text:
User talk:RobyWayne

Archives:
 * 1) July - August, 2005
 * 2) September - December, 2005
 * 3) January - March, 2006

Happy First Edit Day
Just leaving a note wishing you a happy first edit day. What a wonderful thing Wikipedia is that we even have "first edit day." RyanG e rbil10 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy first edit day Roby Wayne. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

New userbox for Louisville Wikipedians
I just created a userbox for Louisville Wikipedians! Just add to your user page and you've got it! Enjoy! — Stevie is the man!  Talk 16:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the new box! It looks great on my user page.  >: Roby Wayne Talk`

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Louisville
Greetings. I'm just dropping a line to all Louisville residents I can find to ask them to consider joining the new WikiProject Louisville. It has been determined there is a *lot* of work to do yet remaining for Louisville-related subjects, and therefore we would definitely appreciate your presence. If by chance you are unable to join us, that's all right, but if you can, please tell other Louisvillians about this worthy project. Thank you for your time! — Stevie is the man!  Talk 00:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Final state highway naming conventions debate
RobyWayne, your participation is welcome in the State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Help save project that has a lot of effort in it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:US_State_Related_Ships

Can you help save over 14 hours of work? It started with the WV page. I'm about to leave Wiki again, it gets old when you bust your ass. No wonder they don't have they money the need, people what give when you screw with them all the time. --71Demon 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Inforglobal.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Inforglobal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
Have a great day on behalf of WP:BDC. Extranet (Talk 01:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

May this birthday be a wonderful day, May your fondest wish come true. PeaceNT 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Inactivity notification
You have been declared an inactive user and your name will be removed from the newsletter distribution and the projects you were a member of. '''If this is in error, please contact me on my talk page. Do not restore your name to the list. Regards, Rschen7754''' (talk - contribs) 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:DePuy.png
Thanks for uploading Image:DePuy.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:2005Oct12_Commander_Keane_ns.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2005Oct12_Commander_Keane_ns.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex  21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:2005Oct12_Commander_Keane_de.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2005Oct12_Commander_Keane_de.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex  21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:WYCS-TV Logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:WYCS-TV Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:WFTE-TV Logo.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:WFTE-TV Logo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status
The Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to and/or  status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:AIMCO.gif
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:AIMCO.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 13:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Instinct (magazine)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Instinct (magazine), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Instinct (magazine) is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Instinct (magazine), please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jefferson County Public Schools Kentucky Logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Jefferson County Public Schools Kentucky Logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WSBT logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:WSBT logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WHME logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:WHME logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WAVE3 Logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:WAVE3 Logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
-- Nadir D Steinmetz 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:WAVE3 Logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:WAVE3 Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day
-- S M S  Talk 20:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SSA Global Logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:SSA Global Logo.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WBKI Logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:WBKI Logo.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WNIT logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:WNIT logo.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jefferson County Public Schools Kentucky Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Jefferson County Public Schools Kentucky Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  03:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear RobyWayne,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.34.167 (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token afedcfe51c61b9dcfc54790fd50676ec
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Virginia Western Community College Logo.PNG missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Virginia Western Community College Logo.PNG

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:2005Oct06 RobyWayne ns.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another one of your uploads, File:2005Oct11 Freestylefrappe ns.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another one of your uploads, File:2005Oct18 Titoxd de.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another one of your uploads, File:2005Nov04 Drini ns.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another one of your uploads, File:2005Oct11 Redwolf24 de.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another one of your uploads, File:2005Oct11 Redwolf24 ns.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another one of your uploads, File:2005Nov04 Drini de.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another one of your uploads, File:2005Oct06 RobyWayne de.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that you've just become active again, shortly before your admin userrights were due to be removed. I've brought this up at the bureaucrats' noticeboard; feel free to add your thoughts to that discussion. Graham 87 05:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Project Invite
Go Hokies (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Central Virginia Community College Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Central Virginia Community College Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jefferson County Public Schools Kentucky Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Jefferson County Public Schools Kentucky Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WNDU logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:WNDU logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DePuy.png
 Thanks for uploading File:DePuy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Nomination of List of mayors of Warsaw, Indiana for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of mayors of Warsaw, Indiana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_mayors_of_Warsaw,_Indiana until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Orphaned non-free image File:WNIT logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:WNIT logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ★ Bigr   Tex  21:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WBKI Logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:WBKI Logo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ★ Bigr   Tex  22:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Regis University Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Regis University Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Regis University Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Regis University Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SSA Global Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:SSA Global Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:RobyWayne


text:
Talk:Product (category theory)

Definition
In the definition we say that space is a product if there exists projections (morphisms onto the factors) that... I'm not sure that is entirely the right way to phrase it. I'm quite sure that the morphisms onto the factors are part of the data. The correct definition of a product would be a space equipped with morphisms onto the factors such that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.153.47 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the 2-element case should go into Discussion? Which should be a bit more articulated, I think. Adandrews 21 Apr 2005

