text:
Talk:List of contemporary artists

High sale price
I support the addition of high sale prices as part of the criteria at the top of the page, but would like to remove the link to artfacts.net, because inclusion therein does not in itself imply that a high price has been reached. I also think that "have been suggested as alternate criterion for inclusion to this list" should go as well, because it refers to the talkpage discussion. No need to draw attention to the feet peddling furiously beneath the swan.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the last sentence of the existing criterium is a good temporarily solution. On the long run we have to come to a well defined description.

Hdboeck (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

to Ethicoaestheticist: I don't think a list is used to add behind a name that much information. One can use this talkpage to add arguments if one is convinced an artists should be on the list. Hdboeck (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to come up with a better line. How's this?:
 * "Artists whose contemporary works have been purchased at auction prices of $10,000 or higher have also been considered."
 * I also think the link to Artfacts.net should be moved to a footnote.
 * What say yall?
 * And as far as all the info after each artist's name. Maybe we could instead have a footnote next to each name...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * $10,000 isn't very high. The top 500 artists by yearly sales listed in the Artprice annual report (link above) have individual sale prices approaching or exceeding $1,000,000. The top 100 hammer prices start at just under $4,000,000.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so I'm clear on your point, Ethicoaestheticist: those two lists, top 500 artists by yearly sales and top 100 hammer prices, are those all necessarily contemporary artists or might some of them be artists from long gone generations?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all artists dead or alive, but includes contemporary artists like Jeff Wall, Elizabeth Peyton and Jenny Saville as well as Koons and Hirst. If there's a list of the top 500 contemporary artists ranked by sale price I'd want to use that instead. My primary point is that $10,000 isn't a relatively high sale price.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am following the market for years. 10.000 dollars for contemporary work is quite a high auction price (I am not talking about gallery prices). Don’t forget that this is an encyclopedia. We have to create a full and complete list of significant artists who are influencing the identity of contemporary art everywhere in the world. It should not be an exlusive list. If people are prepared to pay 10.000 dollars for smaller work we are talking about an artist who at least on a national level is quite respected. Hdboeck (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is exclusive, not a list of all notable contemporary artists. The criteria (until consensus dictates their removal altogether) need to pitched at about the same level. Jenny Saville and Elizabeth Peyton have participated in the Venice Biennale. Xiang Jing and Banksy haven't, but their inclusion in the top 500 list confirms that in sale terms they are of equivalent standing. A wider range of artists can be included without undermining the existing criteria.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I understand about the exclusivity of this list. Right now in human consciousness we can easily tell the difference between someone who makes no money and someone who makes millions of dollars, but we haven't all the confident knowledge to decide and declare whose work is instilled with wide and long-lasting relevance and intellectual or emotional enlightenment, and whose work is simply there, half forced, and half copied, all for some selfish reason or other.
 * With that said, what would everyone think if we would include artists who have at least one work that has sold for 100,000 dollars? Do I hear a hundred thousand? Anyone? Anyone?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, an encyclopedical list can never be exclusive. In a encyclopedia we have to bring together all relevant knowledge about a subject. Therefor, we have to creat a full and complete list of significant artists who influencing the identity of contemporary art all around the world. This doesn’t mean that we have to put every notable artists on our list. But if people are prepared to pay at an auction 10.000 dollars for a small piece the artist can be regarded as quite important at least on a national level. If a work is worth 100.000’s of dollars it is a result of a speculative investment or a prestigious hunt of wealthy collectors. Those artists who can sell their work like that belong to the happy few. In that case the parameter would at least be too narrow. We have make it wider with at the end the result that as much as important artists can participate our list. Hdeboeck (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh! I like your reasoning. Well said! I agree that $10,000 is a good amount to list as a criterion by which to admit inclusion. Ethicoaestheticist? What say you? Anybody else have something to add?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tha fact that high sale prices are the result of speculation is an argument for leaving them out altogether. However, as I've said above, I broadly agree that high sale prices can be used as a criterion. I would prefer a general statement to that effect, without a specific value - and I would also prefer sources describing a sale price as high. But on any definition of high $10,000 just ain't it. $1,000,000? Maybe. $100,000? Perhaps.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought: Maybe we are getting too involved in determining what "good" art is. Maybe it would be simpler if we returned to the criteria of notability listed at WP:ARTIST: If we list these original criteria at the top of the article, then, anyone who wants to list an artist must cite how the proposed artist meets the criteria, which seems more manageable than the labor being on us to resolve a subjective debate. Additionally, we will be well within Wikipedia's guidelines, and well away from getting too involved for anyone's benefit.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

to Abie the Fish Peddler

I forgot to congratulate you for the good work. Clearly the work of an open mind...

My best wishes for 2010 to all who participated this discussion.

Hdeboeck (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Cool, Hdeboeck! I'm glad you like the work. It was prompted by the discussions with you and Ethicoaestheticist. I don't think I've ever thought so strenuously about contemporary artists before! Yes, and best wishes from me as well. :-) --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria
These criteria from WP:ARTIST are for creating a Wikipedia article in the first place, which means that ANY artist whose work spans 1970-present day and does have a Wikipedia article is eligible to be on this list, otherwise they would not have a Wikipedia article to begin with!!!

Yet, I still see people deleting artists left and right... today there were dozen or so deletions by by 85.179.77.136

So, now the question is how do you reconcile this?

If you delete artists from this list, then you should also be deleting their Wikipedia article, as they also do not meet the criteria for an article either.

or

If the artist does have a Wikipedia article, and their work is 1970-present, they should, by default be included in this list.

-z

--Zumbooruk2 (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Someone might fail WP:ARTIST and pass WP:GNG, thus enabling an article. However, I do agree there should be a list which includes all contemporary artists, maybe List of living artists.  Ty  21:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that this is really bugging me.

I really do think that you guys got way "too involved in determining what 'good' art is"...

None of the other lists of painters/artists seem so "exclusive".

As long as the artist meets criteria in the title of the list, they are included.

Period.

No "good" art, no "bad" art, no "high sale price", etc.

Can anyone explain why this list should be so exclusive, and policed with such vigilantism and zeal?

If you want a "good" artist list, please change this list to a "List of good contemporary artists"

If you want a "high priced" artist list, change this list to a "List of high priced contemporary artists"

And police these new lists with as much zeal as you wish...

But let the rest of us create a new "List of contemporary artists" which will welcome any and all contemporary artists!

Truly, me thinks that this list should just be deleted and replaced by the Category:Contemporary Artists

-z

--Zumbooruk2 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I think you make good points, and the name has created an anomaly. However, lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, but concurrent alternatives for greater reader choice.  Ty  00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 * If a living artist meets WP:ARTIST and has an article in Wikipedia there is no reason to leave him or her out from the List of contemporary artists. There are artists who are in the Category: Contemporary artists where listed in the list of Contemporary painters as well as in the List of contemporary artists. The two lists are redundant alternatives and results in more exposure for the individuals who are aware of the :”anomaly”. Stick with the rules of Wikipedia and the problem at hand. Encyclopedia has rules and does not exercise judgment. Judgment is made by history and not by wishful thinking or deciding on who or what is good or bad. (Salmon1 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC))
 * List of contemporary artists and List of contemporary painters are not obviously redundant, though this could be discussed. I suggest starting a new section if you wish to do this. We actually want to give more "exposure" to articles in the sense of making them more easily accessible to readers seeking that material, so if the two lists do that, then they are a good thing.  Ty  06:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I now note there is no List of contemporary painters, so I presume you mean Category:Contemporary painters. You might like to note in Categories, lists, and navigation templates that categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, but complementary, so there is no redundancy here, as you suggest.  Ty  06:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you meant List of painters by name.  Ty  06:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 * If an artist has a Wikipedia article, and if the artist's body of work is between 1970-persent, they should be on this list.

 * No judgement, no exposure, no "anomaly".

 * They are an artist, they are contemporary, they belong on this list.

 * Period.

 * -z

 * --Zumbooruk2 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 * You just made a clear and :"succinct" explanation of my above statement. Thank you for that. (Salmon1 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

 * What is unacceptable is the bad faith accusation you have made about other editors without any justification, particularly as your main interest in wikipedia seems to be, having created the article on Rhea Carmi, then adding her to as many lists as possible, even creating Category:Mixed-media artists, the current sole occupant of which is Rhea Carmi. Would you by any chance have in mind adding her to this list? However, regardless of that, you have in your previous post raised some valid points to be answered.  Ty  05:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Sorry if I misunderstood did not mean to accused anyone WP:AOBF, however I am genuinely interested to know why is this list so different from most other lists and so zealously policed...

 * Yes, I am mainly editing Rhea Carmi, I am a friend of the family, but I do not have financial interest (not an agent/gallery/etc), so since I have first hand knowledge, I feel that I can make valid contributions. But I also attempt to fix/improve anything I stumble across. I am stickler for consistency and love to nitpick... so when I see something that is inconsistent and/or missing, I'll fix it (for example, I fixed bunch of lists that were alphabetized under "L" for "List of" instead of the actual name of the list).

 * Yes, I've addedd Rhea Carmi to a lot of lists and categories, even creating some new categories when I felt that they were missing. I did not see anything wrong with that, as Ty said the same: "We actually want to give more "exposure" to articles in the sense of making them more easily accessible to readers seeking that material", which again raises the question, why aren't all contemporary artists on this list???

