include. The format is immaterial; both are considered reliable if we trust the journalist involved. The situation in which radio material would run afoul of WP:INTERVIEW and become more of a primary source would be something like a live on-air interview, but this is not that. I continue to maintain that Articles of Interest is a perfectly valid source given the reputational info I provided to Biruitorul above, and I suspect that WP:RSN would concur. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Sdkb: I'm not asking for AoI to not be used as a source, or not cited at all, I am merely presenting a case as to why it may not be the best source for hooks, especially if and when other sources disagree. Dahn (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I note now that the above invalidates the original hook. I have added a source which claims it knew what statement TK was making with that hat. (I think this also pertinently illustrates why the podcast is less reliable than you'd imagine: the journalist made a subtle transition in presented her opinion as fact -- as in: "I can't possibly know what he meant by it, therefore no one knows if he meant anything by it".) Dahn (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The way the hook is phrased, using exactly, there would be a high bar of knowledge required to make that untrue. Reform magazine's speculation doesn't rise above that bar in my view. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Except it is not speculation, it is a statement from the exact period saying "he did if for us". I don't expect AoI to have ever gone into that level of research into an obscure topic (I myself only came across it by accident), but at this point to say we simply don't know why he created the hat contradicts the article and uses the most vague claim of those advanced by the sources. Dahn (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• I added sources to the text and expanded accordingly, improved the format, etc. In the process, I noticed that the two book sources invoked as references were not in fact references. One was a blurb, not the book itself, and misleadingly presented as the book -- in any case, it was used for just one fact out of the million that actually appear in the book itself. The other was not cited at all. I took the liberty of removing them. Dahn (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Concerning ALT3: Does the source make an explicit connection to the communist government? Because, as we stand, the text simply mentions the Arts' Fund, which was professionally-based, technically non-political. I mean, there is a difference of attitude and scope between "we don't give you money because you're not a communist like us", and "we don't give you money because you're not a syndicate member and/or because you're untrained and/or because we think your art sucks". Dahn (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Sdkb: Thoughts? Dahn (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Dahn: Apologies for the delayed reply. I've addressed some of your points above. Regarding your source removal, I disagree, but that relates to the article rather than the DYK here. Please confine non-DYK-related points about the article to the talk page, since putting them here obscures the DYK-related stuff, and DYK reviewers aren't as likely to take up nominations with big walls of text.

  Regarding ALT3, the source makes it very clear that the arts fund was the "official" path, which in a Communist country means the path approved by Communist authorities. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Sdkb To address the issue I raised: if the AoI source mentions a political background to his being rejected, then I have no objection to that hook. I was only asking to clarify whether the claim was made by the source, or inferred by you (based on the assumption that communists controlled the Arts Fund). Dahn (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Dahn and I have substantially reworked the article since the nomination, adding additional sources. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you are asking for a new reviewer but to take a fresh view I will not read the review comments but just look at the article. I like ALT3 so I listened to check it is indeed in podcast at 18 mins. Did a couple of tiny copyedits. If you can just fix the Harv referencing errors (let me know if you cannot see them) I will approve.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Chidgk1 (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Thanks for the read! I cannot see the Harv errors, but I made a tweak that I believe should fix them. Lmk if it hasn't. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes has fixed - not required for DYK but optionally you could add an English description to the pic at File:Király_Tamás.jpg. Thanks for interesting article. Good to go.

• Sorry guys, and especially Sdkb (talk · contribs), but we need to address this: the first hook about the hat, namely ALT0, needs to be stricken out, for the reason I specified -- we cannot in good conscience ignore a source that contradicts the hook; for ALT 3 to work, we also need a quote in the article from Trufelman specifically indicating that the ban can be tracked down to the communist authorities. As we stand, what we have is: "For one of his fashion shows, he used a rejection letter from the Hungarian Arts Fund as the poster." As I have specified, the Arts Fund was a nominally neutral organization, and the reasons for the rejection could have been entirely professional; if Trufelman says "communist authorities" (and she presumably does), the article still needs to have wording specifying that, for ALT 3 to be verified. Either that or reword/strike down ALT 3 as well. All other alts are verified, but maybe, as a co-contributor, I should not be the one reviewing them. Dahn (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah hmm I see - I do remember that Hungary was one of the more liberal communist countries but OK I assumed the Arts Fund was controlled by communists. Does it help for ALT3 that page 20 and 21 of https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000009050 say that the Art Fund was under the competance of the Ministry of Culture? Anyway ALT1 is fine for me - have ticked above. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Sdkb (talk · contribs) has mentioned that the Trufelman podcast, which he already used to source that detail has some detail on how the communist authorities were involved -- I think this should be quoted in the article, to establish the link between the regime and the rejection, which is not currently spelled outright in the article. (And yes, while Hungary was outstandingly liberal, "the happiest barrack" and the like, I think any connection made between a decision taken by a cultural body in any communist country and the regime itself, even in Stalinist countries, needs to be specified in the sources used -- and generally is specified -- for us to credit decisions made by that body as political. For instance, the idiotic purge at the Romanian Academy in the 1940s and '50s will be easily explained as a political decision made by the regime -- because the sources will spell it out as such every single time they mention the purge, which will leave nobody but absolute cretins assuming it was a decision made by academicians acting on their own. Other decisions are not as clear-cut -- for instance, Kiraly had no formal qualification in the field, and his aesthetic was outre by many standards, not just communist. So any source that spells out the fact of this being a political decision is even more important, particularly where we base a hook on it being political.) Dahn (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