Examples
I think the "examples" section is misleading, since it lists things like "in Category C the product is...". It gives the impression that the product is unique, when it should be explicit that it's unique up to isomorphism. Also, I think a negative example should be provided; for example, in the category of fields there ain't no such thing as a product, for example, there's no product of GF(2) and GF(3). Albmont (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree that uniqueness seems to be handled incorrectly. Though I could be wrong. See below. 178.38.119.178 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

 * A product isn't just the object, but also the two projections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.2.103.165 (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Product functor
The paragraph in "Discussion" about product functor is obscure. The gentle example of a product bifunctor $$C\times C \to C$$ is omitted. No description how a product functor acts on morphisms. The statement that hom-functor is continuous IMHO should go to the article Limit (category_theory). --Beroal (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Pullback (category theory)?
Shouldn't this be somehow merged with Pullback (category theory)? --Cokaban (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. You can use a pullback as the diagram in a limit, but for the product, here, the diagram has no morpisms. That is, the pullback has a morphism between the objects in the index set.  The product has no morphisms between the objects in the index. If you applied the notion of forgetfull-ness to the pullback, you'd get the product.  Subtle but important difference. linas (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Finite product diagram
Is there any particular reason that the diagram for the finite product does not follow the same layout as the binary product? I think the way it is now makes it more confusing at first glance. It would be relatively simple to fix: swap the X and the Y and then rotate the graph around the vertical axis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.27.82 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Associativity
Why is nothing said about associativity of direct product? Please add it to the article. --VictorPorton (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC) (Oh, I see this at the end of the "Discussion" section. I take my words back. Well, we should have the word associativ* here, at least for search engines.
 * Done linas (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Uniqueness of products — does the theory really develop in the sequence given in the article?
Towards the end of the article:

 * ''If $$I$$ is a set such that all products for families indexed with $$I$$ exist, then it is possible to choose the products in a compatible fashion so that the product turns into a functor $${\mathcal C}^I \to \mathcal C$$.

When can we speak of "the" product? Isn't it only after we define this product functor? Before we select a specific product functor, saying that a category has "products" does not yet give us the right to use the notation A × B, correct?

Yet earlier in the article we find the sentence:

 * ''An object $$X$$ is a product of $$X_1$$ and $$X_2$$, denoted $$X_1 \times X_2$$, iff it satisfies this universal property:

But the universal property only determines the product up to unique isomorphism, correct? So the use of the notation X1 × X2 is premature here, isn't it?

 * ''Above we defined the binary product.

This also seems to be jumping the gun. We've only defined what a binary product is, not picked out a specific one for each pair of factors.

The distinction between "having products" and "equipped with a product" is like the distinction between "orientable" and "oriented". (Though it may make less difference. But it would take a theorem to establish this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.38.119.178 (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is why I think this is important: category theory is not engineering mathematics! (With all due respect to makers and doers.)

We come to category theory to get exact answers to questions about the nature of the information we have at our disposal (or permit ourselves to have). This includes crisp answers to such questions as "the identity of indiscernables" (or non-identity, depending on the precise formulation of the problem at hand).

178.38.119.178 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Equational definition
The "Equational definition" subsection seems to be giving the same definition of product in a more confusing language, so I propose removing it. Ebony Jackson (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Product (category theory)


text:
Talk:Académie Julian

When did it close?
When did it close? Why? --sparkit 04:09, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced
What, who is Hamilton King, the only source supplied? Therefrom the tag. --rpd (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Adolphe William Bouguereau
Adolphe William Bouguereau won Prix de Rome in 1850, far before 1868, when Académie Julian was established. Bouguereau did teach there as a professor. --Leeearnest (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Status: notability?
Does it make sense to limit new additions to this list? Is it appropriate at this stage of the article's development to initiate a standard limiting names on this select list to
 * (a) those who already have Wikipedia articles
 * and
 * (b) those who are notable for something other than having depicted war in art -- see, e.g., US Navy Cross edit history?

In a context informed by practices which seem to have worked out well at Navy Cross, all new additions who aren't already featured in an article could be re-redirected to this talk page section with the following edit history explanation:
 * artist must be known for something other than studying at this art school -- see "Status: Notability" on talk page

The redlinks of those who do not have an article yet are listed below:

 * Mary Collins Ammirato
 * Margaret Ashe
 * Elizabeth Atkinson
 * Cecile Baudry
 * Saul Bernstein
 * Emilio Boggio
 * Émilie Desjeux — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatesic (talk • contribs) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mina Bredberg-Carlson or Mina Carlson-Bredberg
 * Oscar Fehrer
 * Gabriel Ferrier
 * Elizabeth Gardener
 * Anthony Gross
 * Anna Klumpke

 * Harvey Leepa or Allen Leepa from Leepa-Rattner Museum of Art ?
 * Salvador Moreno
 * Sara Page restored to article's list of notable students
 * Jules Eugene Pages
 * DeWitt Clinton Peters or DeWitt Clinton Boutelle?
 * Nikola Reiser
 * Andrew Richard
 * Ernest de Saisset
 * Tito Salas restored to article
 * Carlos Rivero Sanabria (1864 - 1915)
 * Lucretia Van Horn
 * Lucretia Van Horn