 * And yes, she probably could be added to this list (But I was afraid to do it after reading the discussion...). So maybe not now, but in the near future, after few more exhibits and sales. Her work has already sold for $40K+, which is above the discussed $10K, it was displayed in museums (minor ones so far), and she is getting a lot of recognition/interest recently. -z --Zumbooruk2 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I repositioned my response. Tyrenius please do not change the intent of my response by moving it after your statement. I have no knowledge of what you are writing to Zumbooruk2 (talk) about. As to stick to Salmon1 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

 * Look at the version you changed. My statement is indented further than yours, which shows that yours was not a response to me, but a response to a higher up post. This is perfectly normal. The version you have now created indents my post below yours and makes it look as though I am responding to your post and saying to you, "What is unacceptable is the bad faith accusation you have made about other editors without any justification." If you think that should be said to you, then I guess leave it there, but it was actually intended to be said to Zumbooruk2.  Ty  18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tyrenius we were discussing NPOV and the importance of listing artists in multiple lists when the artists have articles in the Wikipedia. :"..to give more 'exposure' to articles in the sense of making them more easily accessible to readers seeking that material." This has been getting on the way just at this moment by Modernist. I wonder whether you could help? The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an important figure in literature I wonder whether you know if there is a painting relating to that? (Salmon1 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

 * Are you suggesting this list does not follow NPOV in some way? If so, what is the problem with it? Do you mean the way it is defined or the way it is being edited in relation to that definition or what? I'm afraid I don't know of a painting of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. You might be better of posting at the talk page of that article to discuss with editors there, if you want to add an image to it. It's not relevant to this page.  Ty  22:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent removal of artists
Some artists have been removed in a recent sweep by an IP address. Mostly I agree, but think the following should be returned: --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Annika Larsson Participated in the Venice Biennale
 * Rita Ackermann Participated in the Whitney
 * Peter Richards (artist) Venice
 * Christian Holstad Work in museum collections
 * I have restored all the recent IP deletions, considering the above objections and pending agreement here...Modernist (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lists of names
Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Michiel Muyres
Michiel Muyres is an artist : www.muyrescompany.com also: http://www.maastrichtaktueel.nl/dartagnan-pissoir-waldeckpark-start-serie-kunstwerkenproject-abk-studenten/ http://connect.dsm.nl/de-expositie/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.34.141 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He does not meet the criteria at the top of the page however.Theroadislong (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup
The list of contemporary artists contains a number of articles that are not meeting the criteria mentioned. I am proposing that the following artists be removed. I have tried to make sure that none of the artists listed here are in Category:Contemporary_artists or any of its subcategories, or similar categories like Category:Postmodern artists, I have also tried to make sure that none of the artists have been included in exhibitions like Documenta or the Venice Biennale, have received or have been nominated for awards like the Turner Prize or that a monograph on the artists by a major publisher such as Phaidon or Thames & Hudson exists. I'd like to point out, although I hope that this is unnecessary, that this list is not a reflection of my own aesthetic preferences, but rather an attempt to apply objective criteria to establish which artists should be listed. It is quite possible, even likely, that I have overlooked something, so I would appreciate some feedback before I proceed with the edit. Michiel Duvekot 02:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Many of these artists listed are important contemporary artists and should not be removed I am adding feedback to those that are particularly well known...Modernist (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Other editors please add your own input, thanks...Modernist (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Rallé
 * Sanejouand
 * Michael (Mike) Jansen
 * Dado (painter)
 * Nadir Afonso
 * Gustavo Aguerre
 * Edward Allington
 * Mireille Astore
 * Zdzisław Beksiński
 * José Bernal
 * David Blatherwick (artist)
 * Godfrey Blow
 * Eberhard Bosslet
 * Stuart Brisley
 * Glenn Brown (artist)
 * Norman Carlberg
 * Nicolas Carone - well known 2nd generation abstract expressionist - DO NOT REMOVE
 * John Cederquist
 * Stephen DiRado
 * Sebastian Diaz Morales
 * Sam Dillemans
 * Mark Divo
 * Joel Ducorroy
 * Öjvind Fahlström - pioneer Fluxus artist - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Ingrid Falk
 * Bernd Fasching
 * Charles Fazzino
 * Susan Fereday
 * Caio Fonseca - important contemporary painter - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Peter Forakis - pioneer geometric artist - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Harry Gamboa, Jr.
 * H.R. Giger
 * Sam Gilliam - pioneer Washington School Color Field painter - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Ken Goldberg
 * Robert Graham (sculptor) - important Figurative sculptor - Do Not Remove
 * Don Gummer - well known contemporary sculptor - Do Not Remove
 * Karl Hagedorn
 * Diango Hernandez
 * Tom Holland (artist) important contemporary painter - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Christian Holstad
 * Koji Ishikawa (artist)
 * Robert J Brawley
 * Seund Ja Rhee
 * Mary Jordan (filmmaker)
 * Thomas Lanigan-Schmidt
 * José Luis Cuevas
 * Terence Main
 * Yang Maolin
 * Richard Mayhew - 16th century bishop - Removed
 * Carl Michael von Hausswolff
 * Boris Mikhailov (photographer)
 * Alexander Ney
 * Daniel Ng
 * Jules Olitski pioneer Color Field painter; (1 man show at the Metropolitan Museum of Art) - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Arthur Omar
 * Ed Paschke important Chicago school painter - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Virginia Patrone
 * Manuel Pereira da Silva
 * Philip Pocock
 * Ihor Podolchak
 * Mark Podwal
 * Kenneth Price important ceramicist - (1 man show at the Metropolitan Museum of Art), - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Li Qing (artist)
 * Peter Richards (artist)
 * Ernest Ruckle
 * Dominique Sanson
 * Raymond Saunders (artist)
 * Stephen Shanabrook
 * Victor Sloan
 * Jack Smith (film director) pioneer of underground cinema and performance art - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Konstantia Sofokleous
 * Joe Stefanelli (painter) well known 2nd generation abstract expressionist - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Francisco Toledo
 * Slaven Tolj
 * Zoja Trofimiuk
 * Ayako Tsuru
 * Israel Tsvaygenbaum
 * Vladimír Vašíček
 * John Virtue
 * Peter Voulkos important pioneer ceramicist - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Jean Wells (artist)
 * Thornton Willis important contemporary painter - DO NOT REMOVE
 * Shaun Wilson
 * Larry Zox Color Field painter; (1 man show at the Whitney Museum of American Art) - DO NOT REMOVE
 * PINK de Thierry

Further cleanup and additions
I am proposing further changes to the list. Some artists listed are still not meeting the criteria for inclusion, and some important contemporary artists are missing. I have used artfacts.net to check the ranking of the artists, and took a ranking of less than 2000 as a cut-off. I then checked if they are in any major collections, their prices at auction and if a monograph exists. In some cases I can see why they might still qualify despite their <2000 ranking. I have indicated that with weak keep. Artists that should be added because they do meet the criteria for inclusion are listed under the heading Add.

Remove

 * Javier Arevalo not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, <$2000 at auction, no monograph
 * Mino Argento not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, $500 at auction, no monograph
 * Thierry Bisch not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, >$20000 at auction, (self published?) monograph
 * Chinwe Chukwuogo-Roy not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, $2000 at auction, no monograph
 * Jon Coffelt not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Sam Dillemans ranks 46860 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Mark Divo ranks 13321 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Joel Ducorroy ranks 17420 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Guy Denning ranks 73934 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Jane Frank is not not a contemporary artist, abstract expressionism not post-1970 contemporary
 * Peter Grzybowski not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Harry Gamboa, Jr. ranked 53562 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * H.R. Giger ranked 7064 on artfacts.net, has own museum, high auction prices, has monographs, not sure if magical realism is a form of contemporary art?
 * Saskia Holmkvist weak keep ranked 4155 on artfacts, in major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * John Stuart Ingle not listed on artfacts.net, in major collections (Metmuseum),  $6000-$8000 at auction,  has monograph, not really a contemporary artist perhaps?
 * Michael Jansen (artist) ranked 99872 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Mary Jordan (filmmaker) not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no monograph
 * Gerry Judah ranked 59246 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, $9800 at auction, no monograph
 * Nabil Kanso not listed on artfacts, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Jonathon Keats ranked 14657 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Manfred Kielnhofer ranked 18557 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, $2500 at auction, no monograph,
 * Scott Kildall ranked 46065 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Miru Kim ranked 27762 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Allan Linder not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph, probably doesn't even meet WP:NOTE
 * Claude-Max Lochu not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, $1000 at auction, no monograph
 * Lennie Lee not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no monograph
 * Cecilia Lundqvist weak keep ranked 7454 on artfacts.net, in Centre Pompidou - Musée National d´Art Moderne, Paris, no auction records, no monograph
 * Totte Mannes not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, <$1000 at auction, no monograph
 * Ksenia Milicevic not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, < $5000 at auction, no monograph
 * Loren Munk ranked 27414 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, < $3000 at auction, no monograph
 * Leonard_van_Munster ranked 55266 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Alexander Ney weak keep, ranked 21124 on artfacts.net, important collections, has monograph
 * Daniel Ng redirects to Daniel Wu, an actor. There is a non-notable artist called Daniel Ng
 * Graham Nicholls not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Ted Noten ranked 10039 on artfacts.net, in major collections (MoMA), can't find auction prices, has monograph
 * Pedro Pedraja not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Stefano Pasquini ranked 35746 on artfacts.net, not in major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Oliver Payne and Nick Relph weak keep, ranked 2742 on artfacts.net, in major collection (Saatchi), Relph $8000 at auction, no monograph
 * Jacques Pellegrin not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, <$1000 at auction, no monograph
 * Richard Piegza not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * William Powhida weak keep ranked 5960 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, <$2500 at auction, no monograph
 * Ken Rinaldo ranked 41528 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Marc Rembold ranked 12871 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Michael Salter ranked 22813 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Arthur Sarkissian not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Stefanie Schneider ranked 5159 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, +/- $2500 at auction, no monograph
 * Erik Sommer not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Helmut Tollmann not ranked on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph, one show in a minor museum in 2006,
 * Jacek Tylicki not listed on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph, notability questionable
 * Cybele Varela 33221 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, monograph
 * Magnus Wallin weak keep ranked 2737 on artfacts.net, in major collection, no monograph, Venice 2001
 * Monika Weiss ranked 8077 on artfacts.net, in major collection, no auction records, monograph
 * Jerry Wilkerson ranked 94621 on artfacts.net as Jerry O. Wilkerson not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Xing Xin ranked 47250 on artfacts.net,  not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph
 * Yang Maolin ranked 14706 on artfacts.net aka Yang Mao-lin, not in any major collections, > 10K at auction,, no monograph
 * Zheng Lianjie ranked 78200 on artfacts.net, not in any major collections, no auction records, no monograph