To simplify. The article and its immediate context say: Király lacked the credentials to be officially registered as an artist, complicating his career. For one of his fashion shows, he used a rejection letter from the Hungarian Arts Fund as the poster. This implies an objective criterion for the rejection ("lacked the credentials"); it does not imply what the hooks says: Communist authorities denied etc. Granted, it may be the case that the regime rejected him; a source saying this, and a wording to reflect this, are needed for the hook to be considered verified. Dahn (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dahn and Chidgk1: I'm fine with ALT0 being struck given that we seem to find ALT3 most interesting anyways; striking all hooks except that one would make it easier for the promoter. I think the source you found, Chidgk1, should be sufficient in conjunction with the podcast. I've added that and tweaked the wording in the article just to be on the safe side of WP:DYKHOOK. With that, I hope we're good to go. Thanks Chidgk1 for the review and Dahn for your ongoing contributions at the article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Please note that using UNESCO to advance a claim not made by UNESCO is specifically not allowed per WP:SYNTH. However, expanding the sentence sourced from Trufelman with a clarification that the Art Fund reflected the regime's policies in this case (not "in general" or in "other cases") should both clarify the issue and validate the hook. You said before: the source [Trufelman] makes it very clear that the arts fund was the "official" path, which in a Communist country means the path approved by Communist authorities. As the person who watched the podcast, you could and should simply change the phrasing in the article to reflect that. Dahn (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I've now listened to the podcast 18 minutes in, to about 23 minutes in, and there's no direct mention of the communist authorities, they simply go into the constraints of corporate culture at the Arts Fund. They are roughly the same in many other countries of Eastern Europe, before and after communism: people in such countries still cannot legally call themselves artists unless they show a diploma. Unless I'm missing something, the hook for ALT3 seems to be based on wishful thinking and a tiny bit of WP:OR. Let's just strike it and go with another. Dahn (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dahn: I don't follow your objection. We have established that the Arts Fund was under the auspices of Hungary's Ministry of Culture. Hungary at the time was a Communist country, however liberal or illiberal. It directly follows from that that a rejection from the Arts Fund was a rejection from Communist authorities. That's not OR, it's WP:BLUESKY/WP:CALC-level logic. Whether their rejection was politically motivated or not is not something specified by the hook. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: No, it does not. If you have a body of experts or corporate representatives under a government's auspices, the body, however inane, is not automatically acting on orders from the government; as I said before, it is one thing to suggest that TK was rejected for not being a communist, and whole different thing to note that he did not fit in with professional standards that precede communism, and are in fact still largely in place. The point about liberalism was simply that yes, you could claim corporate bodies were not in any way independent or competent-based under Stalinism -- and that the connection between regime and corporate body, for any such case, will have been made by the source. This is not the case here, since it was a liberal regime where communism was by then notional and especially since, contrary to your claim, Trufelman and her guests never actually make any such connection. Dahn (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll defer to Chidgk1, the reviewer, who has approved the hook. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Please don't forget that ALT0 (the original hook) is currently contradicted by a source used in the article, and therefore no longer verified. Dahn (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Chidgk1, Sdkb, and Dahn: the above is rather confusing. Are ALTs 1 & 2 viable and approved hooks? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: Yes. Dahn (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• @AirshipJungleman29: No I did not approve 2 as I did not find it interesting. Let's go with ALT1 as everyone seems happy with that Chidgk1 (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Changing when Communist authorities denied to when authorities in Communist Hungary denied would be another possible solution to any concerns with ALT3. Would that be acceptable to you, Chidgk1? Having the most interesting hooks is the whole goal of DYK, so we should try to go with whichever one folks find most so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• I understand your point but that could lead to more discussion - I have had enough of this DYK - I suspect the subject would just want us to have fun - it is not some serious medical article for example - just put ALT1 in please because my wife just told me to go and pick figs now - bye Chidgk1 (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am also beyond exhausted by this nomination, but precisely because it's been such a slog I really dislike the idea at this point of unnecessarily settling for a weaker hook. Dahn, if I understand your prior objections correctly, ALT3a ought to be acceptable given that it no longer calls the authorities Communists, so please reflect on whether you can live with that for all our sakes. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  OK fine I hereby also approve ALT3a, which has the advantage the viewers won't think he is wearing the parliament hat. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sdkb & Chidgk1: What is lost by simply calling it the Arts Fund? Dahn (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not a recognizable concept. We've had enough here; please drop this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I took time to research this article beyond the quasi-one-source version that had brought up the main objection here. Please let's not treat my objections as frivolous -- I have taken additional time to explain what the issue is, this is something you should value. Dahn (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  ALT 3 is still not verified by the quoted source, and relies on WP:SYNTH. Either pick another hook or rephrase it to what the source backs. Suggesting that the Arts Fund rejected him as a communist body (which it was not, not even under communism) would be acceptable only if the claim were made in the source -- it is not. Dahn (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  ALT3a addresses the concern, as it does not state that the arts fund was explicitly a Communist body. To be clear, for all intensive purposes it was, per the source Chidgk1 identified, but since you were not satisfied we have bent over backwards to accommodate you. The reviewer took your concerns into account in approving ALT3a; it is time to drop the stick. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Let me put it bluntly: perhaps if you hadn't introduce OR to this rather okay article and insisted on pushing it, the time spent on it and the hook would've been substantially reduced, without the drama we're veering into now. Please be collegial: I am not here to serve you. Dahn (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Much appreciated, and apologies again that reviewing this turned out to be more than you signed up. So for AirshipJungleman29 or any other promoter, the preferred approved hook is ALT3a: ... that when authorities in Communist Hungary denied Tamás Király's (pictured) grant application for a fashion show, he used their rejection letter as its poster? Also, in case it got lost above, The photo is nicely evocative, so I'd love to see it included. Thanks to all for their work on this; I hope it does well on the Main Page! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Since there appear to be issues with ALT3a, would you be ok with dropping the "Communist" (which seems to be causing the issues) from it, as in ALT3b: ... that when Hungarian authorities denied Tamás Király's (pictured) grant application for a fashion show, he used their rejection letter as its poster? If not, I'll promote ALT1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29: The issue was that the Arts Fund was not explicitly referred to in the initial source as a Communist authority. The reviewer, Chidgk1, found a source stating that it was under the competence of the Ministry of Culture, but Dahn rejected that since he considered it SYNTH. ALT3a is the compromise hook that no longer directly calls the authorities Communist, just states that the rejection took place in a Communist country. That resolved the issue to my satisfaction and to Chidgk1's, who approved it, but not to Dahn's. If you concur with Chidgk1 and me, then that is clear consensus, and you can promote the compromise hook, ALT3a, as is. I think ALT3b would make the hook weaker by removing the uncontroversial context that Hungary at the time was a Communist country, but if you agree with Dahn, then ALT3b would be the next best option. So I'll leave it to your judgement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29: The issue here is with the suggestion that a corporate body which rejected an application for financing because the applicant had no credentials exercised communist censorship (or even state censorship for that matter). The suggestion is not found in the source; it smacks of OR. The objection I have is against OR on Main Page. If we must have the hook then we can simply call the institution by its name. ALT3c: ... that when the Hungarian Arts Fund denied Tamás Király's (pictured) grant application for a fashion show, he used its rejection letter as a poster? Dahn (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

