# Talk:K Foundation art award

(William M. Connolley 20:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Superb. Thank you.
You ain't seen nothin yet!
Meanwhile, I moved this passage off the page, a bit fancruft, I may manage to re-use it later:

Note the date that the award was to be announced - 23rd November, and note the fact that it is the 1994 K Foundation award as opposed to the 1993 Turner award. Obviously this signifies that the K Foundation are more forward-looking than the Turner, but also try adding 1+9+9+4 together. The theory goes that Bill and Jimi were happy with their deliberately weird ads, when they heard that the Turner would be announced on the 23rd of November, decided that that was an opportunity to good to miss, cancelled their previous plans and never sent out any of the further information packs. Bill says he still has all the SAEs which they received, and they may be replied to at some time in the future.
cheers, - Drstuey 11:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think these early (on Wikipedia) pieces about the K Foundation were really good - in the "brilliant prose" days they'd probably have been Featured if only you'd asked! :) Anyway, slowly but surely I'm bringing them up to 2006 FA standards so I hope we'll see a few more stars on KLF/KF articles soon. --kingboyk 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is dangerously close to WP:NOR. There's a few opinions presented as fact. I'll try to fix a few of these as I go through the "Library of Mu" press cuttings site. --kingboyk 16:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Much of this page has been copied from [1], which is under a non-commercial use only license, and therefore unfree for wikipedia. Night Gyr 16:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be the KLF FAQ then (long running on the net). I'm not sure if the author of that contributed to this article or not. Leave it with us. --kingboyk 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, several of the KLF pages have had material taken from there, including Watch the K Foundation Burn a Million Quid.  I doubt the creator would object to its inclusion, but the noncommercial term clashes with the GFDL, so we need to get some clearance.  Also, the FAQ stuff has serious POV issues. Night Gyr 17:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Unfortunately it dates from before I arrived here (and indeed you can see that I have previously objected to the tone of the article). Hopefully you can't find anything lifted from the FAQ or any controversial statements not backed up by citations in The KLF?? That's the only one of the pre-existing articles I would swear by, although even that of course has some text which is old. I too doubt anyone would mind the copying (so I won't be sweating about it), but as we will be looking at and improving each article in turn we need to be aware of any "lifting from FAQ" issues so we can fix them. Besides the copyright the FAQ cannot be considered reliable, as you say. Please join us if you're interested (see banner above), if not then please point out specifically any issues as you find them. Thanks! --kingboyk 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, looked into this again. Drstuey wrote the FAQ and much of the early incarnations of the article, which was started by a user called Illitrate23 (see the domain name?). Clearance would therefore be easy to obtain - or has already been given by implication since the good Doctor himself posted the content here under the GFDL. However, I've read the FAQ again and believe that it's no longer an issue anyway due to the major rewriting which has taken place; indeed XTools show me as author of 80% of the content [this is not a brag; I present it as evidence of a thorough rewrite]. If any concerns remain perhaps Stuart would be willing to post a general release somewhere such as at WT:KLF. --kingboyk (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

...is starting to take shape and I think is providing some well needed context. It's interesting how much reactions varied (from pretty much "how dare they?" to "the art award was a work of art in itself"). --kingboyk 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just the fact that the context doesn't link to K Foundation as a {{main article}} and that the 2 buddies that formed K Foundation aren't mentioned elsewhere than the lead section making the lead bring new information to the article (though it shouldn't. Also, the images need to have their fair use rationale given explicitly. Lincher 12:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okie dokie Lincher, thanks mate, will attend to that. Can you place it on hold please? --kingboyk 13:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
OK.
Drummond and Cauty are mentioned by name in paragraph 3 of the first section. In paragraphs 1 and 2 they are simply the "mysterious K Foundation". (The adverts weren't signed "love from Bill & Jim" or anything like that :); initially people only speculated as to the identity. I think if I start off the body with saying who they are I lose the dramatic effect of letting events unfold naturally.
I don't think {{main}} is appropriate here, as this is in effect a side piece to K Foundation, which has: 
If you disagree, please add {{main}} yourself.
I will attend to the rationales now, so when you get my message on your talk page these will have been done. --kingboyk 08:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


#### GA passed
Nice work on this article, it now meets every criteria :

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass
Lincher 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Many years later, I see that you were correct. We have to spoil the "surprise" about who the K-F are in the lead, as the lead should summarise the article. It also doesn't harm the narrative. In fact, I am now of the opinion that the lead should probably be expanded a bit further and will do that when I get a moment. --kingboyk (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The quote from the Economist in the article (http://www.libraryofmu.org/display-resource.php?id=357) talks about a "small small croterie of art historians". Croterie is not a word; it should be coterie. I'm not sure if the error is in the source, the quote of the source, or the article, though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.93.234 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC) 

Thank you for pointing that out. It will have been a transcription error. Will fix. --kingboyk (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions the name twice as being "Nailed to A Wall". However, while there are a number of websites agreeing, this is very likely incorrect.

Alex Sharkey for the Guardian, who was present at the event, calls it "Nailed to the Wall" [2]
Jim Reid, who wrote the exhibition catalogue, calls it "Nailed to the Wall" [3]
The Quietus calls it "[...] a work entitled Nailed To The Wall" [4]
Clash Music writes "Nailed To The Wall’ consisted of [...]" [5]
These, especially the first two, are very good sources, I'd say. Accordingly I changed the article. If you have new/better/different information, please let us know. Shout-out and thanks to IP User 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:5DA7:8AF2:DA90:EFF6 for bringing this to my attention. --95.89.78.72 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)