Add

 * John M Armleder
 * Georg Baselitz
 * Alighiero Boëtti
 * Marcel Broodthaers
 * Daniel Buren
 * Harun Farocki
 * Hans-Peter Feldmann
 * Günther Förg
 * Andreas Gursky
 * Thomas Hirschhorn
 * Robert Mapplethorpe
 * Christian Marclay
 * Gordon Matta-Clark
 * Jonathan Monk
 * François Morellet
 * Vik Muniz
 * Claes Oldenburg
 * Tony Oursler
 * Raymond Pettibon
 * Michelangelo Pistoletto
 * Arnulf Rainer
 * Dieter Roth
 * Thomas Struth
 * Hiroshi Sugimoto
 * Erwin Wurm

 * This is now complete. I have kept the artists I marked as weak keep in the list. Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs) 23:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Overlap with list of modern artists
There are a number of artists who are listed in both List of modern artists and List of contemporary artists. The page List of modern artists suggests that both lists should be mutually exclusive.

A list of artists that appear in both lists is below. I would like to propose that they are removed from one of the lists so that they appear in either the list of contemporary artists or in the list of modern artists, but not both, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, as in the case of artists who have made important contributions to both modern and contemporary art, as with for example Louise Bourgeois. Category:Modern artists uses a similar criterion to the one used for List of modern artists : dating from the late 19th century until approximately the 1970s. Category:Contemporary artists dates the contemporary period 1960s to present, and the article Contemporary art goes as far back as the 1950. I would suggest that 1970 can work, perhaps with some exceptions for pre-70s work that is clearly postmodern. I'll make an attempt for all listed artists. based on the movement(s) they have belonged to. For example:

Modern: Nouveau Realisme, Abstract Expressionism, Surrealism, Constructivism, Dada, Neo-Dada, Fluxus, Pop Art, Color Field painting, Lyrical abstraction, Tachisme, Art Brut, Post-painterly abstraction, Op art, Hard-edge painting, Minimal art Contemporary: Conceptual art, Postminimalism, Installation art, Land Art, Performance art, Video art, New British Sculpture, YBAs, Neo-expressionism Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs) 21:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Arman > Modern