ENOUGH ENOUGH ENOUGH - I AM THE REVIEWER AND I HAVE DECIDED WE WILL USE ALT1 Chidgk1 (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

With respect, you have done no such thing. Also, please see WP:YELL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for yelling everyone. @AirshipJungleman29: As the reviewer can't I just decide now that we will use ALT1? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

No, because a) I have to promote it and b) the hook is slightly confusing because the "his hat" of the hook is not the "his hat" of the accompanying picture, so I'd be reluctant to use the picture slot; it would probably go in the quirky slot instead. I'm considering it, especially as the picture, while "evocative", is not necessarily clear at 100px, but I'd like to see if we can resolve the ALT3 issues first. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am reluctant to get sucked into the seemingly never ending ALT3 discussion above. Is it a good idea to add an amusing "hatnote" to DYK ALT1 (e.g. Hatnote: not the hat he is wearing in this pic - you have to click the link) or would that be too much of a Wikipedia nerd in joke?Chidgk1 (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• • ALT1a: ... that Communist police questioned Tamás Király (pictured) over his Hungarian Parliament dome hat (not that one - read the article)? Source: "And right away they got stopped by the police. Of course they come and ask them what they are doing. Király and his model had to show them their IDs. ... If anybody [could], he could talk himself out of such situations. OK, what did he do? I mean, you can't arrest somebody just because he takes pictures of a woman in a garden, not even naked or anything indecent. No one could really say anything. Again, it wasn't illegal." Articles of Interest, 13:55
    • @Chidgk1 and AirshipJungleman29: there's also this image of him with no hat, which is used in the article, and which can be temporarily cropped for mainpage to show just his face, and thus avoid this problem altogether. Dahn (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Article development

