Talk:Tamás Király

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! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)