• Francis Bacon (artist) > Modern

• José Bernal > Modern

• Joseph Beuys > Contemporary

• Fernando Botero > Modern

• Louise Bourgeois Both

• Marcel Broodthaers > Contemporary

• Norman Carlberg > Modern

• Vija Celmins > Modern

• John Chamberlain (sculptor) - IMO - Modern

• Dan Christensen > Modern

• Tony Cragg > Contemporary

• Ronald Davis > Modern

• Richard Diebenkorn > Modern

• Jim Dine > Modern

• Sam Francis > Modern

• Helen Frankenthaler > Modern

• Lucian Freud > Modern

• Sam Gilliam > Modern

• Michael Goldberg > Modern

• Robert Goodnough > Modern

• Cleve Gray > Modern

• Richard Hamilton (artist) >Modern

• Eva Hesse > Modern

• David Hockney > Modern

• Howard Hodgkin > Contemporary - IMO Modern

• Eugene J. Martin > Contemporary

• Jasper Johns > Modern

• Ray Johnson > Modern

• Donald Judd > Contemporary - IMO Modern

• Nam June Paik > Contemporary

• Wolf Kahn > Modern

• Ronnie Landfield > Modern

• Sol LeWitt > Contemporary - IMO Modern - although embodies both at times

• Robert Mangold > Contemporary - IMO Modern

• Brice Marden > Contemporary - IMO Modern

• Agnes Martin > Modern

• Gordon Matta-Clark > Contemporary

• Ana Mendieta > Contemporary

• Bruce Nauman > Contemporary

• Alexander Ney > Modern

• Kenneth Noland > Modern

• Claes Oldenburg > Modern

• Jules Olitski > Modern

• Nathan Oliveira > Modern

• Ray Parker (painter) > Modern

• Larry Poons > Modern

• Robert Rauschenberg > Modern

• Peter Reginato > Contemporary - IMO Modern

• Gerhard Richter > Contemporary - IMO Modern

• James Rosenquist > Modern

• Edward Ruscha > Contemporary - IMO Modern

• Niki de Saint Phalle > Modern

• Richard Serra > Contemporary - IMO Modern

• Robert Smithson > Contemporary

• Joan Snyder don't know, is she important enough for either list? - IMO Modern

• Frank Stella > Modern

• Paul Thek > Contemporary

• Wayne Thiebaud > Modern

• Richard Tuttle > Contemporary - IMO Modern

• Cy Twombly > Modern

• Wolf Vostell > Contemporary

• Andy Warhol > Modern

• Tom Wesselmann > Modern

• Thornton Willis > Modern

• Andrew Wyeth > Modern

• Peter Young (artist) > Modern

• Larry Zox > Modern

Modern v. contemporary
In my opinion one list is sufficient and each list is fine to maintain. To draw miniscule distinctions between artists born in the same era, and in some cases the same year, is essentially too subjective; and too empirical. Some contemporary artists belong on both lists - no big deal...Modernist (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I added my input above...Modernist (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I agree that there is much that is very subjective, and a lot of art resists categorization. I think consistency is a good thing. It makes maintenance easier. I care less about whether Fluxus is a postmodern movement or not (our idea about what is contemporary is likely to change) than that Fluxus artists belong together (that will probably not change). Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs)  22:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hideo Kojima
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it appears as though my correctly formatted and thoughtful inclusion of the artist Hideo Kojima was removed shortly after I posted it. Seeing as he meets every single critera, I am very interested in why this occurred. If somebody could fill me in, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a list of artists who create contemporary art, Hideo Kojima is a video game designer. Theroadislong (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that. Video games have been inducted into the Museum of Modern Art as of two years ago and are widely accepted as an artistic medium. Contemporary art is merely art developed within recent history (1970 to the present). Allow me to reiterate the criteria for this list:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his/her peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the ::subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
 * My defense for each point:
 * Wikipedia describes Hideo Kojima with this line: "Kojima is consistently named by fans and industry experts alike as being one of the most influential and innovative video game directors and writers in the industry."
 * Metal Gear is widely consider the progenitor of the stealth genre (also also taken Wikipedia).
 * Kojima is the lead creative director for every single Metal Gear title, the four most famous of which (MGS 1-4) boast a 94, 96, 91, and 94 on Metacritic, respectively.
 * See the above three points.
 * I see no reason for why he does not qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Although he is in the collection of MoMA; what about the Met? the National Gallery? the Art Institute of Chicago? The Louvre? The Pompidou? The Venice Biennial? The Whitney Biennial? He was removed because his work currently does not satisfy this criteria: The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. ...Modernist (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The four bullets you illustrated are separated in an "or" statement. While it is true that he is not featured in The Louvre, I believe by relying on that qualifying factor alone, you are demonstrating a very narrow minded perception of contemporary art. Wikipedia states itself that "Video games have gone on to become an art form (see end of first paragraph: video games)." It is not reasonable to judge such a young art form on the merits of whether or not they are featured at institutions far older than the art form itself. Kojima's work has undoubtedly "won significant critical attention," and I would argue that the technical advancements he has demonstrated with the Fox Engine have become a significant monument to their respective medium. By not including Hideo Kojima, or any video game designers at all for that matter, you are promoting the dreadful notion that all video games are simply toys. And regardless, by your own criteria, Hideo Kojima belongs on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that he is simply not considered by most institutions of contemporary art yet. The modern alone does not qualify him here - find another list...Modernist (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's completely irrelevant though. I'm stating why he fits the criteria exactly, and you can't provide an actual reason to exclude him from the list other than "but video games." His inclusion should be reinstated unless you can produce an argument that holds substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When he participates in an important show in the Art World let us know; when he joins an important gallery; and his work is collected by some other museums worldwide; otherwise add him to a list of video game makers...Modernist (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * First, you're skewing the stated criteria to reflect what I can only assume is a personal bias. The fourth deciding factor is an "or" statement, and the Metal Gear Solid series is not only a significant monument of its medium, but has also received universal acclaim among critics. Furthermore, Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2 were both featured in The Art of Video Games, which started in the Smithsonian American Art Museum (an institution described by Wikipedia as "one of the world's largest collections of art" and having "masterpieces from the Gilded Age"), and toured across ten other art museums throughout the United States. In addition, MGS received the Excellence Award for Interactive Art in 1998 at the Japan Media Arts Festival.
 * You cannot make an argument against including Hideo Kojima without modifying the current criteria for the sole purpose of excluding an entire artistic medium. I have seen nothing but arbitrary and classist reasons for the removal of Hideo Kojima from the list. You appear to have a shallow understanding of the medium and have neglected to seek further information when making your premature decision to redact his name and insist on continuously ignoring the established set of criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.73.244 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're blowin' smoke. Do you know how to read? MoMA collects furniture, cars, architecture, and other designer oddities and innovations - those designers are not included here either. Stop wasting our time...Modernist (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument's been reduced to calling me illiterate and insulting MoMA, furniture, cars, architecture, and designers while simultaneously ignoring the fact that I gave you what you asked for. You're not moderating a list so much as curating the page to match your personal definition of a contemporary artist. The list should be renamed to "Contemporary Traditional Artists" if anything. It's missing countless designers and filmmakers with great significance in their medium. Your case against them is trite at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.73.244 (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bye...Modernist (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 * To the original poster: the video game designer you have mentioned, while being collected at MoMA does not qualify for this particular list as this is a list of artists, not designers. MoMA collects a great deal of work that falls outside what is considered art (as in visual art). Yes, this is often confusing but this is not meant to be an exhaustive list and there are plenty of lists that this person can be added to. The term contemporary art is exclusive, not inclusive. This is not the opinion of individual Wikipedia editors but rather the consensus of museum professionals, art historians and art critics. While there are artists who work with video games as material (such as Cory Arcangel) this person you mention is not an artist but a designer. That his work has been collected by MoMA definitely goes towards establishing notability to him by Wikipedia standards, it does not make him an artist any more than Charles and Ray Eames -- great designers but not considered artists. That you find exception to this sort of categorization is fine, but this isn't the forum to challenge it. You would need to publish some academic articles arguing that design and art are interchangeable and build some sort of real-world academic consensus. At the moment, scholarly consensus tends to separate the various fields. Further, Hideo Kojima does not appear to make art that is displayed in a gallery or museum as a work of art or installation. He designs video games, some of which have been collected by MoMA as examples of video game design. Gallery art is specific to intent and context. And as this list is not exhaustive, there is criteria that excludes those who are not visual artists by definition.  freshacconci  talk to me  21:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't know Wikipedia was still on the "art vs design" conundrum. I thought it was 2014. But honestly, I just want to point out one final time that a) Wikipedia clearly states that video games are an artistic medium, b) I linked to an art gallery that visited 11 different art museums and featured Kojima's work, and c) I would rather the criteria for this page be modified than blatantly ignored, since you would understand by reading anything I posted that Kojima's work does meet every single criteria required to be included on the list. As it stands, this page is only representative of what a handful of Wikipedia editors deem to be worthy of artistic praise. It demonstrates an incredibly shallow perception of what art is in the 21st century (a significant portion of Contemporary art, mind you), and could gain a lot by re-branding itself as a list of "Gallery Artists," making room for more a more inclusive list of visual artists and artists who produce more widely accessible works that cannot be classified as either high or low culture. Works that are mass produced, and yet, still hold artistic value. Artists like Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, David Carson, and Chris Avellone, who have all managed to produce incredible pieces of visual and interactive art, but are left out of lists like these because the material accessibility of their work denies them the privilege of being categorized along with those whose works are cherished by the art elites. Wikipedia has a unique opportunity to challenge this status quo with a much more current (and still unbiased) representation of art, but unfortunately, the editors I have encountered today appear to be rife with complacency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Read this WP:IDONTLIKEIT and stop your complaining nonsense, and your biased opinion; put your guy on this list: List of video game developers, and put your other favorites guys here: List of film and television directors. Take note that Julian Schnabel is on both lists because of his fine arts and his films...Modernist (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not biased; it's exactly in line with what Wikipedia clearly states in its articles on film and video games. It's sad how incapable anyone's been to meaningfully contradict anything I've said, while still refusing to give thought to a better system. "Complaining" oversimplifies what I'm doing. You'll notice I'm not weakly going in and making changes myself. I understand that would be perceived as vandalizing other editors' hard work. I'm trying to see if it's actually possible to contribute meaningful change to Wikipedia at this stage of its existence. What started as an honorable nod to an artist that I admittedly enjoy, and an attempt to give more credit to the artistic medium of video games, turned into the sad realization that no, you can't meaningfully contribute to Wikipedia as a newcomer, or even expect a meaningful response when your contributions are removed. Reducing my writing to "IDONTLIKEIT" and assuming I have a bias because I spoke highly of a handful of artists is diminutive of what's actually happening here, and if you actually believe that, then you're lying to yourself... (take note of my condescending ellipsis I took from you) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.7.32 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Raymond Saunders (artist)
I'd like to add Raymond Saunders back onto this list, he is an important American artist with works in MoMA (NY and SF), National Gallery of Art (Washington DC), and Philadelphia Museum of Art, among others (see artcyclopedia). Also, he was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship(1976) and two National Endowment for the Arts Awards(1977, 1984) (see artnet) and has been included in myriad publications including the Thames & Hudson title "Black art and culture in the 20th century" which uses his work as the cover image.Circa73 (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article about Saunders has only one reference. (That I just fixed, BTW). I'm all for taking a MUCH better look at black artists, so let's see if we can come up with something, but I don't think that inclusion in this list appropriate given the current state of the article. Mduvekot (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article about Saunders now has 23 references, I've added him back on. Glad to hear you interested in taking a better look at artists of the African Diaspora (ahem) Mduvekot, I've added several additional names to the list as wellCirca73 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Emma Somerset Davis
Hello - I added myself to the list of contemporary artists as I qualify for all the criteria- and have been removed twice.

My name is Emma Somerset Davis I co- founded and was lead artist with the internationally reknowned art/architecture groundbreaking collaborative practice Fashion Architecture Taste in 1991. Working with them to 2008. I have exhibited internationally at Venice Biennale, Manifesta, V and A, Tate etc etc. I continue to exhibit and make works- painting, sculpture and performance internationally and I am well known in my field. I am at least as well known and regarded by my peers as many of the artists on the list.

EmmaSomDavis (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * The article on the artist must be written first, preferably by someone other than the artist. Bus stop (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Please also read WP:COI. In order to be listed in this article, an artist must be notable, have an article and meet the criteria. Continually placing your own name in a list is disruptive and can lead to a block.  freshacconci  talk to me  01:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

artfacts.net??
So, uh... Why is the website artfacts.net given any attention on this discussion page, and why should it be relevant to whether an artist be included in the list? Artfacts looks like some kind of hokey investors' scheme, and has nothing to do with art as art.zadignose (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of contemporary artists


text:
Page of Honour

A Page of Honour is a ceremonial position in the Royal Household of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. It requires attendance on state occasions, but does not now involve the daily duties which were once attached to the office of page. The only physical activity involved is usually carrying the long train of the Sovereign's robes. This position is distinct from that of a page in the Royal Household, which is the senior rank of uniformed staff.

Pages of Honour participate in major ceremonies involving the British monarch, including coronations and the State Opening of Parliament. It is usually a distinction granted to teenage sons of members of the nobility and gentry, and especially of senior members of the Royal Household.

Livery
Pages of Honour in England wear a scarlet frock coat with gold trimmings, a white satin waistcoat, white breeches and hose, white gloves, black buckled shoes and a lace cravat and ruffles. A sword is also worn with the outfit and a feathered three-cornered hat is provided. In Scotland the outfit is identical, but in green rather than scarlet (as seen periodically at the Thistle Service in Edinburgh). In Ireland, when Pages of Honour were attendant upon the King, Pages of Honour wore exactly the same uniform as at the English Court, except that the colour was St. Patrick's blue with silver lace.

At coronations, the peers who carry regalia in the procession (and others with particular roles in the service) were expected to have their own pages in attendance. These pages are directed to wear "the same pattern of clothes as the Pages of Honour wear, but of the Livery colour of the Lords they attend... [except that] ...the Royal liveries being scarlet and gold, the use of this combination of colours is restricted to the Pages of Honour, and in the case of a Peer whose colours are scarlet and gold, for scarlet some variant, such as murrey or claret, should be used."

Charles II

 * 1661–1662: Bevil Skelton
 * 1661–1669: John Napier
 * 1662–1668: Sidney Godolphin
 * 1664–1665: Rupert Dillon
 * 1665–1671?: Thomas Felton
 * 1668–1678: John Berkeley
 * 1668–1676: William Legge
 * 1670: Charles Wyndham
 * 1671–1685: Robert Killigrew
 * 1671–1685: Aubrey Porter
 * 1673–1678: John Prideaux
 * 1674–1678: Henry Wroth
 * 1678–1685: Thomas Pulteney
 * 1680–1685: Sutton Oglethorpe
 * 1681–1685: Charles Skelton

James II

 * 1685: Thomas Windsor
 * 1685: Reynold Graham
 * 1685: James Levinston

William III
First Page of Honour
 * 1689–1692?: Nicholas Needham
 * 1692–1697: Carew Rawleigh
 * 1697–1702: Robert Rich

Second Page of Honour
 * 1689–1690: Arnold van Keppel
 * 1690–1693?: Ernest Henry Ittersum
 * 1695–1702: Thomas Harrison

Third Page of Honour
 * 1689–1693?: Charles Dormer
 * 1697–1702: William Colt

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1690–1693: Matthew Harvey
 * 1693–1697: George Feilding
 * 1697–1702: Allan Wentworth

John Brockhuisen appears in the post-mortem accounts of the Board of Green Cloth as a page of honour to William III, but this may be an error, as he appears elsewhere as a pensioner after serving as Queen Mary's page of honour.