Hi @Dahn! I finally had a chance to look over all the improvements you made to the article; apologies it took so long! Overall, it looks really really good — you've filled out a lot more detail on things than I had been able to. I did a copy edit run through the article adjusting various smallish things. Some additional questions/thoughts that might help bring us closer to a GAN:

• Lots of articles on artists have a section devoted to explaining their style that is separate from the narrative of their life. The narrative here is now long enough that the sentences where we describe his style seem to be getting a bit lost/starting to feel a bit out of place. Do you think it'd help to move those to a "Style" section?
• I really hate using name hatnotes, as the info seems more appropriate for a footnote but there doesn't seem to be any alternative yet for Hungarian names. I opened a thread about that at the template page.
• The Reform magazine we cite is presumably not Reform (magazine). Is there a page for it in Hungarian? If not, should it be redlinked? More generally, all of the sources ideally ought to have at least some identifier attached to them. You mentioned you got them through a database of Hungarian press? We could put that into |id= if needed.
• Regarding the removal of the photo of the Museum of Applied Arts, we have more room now than when it was removed. I'd be in favor of restoring it because the museum is relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead, and I think it's a nice visual element where otherwise there would be none.
• Regarding the bibliography section, sorry that there seems to have been some confusion there. The way I normally use bibliography sections in my articles is to try to include in them all lengthy ("lengthy" meaning that we cite page numbers or timestamps rather than the source as a whole) sources that a reader interested on a scholarly level in the subject would want to check out, whether or not they are actually used. Crowley et al and Csipes et al were cited by Trufelman as her main sources, and seem to be the two academic books published about Király, so I included them, even though I have not yet managed to get access to them. For both, I linked to the official page for the book to help readers locate a copy; one included a blurb summary. My preference would be to restore both those sources, and to move the shorter sources you added (several seem to be only one or two pages) to the References section.

Let me know how all of that sounds, and thanks again for your overhaul! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and please be assured that I appreciate your contribution at any level, including what was already in the article. Let me answer point by point:

• I have no objection to that, though I am somewhat concerned about what it may do to the architecture of the article. If it doesn't result in minuscule sections and duplication of content, I'm completely fine with it.
• I don't have much appreciation for hatnotes, actually, I just tend to use what's current usage on most topics (generally, because if we don't add a hatnote someone else would've had; it was indeed a bit unusual that the article did not specify this quirk)
• It is the magazine that's redlinked here. Not sure if it's worthy a link here, not opposed to it (perhaps as Reform (Hungarian magazine)? Might even be able to stub it, though I find the topic quite boring). The paywalled archive is here; I hate linking to it, because working with citation templates to add entries in each note is a terrible strain on the eyes, for things which can easily rot and are in any case paywalled (recovering each link and making sure it is anonymized is also a motherf___er). Presumably, someone who gets all their details from the note and has access to the same database will be able to verify the citation(s).
• I guess, though my other problem with the photo is that it does not show him, his collection, or anything tied to his life, just the outside of a building that was designed and built long before him.
• My core problem there is that (though there is no special prohibition) it is bad form to use a book of, say, 700 pages, for just one citation with the most absolutely irrelevant fact; we did not actually consult the work in its entirety, so it's false advertising to say that it was used in sourcing the article. If we were to write a student paper with just one citation from a recommended book, we would (hopefully) not get a passing grade. So my advice is not to cite from any such source at this stage, where they were not actually accessible, and, if we want them in, at this stage, to refer to them in a "Further reading" section. (Also, if Trufelman cites them indirectly, we presumably cover the gist of what is in them.) Dahn (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  At a quick glance, the way you've spun out the style section looks good; thanks for handling that!

  Re Reform, a magazine that published for ten years is probably borderline notability-wise, so I'm fine leaving it unlinked (and perhaps adding the ISSN, which I'm pretty sure is here). But per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, I do think that we should try to include URLs (sometimes in databases these are labeled as the "Stable URL," which is best) or something that generates a link to the database.

  I agree that it's the most optimal image; if we can find one that's better in the future, I certainly would have no objection to swapping it out.

  I'm happy to relabel the section "Bibliography and further reading" if that'd help. I think part of the confusion may be coming from the fact that "bibliography" has multiple definitions—it can mean either "list of works consulted" (#3 here) or "list of works relating to a topic" (#2), and I'm using it more in the #2 sense. (I wish that there was another less ambiguous word; see also the lack of standardization at MOS:REFERENCES.)

  Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)