Talk:Victor Vasarely

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

IRANZI MUGISHA Vasarely's birth date == Victor was born April 9, 1906 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.214.63 (talkcontribs)

All my art history books (including Janson and Arnason) mention 1908 so I presume that's correct... - Spinster 19:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Victor Vasarely was born in 1906 and next year we celebrate his centenary. This date was confirmed by Michèle Vagaysarely, his daughter-in-law.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.20.111 (talkcontribs)
Apparently, his birthday was mistakenly recorded as being in 1908 for years until an interview with Le Figuro in 1996.81.104.164.95 20:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Victor Vasarely was born April 9, 1906, like above; some years ago Michèle Vasarely looked for the really date of birth in archives of Pecs. It's correct 9 April. Bye, --82.48.215.204 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Now is correct...and with a note, well. Silverglory (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

iranzi mugisha is the edit

Pöstyén[edit]

Instead of reverting each other, here you can add a proposal for the right wording about how to include the Hungarian name for one of the places where he was raised. Squash Racket (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For such cases, we have WP:NCGN. I see no reason why not to respect the existing naming convention. It brings consistency into Wikipedia and reflects a wider consensus between editors. You should provide a real argument to convince me that your solution is more sensible than the whole naming convention in this particular case. Your statement "today Piešťany" is not true because Piešťany has been called Piešťany since the Middle Ages. It does not matter whether Hungarian authorities used the magyarized name Pöstyén instead in 1914. What matters is under what name the town is known in recent English sources in the historical context. Let me quote from WP:NCGN: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in title [of the article about the place in question, i.e. Piešťany in this case] should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." If you believe Pöstyén is a widely accepted historic English name of Piešťany, this page lists the evidence you should provide. Tankred (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the page of the village and saw nothing on etymology or history of the name. Do you have a source stating the Slavic name was the original? (I guess you already have a list of these.)
We both know there are a lot of historic names mentioned on Wikipedia without providing the strict evidence claimed by the guideline WP:NCGN. No wonder it is flexible and it refers to common sense in its first paragraph. Squash Racket (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you argue that we should not use the naming convention here, the burden of proof is upon you. I still do not know what you consider the "common sense" and why. Tankred (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I also think the problem lies in the current form of WP:NCGN. If English sources tend to use the Hungarian form of that name in Vasarely's CV (just tried Google), only Wikipedia would be an exception? Common sense tells me no.
Also a qoute from your talk page: "I guess you meant that the town was better known under its Hungarian name at the time Vasarely lived there. But you should have chosen better wording." That is why I asked for a proposal on the right wording on how to include the Hungarian name, but you seem to have changed your mind. Squash Racket (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not change my mind. I did not support your edit at that time, I merely tried to guess why you made it. If you are unhappy with WP:NCGN, you should propose its change at the naming convention's talk page, not here. As to your argument, there are only nine pages (in English and outside Wikipedia) using "Pöstyén" in connection with Vasarely[1] while 65 pages (with the same criteria) use "Piešťany"[2]. So, most English sources actually use "Piestany". If you want to know the Hungarian name of the town, you can click on the wikilink to Piestany because the main article on that town also includes the town's names in other languages. There is no reason to include them elsewhere in Wikipedia. Moreover, you did not provide any evidence supporting your claim that your description of Piestany as "Postyen (today Piestany)" is factually correct. So, is there any other reason why we should violate WP:NCGN on this page or I can restore the previous version of the article? Tankred (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Pöstyén is the only official name at the time, so your version (he grew up in Piestany) would be factually incorrect and misleading to the readers. Also you should be aware that it is not possible to "violate" a guideline such as NCGN, you can violate rules, regulations, laws, but not suggestions, advice and the like. Wikipedia is based on consensus and combative style of editing and statements like "There is no reason to include them elsewhere in Wikipedia" will not get you very far in any case. Hobartimus (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:NCGN is a naming convention, not a random "suggestion". Since you have not presented any argument, I will restore the version compliant with the naming convention and the evidence provided on this talk page. Tankred (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me quote you the first few letters from NCGN, "{{Wikipedia subcat guideline", so as you can see in wikipedia terms it is a guideline I counted over 60 guidelines just like it for naming issues alone! You should not misrepresent it as if it were some kind of rule, regulation or law, by using rhetoric like ("violating" "non-compliant"), anyway this is a talk page for a specific article, so the issues at hand should be discussed. What are everybody's thoughts on the compromise version introduced by user Piotrus? Hobartimus (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And what is your argument regarding this particular article? 65 English sources use Piestany in connection with Vasarely and only 9 use Postyen. I hope you are aware this is the English Wikipedia, not the Hungarian one. Tankred (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you wanted to say with that, did anyone remove the name Piestany from the article? Hobartimus (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? Why should we flood articles in the English Wikipedia with names that are barely used in English sources? Tankred (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, also mentioning Austria-Hungary in brackets would help clarify things. Sometimes I get the feeling the present form of WP:NCGN forces every single English/American reader to learn about the Treaty of Trianon with Hungarian and Slavic names changing constantly in a lot of articles. Squash Racket (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

death[edit]

How did he die? I'm guessing he died from old age, but it doesn't say so I'm not sure.--4.244.42.249 (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry,I can,t help you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.39.225.17 (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


sorry,I can,t help you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.39.225.17 (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 

More images needed[edit]

As with so many articles in Wikipedia relating to visual artists — even artists with long and productive careers — this one is notable for the scantness of its pictorial illustration of its subject and output. Surely there must be enough public-domain or GNU-licensed photos or other reproductions in existence to allow Wikipedia to do justice to these people and their work?

174.70.180.131 (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)