Anne
First Page of Honour
 * 1702–1707: Hon. John Egerton
 * 1707–1714: Hon. Richard Arundell

Second Page of Honour
 * 1702–1709: Robert Blount
 * 1709–1714: John Mordaunt

Third Page of Honour
 * 1702–1708: John Gough
 * 1708–1712: Charles Hedges
 * 1712–1714: Thomas Murray

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1702–1710: Hon. Henry Berkeley
 * 1710–1714: John Hampden

George I
First Page of Honour
 * 1714–1727: Guildford Killigrew

Second Page of Honour
 * 1714–1718: John Mordaunt
 * 1718–1721: Emanuel Howe
 * 1721–1727: Archibald Carmichael

Third Page of Honour
 * 1714–1724: Thomas Murray
 * 1724–1727: Sir William Irby, Bt

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1714–1724: Thomas Bludworth
 * 1724–1727: Walter Villiers
 * 1727: Henry Newton

George II
First Page of Honour
 * 1727–1734: John FitzWilliam
 * 1734–1739: Philip Roberts
 * 1739–1745: Charles Chamberlayne
 * 1745–1748: William Tryon
 * 1748–1753: John Jenkinson
 * 1753–1760: Hon. John Byng

Second Page of Honour
 * 1727–1731: Henry Panton
 * 1731–1735: Henry d'Arcy
 * 1735–1739: John Ashburnham
 * 1739–1744: Bluett Wallop
 * 1744–1747: Hon. William Howe
 * 1747–1751: Hon. George West
 * 1751–1755: William Feilding
 * 1755–1760: Hon. Henry Monckton

Third Page of Honour
 * 1727–1731: Sir William Irby, Bt
 * 1731–1737: Hon. John Boscawen
 * 1737–1740: Charles Lee
 * 1740–1746: Sandys Mill
 * 1746–1747: Hon. George Bennet
 * 1747–1752: Thomas Brudenell
 * 1752–1757: William Middleton
 * 1757–1760: Henry Wallop

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1727–1731: Archibald Carmichael
 * 1731–1737: Thomas Style
 * 1737–1741: Hon. Charles Roper
 * 1741–1746: Hon. William Keppel
 * 1746–1748: Charles Knollis
 * 1748–1753: Harvey Smith
 * 1753–1759: James Bathurst
 * 1759–1760: John Wrottesley

George III
First Page of Honour
 * 1760–1762: James Hamilton
 * 1762–1769: Henry Monckton
 * 1769–1777: Henry Greville
 * 1777–1784: Henry Durell
 * 1784–1793: John Neville
 * 1793–1795: Henry Wilson
 * 1795–1803: Charles Wilson
 * 1803–1812: Charles Greville
 * 1812–1815: Frederick Turner
 * 1816–1818: John Bloomfield
 * 1818–1820: Arthur Richard Wellesley

Second Page of Honour
 * 1760–1764: Henry Vernon
 * 1764–1772: Thomas Thoroton
 * 1772–1777: Richard Barrington
 * 1777–1782: Henry Hall
 * 1782–1794: Charles West
 * 1794–1802: George Dashwood
 * 1802–1803: Hon. Fitzroy Stanhope
 * 1803–1808: vacant
 * 1808–1809: Henry Buckley
 * 1809–1815: Philip Stanhope
 * 1816–1820: Hon. William Graves

Third Page of Honour
 * 1760–1761: Hon. Edmund Boyle
 * 1761–1768: John Manners
 * 1768–1782: Francis Mackenzie
 * 1782–1789: John Murray
 * 1789–1794: Charles Jenkinson
 * 1794–1800: William Dansey
 * 1800–1804: Hon. Edward Irby
 * 1804–1811: Henry Somerset
 * 1812–1817: Charles Arbuthnot
 * 1817–1820: Frederick Paget

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1760–1768: Doddington Egerton
 * 1768–1776: Francis Chaplin
 * 1776–1781: William Paul de Cerjat
 * 1781–1786: Kenneth Howard
 * 1786–1791: James Cockburn
 * 1791–1794: Edward Draper
 * 1794–1800: Charles Parker
 * 1800–1804: William Wynyard
 * 1804–1810: Richard Cumberland
 * 1810–1816: Henry Murray
 * 1816–1819: Frederick Culling–Smith
 * 1819–1820: Arthur Torrens

Fifth Page of Honour
 * 1760–1761: John Wrottesley
 * 1773–1781: George Bristow
 * 1781–1782: John Murray

George IV
First Page of Honour
 * 1820–1821: Arthur Richard Wellesley
 * 1821–1826: Lord Frederick Paulet
 * 1826–1828: William Hervey-Bathurst
 * 1828–1830: Henry d'Aguilar

Second Page of Honour
 * 1820–1823: Frederick Paget
 * 1823–1826: William Burton
 * 1826–1830: Frederick Hamilton

Third Page of Honour
 * 1820–1824: Charles Bagot
 * 1824–1830: Arthur William FitzRoy Somerset

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1820–1825: Arthur Torrens
 * 1825–1830: Joseph Hudson

William IV
First Page of Honour
 * 1830–1835: Henry d'Aguilar
 * 1835–1837: Charles Ellice

Second Page of Honour
 * 1830–1831: Frederick Hamilton
 * 1831–1837: Frederick Stephenson

Third Page of Honour
 * 1830–1832: Arthur Somerset
 * 1832–1837: Lord Hay

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1830: Joseph Hudson
 * 1830–1837: Hon. Adolphus Graves
 * 1837: James Cowell

Victoria
First Page of Honour
 * 1837–1839: Charles Ellice
 * 1839–1844: Charles Wemyss
 * 1844–1852: George Gordon
 * 1852–1859: Henry Farquharson
 * 1859–1862: Edmund Boyle
 * 1862–1869: Hon. Spencer Jocelyn
 * 1869–1871: Hon. Frederick Bruce
 * 1871–1876: Victor Biddulph
 * 1876–1881: Hon. Victor Spencer
 * 1881–1884: Percy Cust
 * 1884–1890: Eric Thesiger
 * 1890–1894: Hon. Maurice Drummond
 * 1894–1901: Josslyn Egerton
 * 1901–1901: John Bigge

Second Page of Honour
 * 1837–1840: George Cavendish
 * 1840–1847: Henry Byng
 * 1847–1853: Alfred Crofton
 * 1853–1861: Charles Phipps
 * 1861–1867: Arthur Paget
 * 1867–1874: George Grey
 * 1874–1877: Laurence Drummond
 * 1877–1882: Albert Wellesley
 * 1882–1887: Arthur Ponsonby
 * 1887–1892: Victor Wellesley
 * 1892–1895: Albert Clarke
 * 1895–1899: Hon. John Henniker–Major
 * 1899–1901: The Viscount Torrington

Third Page of Honour
 * 1837–1839: Lord Kilmarnock
 * 1839–1841: Hon. Adolphus Chichester
 * 1841–1856: Archibald Stuart-Wortley
 * 1856–1862: Viscount Cuffe Castle
 * 1862–1868: Hon. Arthur Lyttleton
 * 1868–1874: Hon. George Somerset
 * 1874–1879: Count Edward Gleichen
 * 1879–1883: Frederic Kerr
 * 1883–1893: Gerald Ellis
 * 1893: Arthur Wood
 * 1893–1896: Sir Albert Seymour, Bt.
 * 1896–1901: Hon. Ivan Hay

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1837–1840: James Cowell
 * 1840–1845: Herbert Wilson
 * 1845–1852: William Forbes
 * 1852–1859: George Macpherson
 * 1859–1866: Henry Loftus
 * 1866–1870: Hon. Frederick Stopford
 * 1870–1876: Arthur Hardinge
 * 1876–1877: George Macdonald
 * 1877–1881: Hon. Francis Hay
 * 1881–1883: George Byng
 * 1883–1886: Hon. Edward FitzRoy
 * 1886–1890: Cyril Stopford
 * 1890–1895: Geoffrey Stewart
 * 1895–1897: Alexander Wood
 * 1897–1901: Harold Festing

Edward VII

First Page of Honour
 * 1901–1904: John Bigge
 * 1904–1910: Hon. Edward Knollys

Second Page of Honour
 * 1901–1903: The Viscount Torrington
 * 1903–1908: Donald Davidson
 * 1908–1910: Anthony Lowther

Third Page of Honour
 * 1901: Hon. Ivan Josselyn Hay
 * 1901–1907: Hon. Victor Alexander Spencer
 * 1907–1910: George Lane

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1901–1902: Harold Festing
 * 1902–1906: Nigel Legge
 * 1906–1908: Edward Hardinge
 * 1908–1910: Walter Campbell

George V

First Page of Honour
 * 1910–1911: Hon. Edward Knollys
 * 1911–1917: Edward Reid
 * 1917–1921: Iain Murray
 * 1921–1924: The Earl Erne
 * 1924–1927: Allan Mackenzie
 * 1927–1932: Alfred Hesketh-Prichard
 * 1932–1936: Patrick Crichton

Second Page of Honour
 * 1910–1913: Anthony Lowther
 * 1913–1916: Hon. Thomas Brand
 * 1916–1919: Edward Ponsonby
 * 1919–1925: George Godfrey-Faussett
 * 1925–1932: Neville Wigram
 * 1932–1935: Colin Mackenzie
 * 1935–1936: The Lord Herschell

Third Page of Honour
 * 1910: George Lane
 * 1910–1914: Victor Harbord
 * 1914–1917: Gerald Lloyd-Verney
 * 1917–1919: Richard Dawnay
 * 1919–1923: Henry Hunloke
 * 1923–1927: Michael Adeane
 * 1927–1931: Jock Colville
 * 1931–1935: Viscount Errington
 * 1935–1936: George Seymour

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1910–1913: Walter Campbell
 * 1913–1915: Assheton Curzon-Howe
 * 1915–1917: Francis Stonor
 * 1917–1921: Guy Dugdale
 * 1921–1924: George Gordon-Lennox
 * 1924–1930: Harry Legge-Bourke
 * 1930–1933: Douglas Gordon
 * 1933–1936: George Hardinge

Edward VIII
First Page of Honour
 * 1936: Patrick Crichton

Second Page of Honour
 * 1936: The Lord Herschell

Third Page of Honour
 * 1936: George Seymour

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1936: George Hardinge

George VI
First Page of Honour
 * 1936–1940: Robert Eliot
 * 1940–1948: None due to the Second World War
 * 1948–1950: Lord Hyde
 * 1950–1952: Hon. Charles Wilson
 * 1952: The Earl Erne

Second Page of Honour
 * 1936–1940: The Lord Herschell
 * 1940–1947: None due to the Second World War
 * 1947–1951: James Ogilvy
 * 1951–1952: Jonathan Peel

Third Page of Honour
 * 1936–1940: George Seymour
 * 1940–1946: None due to the Second World War
 * 1946–1949: Bernard Gordon Lennox
 * 1949–1952: Henry Seymour

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1936–1938: George Hardinge
 * 1938–1939: David Stuart
 * 1939–1946: None due to the Second World War
 * 1946–1950: George Paynter
 * 1950–1952: Michael Anson

Elizabeth II

First Page of Honour
 * 1952–1954: The Earl Erne
 * 1954–1956: Hon. Anthony Tryon
 * 1956–1959: Sir Mark Palmer, 5th Baronet
 * 1959–1962: Hon. Julian Hardinge
 * 1962–1964: Earl of Lewes
 * 1964–1965: Lord Scrymgeour
 * 1965–1967: Douglas Gordon
 * 1967–1970: Christopher Abel Smith
 * 1970–1973: Louis Greig
 * 1973–1976: Lord Leveson
 * 1976–1978: John Ponsonby
 * 1979–1980: Hon. Thomas Coke
 * 1981–1983: James Basset
 * 1983–1986: Hon. Edward Cecil
 * 1986–1988: Benjamin Hamilton
 * 1988–1990: Hon. Edward Tollemache
 * 1991–1994: Edward Janvrin
 * 1994–1996: Simon Ramsay
 * 1996–1999: Lord Eskdaill
 * 1999–2002: Lord Maltravers
 * 2002–2004: Archibald Young
 * 2004–2008: George FitzRoy
 * 2008–2012: Jack Soames
 * 2012–2015: Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
 * 2015: Lachlan Legge-Bourke

Second Page of Honour
 * 1952–1954: Jonathan Peel
 * 1954–1956: Edward Adeane
 * 1956–1957: Duncan Davidson
 * 1957–1958: Andrew Gordon
 * 1960–1962: David Hughes-Wake-Walker
 * 1962–1963: Viscount Ipswich
 * 1963–1964: Heneage Legge-Bourke
 * 1964–1966: Christopher Tennant
 * 1966–1968: Hon. Harry Fane
 * 1968–1969: John Maudslay
 * 1969–1971: Hon. David Hicks-Beach
 * 1971–1973: Simon Rhodes
 * 1973–1974: David Bland
 * 1974–1976: Earl of Rocksavage
 * 1976–1979: Charles Loyd
 * 1979–1981: Viscount Carlow
 * 1981–1983: Marquess of Lorne
 * 1983–1984: Hon. Hugh Crossley
 * 1984–1988: Malcolm Maclean
 * 1988–1991: Hon. Charles Tryon
 * 1991–1995: James Bowes-Lyon
 * 1995–1997: Hon. William Vestey
 * 1997–2000: Lord Dunglass
 * 2000–2004: Hon. John Bowes-Lyon
 * 2004–2008: Viscount Garnock
 * 2008–2012: Lord Stanley
 * 2012–2015: Viscount Aithrie
 * 2015–2019: Hon. Augustus Stanhope
 * 2019–2022: Lord Claud Hamilton

Third Page of Honour
 * 1952–1953: Henry Seymour
 * 1953–1955: Viscount Carlow
 * 1955–1956: John Aird
 * 1956–1958: Lord Ardee
 * 1958–1961: Guy Nevill
 * 1961–1964: David Penn
 * 1964–1966: Edward Hay
 * 1966–1969: Nicholas Bacon
 * 1969–1973: Hon. George Herbert
 * 1973–1975: Napier Marten
 * 1975–1976: James Hussey
 * 1976–1978: William Oswald
 * 1978–1979: John Heseltine
 * 1979–1981: James Maudslay
 * 1981–1984: Guy Russell
 * 1984–1987: Harry Legge-Bourke
 * 1987–1989: Hon. Robert Montgomerie
 * 1989–1992: Rowley Baring
 * 1992–1995: Rory Penn
 * 1995–1998: Thomas Howard
 * 1998–2001: Viscount Chewton
 * 2001–2004: Viscount Garnock
 * 2005–2008: Arthur Hussey
 * 2008–2009: Michael Ogilvy
 * 2009–2015: Arthur Chatto
 * 2015–2018: Marquess of Lorne
 * 2018–2022: Robert Bruce

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 1952–1953: Michael Anson
 * 1953–1956: Hon. Simon Scott
 * 1956–1957: Earl of Shelburne
 * 1957–1959: Oliver Russell
 * 1959–1962: Charles Strachey
 * 1962–1964: Simon Rasch
 * 1964–1966: Richard Ford
 * 1966–1968: James Colville
 * 1968–1971: Alexander Colville
 * 1971–1974: Lord Ogilvy
 * 1974–1977: Edward Gordon-Lennox
 * 1977–1979: Viscount Althorp
 * 1979–1980: Tyrone Plunket
 * 1980–1982: Richard Lytton-Cobbold
 * 1982–1984: Marquess of Hamilton
 * 1984–1988: Piers Blewitt
 * 1988–1990: Lord Hyde
 * 1990–1993: Hon. Alexander Trenchard
 * 1993–1996: Hon. Edward Lowther
 * 1996–1998: Earl Percy
 * 1998–2003: Lord Carnegie
 * 2003–2006: Alexander Fraser
 * 2006–2008: Henry Naylor
 * 2008–2012: Andrew Leeming
 * 2012–2016: Hugo Bertie
 * 2016–2018: Thomas Hallé
 * 2018–2022: Max Bowen

Charles III
The pages of honour at the 2023 coronation were:
 * Prince George of Wales
 * Lord Oliver Cholmondeley
 * Nicholas Barclay
 * Ralph Tollemache

First Page of Honour
 * 2023–present: Nicholas Barclay

Second Page of Honour
 * 2023–present: Ralph Tollemache

Third Page of Honour
 * 2023–present: Charles van Cutsem

Fourth Page of Honour
 * 2023–present: Lord Oliver Cholmondeley

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Page of Honour


text:
Talk:Central Electricity Generating Board

[Untitled]
British Electricity Authority or was it Central Electricity Authority??? Linuxlad 12:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It was both. A document in the National Archives (Records of the Gas and Electricity Divisions, and the Electricity Commission) says that the BEA was set up in 1948 and later renamed the CEA; then in 1957 the CEGB replaced the CEA.  I will mention this in the article. --Heron 13:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - somewhere or other I've got the mini-history written by Gil Blackman for the 1990 dismemberment - there's quite a lot of info there. Linuxlad 19:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bias?
Is it just me or is this article a little biased in favor of the thing? Thanx 68.39.174.91 7 July 2005 10:42 (UTC) Yes, possibly - but it doesn't take a genius to edit it slightly - 'Its advocates said.... what'd there. However its critics maintained it was large monolithic and unaccountable. ' Linuxlad

Totally agree. It either needs some sources to back up assertions such as probably as well managed as by or else rewritten. I suspect it is a page being edited by former staffers and management — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.54.103 (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CEGB.png
Image:CEGB.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for new section on Legacy
In contrast to the above comment about bias, I would like to see some content here about the significant legacy that the CEGB left for the energy sector in the following decades. Many senior executives in the energy sector around the world today got their start in CEGB. It would be an exaggeration (but only just) to say that every power station in the free world has a copy of Modern Power Station Practice, a suite of reference texts published by the CEGB. Let's see if we can garner some support across the Wiki community. How do we do that?--Graham Proud (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Article merge?
The article Central Electricity Research Laboratories is tagged to suggest a merge into this article, with discussion to be on this talk page. That suggested-merge template was added in 2011, but it seems that the editor who added it (RadioFan) never logged the reason here, and I see no other mention of a merger on this talk page. Is there any interest in such a merger, or should the suggestion template on the other article just be dropped? 50.181.30.121 (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Central Electricity Generating Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130505161946/http://www.draxgroup.plc.uk/media/features/?id=47763 to http://www.draxgroup.plc.uk/media/features/?id=47763
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121209080524/http://www.aboutblyth.co.uk/html/cegbstory.html to http://www.aboutblyth.co.uk/html/cegbstory.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


text:
White squall

A white squall is a sudden and violent windstorm at sea which is not accompanied by the black clouds generally characteristic of a squall. It manifests as a sudden increase in wind velocity in tropical and sub-tropical waters, and may be a microburst. The name refers to the white-capped waves and broken water, its meager warning to any unlucky seaman caught in its path. A white squall was allegedly behind the sinking of the brigantine Albatross on May 2, 1961 although, in fact, there were a number of traditional line squalls all around and a microburst was very unlikely. White squalls are rare at sea, but common on the Great Lakes of North America.

Historical incidents
White squalls are the culprits of many sea stories and have been blamed for a few tragedies. A white squall was the reported cause of the loss of the schooner Paul Pry off Cape Schanck, Australia, on September 3, 1841. In May 1986, the Pride of Baltimore, a modern 137 ft schooner, was reportedly struck by a white squall. The 121-ton vessel sank about 240 mi north of Puerto Rico, casting the surviving crew members adrift for five days. The Toro, a Norwegian freighter, picked them up at 2:30 a.m. May 19, 1986. An eyewitness account described it as follows: "A tremendous whistling sound suddenly roared through the rigging and a wall of wind hit us in the back. The Pride heeled over in a matter of seconds. The 70 kn wind pushed a 20 ft high wall of water into the starboard side. She sank in minutes."

In literature and the arts

 * In Patrick O'Brian's 1973 novel HMS Surprise a white squall is experienced by the crew of Surprise en route to the Malay Peninsula north of the equator off the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago near Brazil.
 * Stan Rogers' 1984 song "White Squall" is about the white squalls of the Great Lakes.
 * Ridley Scott's 1996 film White Squall tells the story of the 1961 sinking of the Albatross.

title: White squall


text:
Stephen Gregory (author)

Stephen Gregory is a Welsh author of horror fiction. He was born in Derby, England in 1952. He has a degree in law from the University of London, and has worked as a teacher in various places, including Bangor in Wales, Algiers in Algeria and the Sudan. Gregory lived in Hollywood, California for a time, where he worked as a script writer with William Friedkin at Paramount Pictures.

Works
His works include:
 * The Cormorant, 1986 (reissued in 2013 by Valancourt Books, new introduction by the author)
 * The Woodwitch, 1988 (reissued in 2014 by Valancourt Books, new introduction by Paul G. Tremblay)
 * The Blood of Angels, 1993 (reissued in 2015 by Valancourt Books, new introduction by Mark Morris)
 * The Perils and Dangers of This Night, 2008
 * The Waking that Kills, 2013
 * Wakening the Crow, 2014
 * Plague of Gulls, 2015

The Cormorant received the 1987 Somerset Maugham Award, and, in 1993, the BBC made it into a film, starring Ralph Fiennes, which won two BAFTA Cymru awards. All three books were published both in the UK and US as well as in foreign translations.

title: Stephen Gregory (author)


text:
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)

Introduction: This guideline is about naming conventions for Wikipedia articles, and discusses use of "The", "A", and "An" at the start of an article title. There are some situations where they are warranted, but many where they are not. When used inappropriately, they violate common usage, only serving as noise words. More importantly, this can cause problems with the length of the name, the quick search function, and sorting. Due to these problems, the default rule is to exclude them unless certain specific conditions are met, usually where they are integral to the article subject's name.

Convention: In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a" or "an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia article only if at least one of the following conditions is met:
 * 1) If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the term without the article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article.
 * For example, "crown" means the headgear worn by a monarch or other high dignitaries, while "the Crown" is a term used to indicate the government authority and the property of that government in a monarchy.
 * 1) If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the Wikipedia article name. Otherwise, do not (except in the case of musical groups; see below).
 * For example, The Old Man and the Sea includes the article "The" because sentences such as "Ernest Hemingway wrote The Old Man and the Sea in 1951" are written with a capitalized "The".
 * On the contrary, United States does not include the article "The", because sentences such as "California is part of the United States" are written with a lowercase "the".

These conditions are sometimes met if the Wikipedia article name is: Not all of the Wikipedia article names which belong to these categories meet the above-listed conditions. For instance, Mona Lisa is the name of a work of art, and Eurythmics is the name of a musical band, but neither includes a definite or indefinite article.
 * the title of a work or publication (e.g., The Old Man and the Sea, or The New York Times), or
 * the official or commonly used name or nickname of a group, sports team or company (e.g., The Beatles, "The Invincibles", The Hershey Company), or
 * another official or commonly used proper name (e.g., The Hague, The Crown).

These guidelines also apply to foreign-language equivalents, such as Spanish El/La, German Das/Der/Die, etc.

Titles of works and publications
The definite or indefinite article is sometimes included in the official title of literary works as well as other kinds of fiction and non-fiction publications and works such as newspapers, films and visual artworks. In this case, the article should be included in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article as well. For example,
 * A Clockwork Orange (film)
 * "The Lady, or the Tiger?" (short story)
 * The New York Times (newspaper)
 * The Old Man and the Sea (novel)

This does not apply if the definite or indefinite article is not a part of the official title of the work or publication. Thus, Mona Lisa is preferred to The Mona Lisa. Particular usages for the titles of visual artworks are described in the Art Manual of Style.

Whether an article is actually part of the title of a work can be a bit hard to distinguish when translation is involved. For example:
 * The Rite of Spring – In Russian, the native language of the work's composer, the title is without a definite article (and standard Russian has no definite article); in French, since the first public performance of the work, it has always been Le Sacre du printemps (with the definite article).
 * The Scream – Original Norwegian without article (Skrik).
 * For most of the works of Alexandre Dumas père, the article is used the same way in the original French and in the English translations of the titles (for example, The Three Musketeers), except one: La Reine Margot, with a definite article, is usually translated as Queen Margot ("The Queen Margot" would sound rather like a ship's name).

Whether a definite or indefinite article is used in English also depends on differing sensibilities in different languages. There are several languages (like Latin) that do not have a definite article, giving no guidance whether an article would be part of a title. This often leads to alternative translations, with some translators using a definite article for the English version of the title and others not. The rule of thumb regarding these translated titles of works is this: if there is the least bit of ambiguity whether the article is always used in a translation of the title, it is preferred not to start the Wikipedia article name with an article. For example,
 * Histories (Tacitus) is preferred over The Histories (Tacitus)
 * Journey to the West is preferred over The Journey to the West

For newspapers, the general rule is to follow the name of the publication as it actually appears on the masthead. For instance, Canada's two major national newspapers are titled The Globe and Mail (with The) and National Post (without The); an article about a newspaper should never be titled with The if it is not present in the masthead.

This The convention also applies to publishers named for work titles, e.g.: The New York Times and The New York Times Company.

Names of groups, sports teams and companies
When a proper name is almost always used with "The", especially if it is included by unaffiliated sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article as well. For instance, this is true for the names of some musical groups:

 * The Bangles
 * The Beatles
 * The Corrs
 * The Rolling Stones
 * The The
 * The Who

This only applies if the definite article is used by the band on their musical publications (CDs, audiotapes, records, etc.) or on their official website. Conversely, some bands do not have the in their names, even though they may sometimes (or even often) be referred to as "the (Name)" in everyday speech:

 * Ramones
 * Eagles
 * Pixies
 * Nazz

In all cases, default the article title to the form of the name that is used by the band themselves, and use "(band)" to disambiguate if necessary. If a band is officially known without a definite article, but the members typically refer to their group as "the (Name)" in everyday speech, then the definite article should be included in running prose.

This also extends to some non-musical groups, and even beyond "official" naming, for example the Invincibles (which is the nickname of several sports teams). (See MOS:THECAPS for use of "The" and "the" in running prose.)

Sometimes, the article "The" is also used at the beginning of the names of companies. For instance:
 * The Coca-Cola Company
 * The Hershey Company
 * The New York Times Company
 * The Travelers Companies

Other proper names
Besides the above-mentioned cases, "The" is sometimes used at the beginning of some other proper names:
 * The two Commonwealth countries that have "The" as part of their common and official name:
 * The Bahamas – an island nation in the West Indies in the Atlantic Ocean, near the U.S. state of Florida
 * The Gambia – a small country in West Africa
 * The Bronx – one of the boroughs of New York City
 * The Hague – a city in the Netherlands
 * The Citadel – the common name of a military college in South Carolina
 * The Crown – often used in court case citations and legal documentation in Commonwealth realms as well as in the United Kingdom to describe the institutional relationship of the reigning monarch towards various institutions, such as courts and governmental bodies
 * The National Archives of the United Kingdom – it is typically referred to with the definite article, and abbreviated as TNA
 * The Nature Conservancy – similarly as with the National Archives – e.g. its abbreviation is TNC
 * The Needles – the common name for a row of stacks of chalk to the west of the Isle of Wight – and without the definite article, "Needles" would be ambiguous
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (for which the word "the" should not be capitalized in the middle of sentences)

Universities
A definite article should be applied only if The is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere. Otherwise, do not use the definite article for universities. This guideline is a weak version of the most-common-name rule.

Most universities do not have a definite article in their names. This includes institutions whose websites might suggest otherwise; for example: The preceding websites include title phrases "The University of X", but in running text, they refer to themselves as "the University of X". According to the rule of thumb, "The" is not considered to be a part of their name, so the Wikipedia article is named "University of X".
 * University of Arizona
 * University of Chicago
 * University of Oklahoma
 * University of New Mexico
 * University of Sheffield
 * University of Sydney

On the other hand, some universities only refer to themselves as "The University of X", even in running text (e.g. The College of New Jersey). If such usage is prevalent on university press releases and press kits, contact information, "about" pages, and internal department websites, and it is reasonably common in external sources (try a Google search), then it is more appropriate to name the Wikipedia article "The University of X".

Finally, if common usage has overwhelmingly rejected the The, then it should be omitted regardless of university usage, e.g. Ohio State University.

Other cases
Definite and indefinite articles should generally be avoided in cases not mentioned above. For example,
 * Apple, not An apple
 * Cultural Revolution, not The Cultural Revolution
 * Dog, not A dog
 * Earth, not The Earth
 * Eiffel Tower, not The Eiffel Tower
 * Joker (comics), not The Joker
 * Middle East, not The Middle East
 * Netherlands, not The Netherlands
 * RMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Queen Elizabeth, etc., not The Queen Elizabeth (see Naming conventions (ships))
 * Renaissance, not The Renaissance
 * Roman Catholic Church, not The Roman Catholic Church
 * Sudan, not The Sudan
 * Ukraine, not The Ukraine
 * United Kingdom, not The United Kingdom
 * United States, not The United States
 * White House, not The White House

However, it can be used in cases of prevailing common use. For example:
 * The Edge (stage name of David Howell Evans in the rock band U2)
 * The Notorious B.I.G. (stage name of Christopher George Latore Wallace)
 * The Doctor (Doctor Who) (fictional character)


text:
Kent County Council

Kent County Council is a county council that governs the non-metropolitan county of Kent in England. The non-metropolitan county is smaller than the ceremonial county, which additionally includes the unitary authority of Medway. Kent County Council is the upper tier of elected local government, below which are 12 district councils, and around 300 town and parish councils. The county council has 81 elected councillors. It is one of the largest local authorities in England in terms of population served and the largest local authority of its type. The council is based at County Hall in Maidstone. It has been under Conservative majority control since 1997.

History
Elected county councils were created in 1889 under the Local Government Act 1888, taking over many administrative functions that had previously been performed by unelected magistrates at the quarter sessions. The areas covered by the new county councils were termed administrative counties. In Kent the administrative county differed from the historic county in a few places:
 * The north-western part of the historic county around Greenwich, Lewisham and Woolwich, which had been administered by the Metropolitan Board of Works since 1856, was transferred to the new County of London.
 * Canterbury, which had been a self-governing county corporate since 1471, retained its independence by being made a county borough.
 * Urban sanitary districts which straddled county boundaries were placed entirely in one county, which saw Tunbridge Wells placed entirely in Kent, having previously straddled Kent and Sussex.

The first elections to the county council were held in January 1889 and it formally came into being on 1 April 1889, on which day it held its first official meeting at the Sessions House in Maidstone. John Farnaby Lennard was appointed the first chairman of the council.

The county council's duties at first were few, but gradually it absorbed school boards, the rural highway boards and the boards of guardians. The county council adopted the Sessions House as its meeting place.

In 1965, the London Government Act 1963 abolished the existing county of London and replaced it with a larger administrative area called Greater London, which took over the Bexley and Bromley areas from the administrative county of Kent. In 1974, the Local Government Act 1972 saw Kent re-classified as a non-metropolitan county and it gained the formerly independent county borough of Canterbury. Until 1974 the lower tier of local government had comprised numerous boroughs, urban districts and rural districts. As part of the 1974 reforms, the lower tier was reorganised into fourteen non-metropolitan districts.

In 1998 the districts of Gillingham and Rochester-upon-Medway were removed from the non-metropolitan county of Kent to become a new unitary authority called Medway, whilst remaining part of the ceremonial county of Kent.

In November 2022, the county council stated it, alongside Hampshire County Council, may face bankruptcy within 12 months due to austerity cuts.

Governance
Kent County Council provides county-level services. District-level services are provided by the twelve district councils:

 * Ashford Borough Council
 * Canterbury City Council
 * Dartford Borough Council
 * Dover District Council
 * Folkestone and Hythe District Council
 * Gravesham Borough Council
 * Maidstone Borough Council
 * Sevenoaks District Council
 * Swale Borough Council
 * Thanet District Council
 * Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council
 * Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Much of the county is also covered by civil parishes, which form a third tier of local government.

Political control
The county council has been under Conservative majority control since 1997.

Political control of the council since the 1974 reforms has been as follows:

Leadership
The leaders of the council since 1974 have been:

Composition
Following the 2021 election and subsequent by-elections and changes of allegiance up to May 2024 the composition of the council was as follows:

The Greens, Swale Independent and Swanscombe and Greenhithe Residents' Association councillors sit together as the "Green and Independents" group. The next election is due in 2025.

Elections
Since the last boundary changes in 2019 the council has comprised 81 councillors representing 72 electoral divisions, with each division electing one or two councillors. Elections are held every four years.

Premises
The council is based at County Hall, a complex of buildings on County Road in Maidstone which incorporates the old Sessions House of 1824, which had been the meeting place of the quarter sessions which preceded the county council. The council has various other buildings around the county as well.

Responsibilities
The council is responsible for public services such as education, transport, strategic planning, emergency services, social services, public safety and waste disposal.

Transportation
Kent Top Travel was owned by Kent County Council, and was established by them in 2005. It operated the council's bus network. It was argued that its existence stimulated competition. It also operated a coach charter fleet. The majority of Kent Top Travel's route portfolio comprised rural, evening and Sunday services won under competitive tender from Kent County Council and other local authorities in open competition with private bus operators. Kent Top Travel operated Canterbury City Council's park & ride service from October 2008 until 2013. Kent Top Travel operated both single and double deck buses as well as charter coaches. Buses were painted in a white and green livery, the Canterbury park & ride fleet silver and green. Coaches were painted both white & red, and yellow.

Following an independent report criticising Kent County Council's trading companies, in December 2012 it was decided to close Kent Top Travel once its existing contracts expired. Kent Top Travel ceased trading on 1 October 2013.

Council structure
The Council is structured as follows:

The County Council is made up of 81 elected county councillors. The full council meets seven times a year to agree the council's Constitution and amendments to it, appoint the Leader, and approve the policy framework and budget (including the level of Council Tax).
 * County Council:

The cabinet is made up of ten county councillors. The cabinet is responsible for the strategic thinking and decisions that steer how the council is run. The cabinet meets monthly and takes decisions collectively.
 * Cabinet:

Local boards are local community groups that hold regular public meetings across Kent, so that the people of Kent can voice issues that affect their community. They also allocate funding to local projects. There are 12 local boards in Kent, and every county councillor is required to be a member of one local board.
 * Local Boards:

The work of the Council is organized into directorates: supports the work of the directorates by providing specialist expertise and strategic direction. The department also leads and co-ordinates major change and organisational development.: It manages services that include human resources, finance, governance, law and democracy, strategic commissioning, property and infrastructure, information technology, media and communications, consultation and engagement, customer relations including gateways and contact centre, business intelligence and policy. It combines Education services with universal and targeted services for children and young people designed to reduce demand for specialist services, also provided in this directorate. By focusing on prevention and early intervention, their aim is to reduce demand in specialist children's social services by helping families earlier, improving parenting skills and the health and educational outcomes of young children, ensuring they are school ready. KCC will intervene earlier to support families in crisis through area based working and joined up teams providing a more seamless service and better working arrangements with partner organisations.: This encompasses the Kent Youth County Council which provides the young people of the county to have a voice on the issues that matter to young people aged 11–18. Successes of the youth council include the introduction of the Kent Freedom Pass, which allows unlimited travel around Kent for a year at the cost of £100. The Youth County Council holds its elections every November, and four young people from each of the 12 districts are elected to a two-year term. The Kent Youth County Council is also affiliated with the UK Youth Parliament and British Youth Council.
 * Strategic and Corporate Services:
 * Children, Young People and Education:

works with people who need care and support, providing Adult Social Care Services and Public Health Services. This includes strategic responsibility for the future of the county in terms of planning, economic development, transport policy, and major transport improvement schemes, waste disposal and recycling services. In addition to a range of leisure and cultural facilities including the Turner Contemporary; country parks; libraries; and enforcement services including trading standards and community safety.
 * Adult Social Care and Health:
 * Growth, Environment and Transport:

Joint arrangements with Medway
Kent County Council co-operates with the unitary Medway Council in many ways, for instance in the Kent and Medway Local Plan, and together they run joint agencies. Kent is combined with Medway for the purposes of representation in Parliament. The combined area elects 17 MPs, of whom 14 represent seats entirely within the Kent County Council area and another whose constituency is in both Kent and Medway.

title: Kent County Council


text:
User talk:Fleshblood

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fleshblood


text: User talk:81.136.211.17

title: User talk:81.136.211.17