 * Notes

When any of the above-listed redlink names turn blue, we will know that transferring these names to the talk page was a worthwhile exercise. If none turn blue, then we can deduce something about the notability of these artists. --Tenmei (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Émilie Desjeux 1861-1957: http://celebrations-de-bourgogne.org/1861-naissance-demilie-desjeux-portraitiste/ http://europeart.livejournal.com/729.html http://www.acejoigny.com/Library/echos_55.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatesic (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

List of names
This list is quite silly. There is no information here. Just names. This needs an overhaul with prose discussing the legacy of the academy with a discussion of some of the students. We can't list them all. It serves no purpose as it stands.  freshacconci  talk talk  15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I propose to remove the list of notable students, and to direct users to Category:Alumni of the Académie Julian. Ideally the list here should be compared with the list in the category, and the individual articles updated as necessary.

 * I would retain the much shorter list of notable professors (but to correct it - see below). Verbcatcher (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Students in 1883
Where might one be able to find a list of students from this year? There is a photo of Frances Benjamin Johnston in a group of women students in one of the FBJ books (sorry, it was from the library, years ago, I don't recall which book) but I *think* it was her class in Paris, about 1883. There is a woman in the front row with her hand on a skull; perhaps it was an art class where they studied anatomy. The ideal would be to find a list of the women in the photo. - Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 18:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts
The article says that the Académie prepared students for the École des Beaux-Arts. This probably means specifically the École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts, also in Paris, doesn't it, rather than any of the several Écoles des Beaux-Arts around France? If there's no objection, I'll clarify that point. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Was Jules Cavaillès a professor at Académie Julian?
The article lists Jules Cavaillès as a notable professor. Is this accurate? It is not mentioned in his article, nor on the site referenced from his article. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

List of notable professors
Further to the above, the following are listed as notable professors, but their articles do not mention that they taught at the Académie Julian.

 * Jules Cavaillès
 * Étienne Dinet
 * François Flameng
 * Marcel Gimond
 * Tony Robert-Fleury

If there are reliable references for them teaching at the Académie Julian then their articles should be updated accordingly, and added to Category:Faculty of the Académie Julian. If there is no reliable reference than they should be removed from this article. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

First american football game in Europe
American students of this school played 1897 vs other Americans from the École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts the first american football game in Europe http://www.postimg.org/image/m29agx18z/ http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k284207p/f4.zoom.langFR --Erixson (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Interesting, but I think this is too remote from the purposes of the Académie Julian to be included in this article. It seems that the team comprised students at the Académie, but it is unlikely that they officially represented it. In the old days this could have gone in a Trivia section, but these are now deprecated. This might have a place in History of American football. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add the American impressionist artist Clark G. Voorhees to your list of American artist attending the Academie Julian in Paris late 19th century's
Please add the American impressionist artist Clark G. Voorhees to your list of American artists attending the Academie Julian in Paris in the late 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:80:90:8505:6903:5D22:90E4 (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Notable students section
I recently added the tag to the Notable students section. This generates the following notice:

"This article's list of alumni may not follow Wikipedia's verifiability or notability policies. Please improve this article by removing names that do not have independent reliable sources cited within this article showing they are notable and alumni or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations."

User:DDupard has deleted this tag, with the check-in comment "removed unnecessary tag". I think the tag is appropriate. Firstly because there were six (now seven) redlinks in the list. Secondly, many of the linked articles do not provide citations for these people having studied at Académie Julian. Of the first five in the list, only one cites a source for this. Uncited claims in the linked articles may be based only on the list in this article. Also, the citations should be in this article, not in the linked articles. I propose to reinstate this notice.

However, there is also the issue of whether we should have this sort of list. The list is of little use to our readers and is out of proportion in this article. Other articles on educational institutions do not have this sort of list. We currently list 244 alumni, and there are 367 in Category:Alumni of the Académie Julian.

Manual of Style/Embedded lists says Consideration should be given to keeping embedded lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within an embedded list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum per policy.

I propose that we limit the list to an few truly prominent alumni: for example, heads of state, Nobel prize winners and (in this context) artists with whom a generally well-educated person is likely to be familiar. I suggest these:

 * Jean Arp
 * Marcel Duchamp
 * Kahlil Gibran
 * Fernand Léger
 * Henri Matisse
 * Grant Wood

We would have a link to Category:Alumni of the Académie Julian.

In order to avoid losing useful information (and maybe antagonising our editors), we could transfer the list to a new article: List of Alumni of the Académie Julian. However, as we have few citations there may be little point in this. Comments please. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Verbcatcher, and thank you for taking the time to present your point of view, I removed the tag indeed, finding it "disgraceful"... Your offer to create a list page or link to the category is fine with me. As far as just giving the names of just a few well known artists is concerned, my position would be either all or none. Cheers!--DDupard (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello DDupard, I think giving well-known artists is useful. Our readers are likely to be interested that Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp were students, and this would give an indication of the importance of the Académie. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Verbcatcher, on the other hand, having red links calls for the creation of the corresponding article, and anyhow a piece of information, even incomplete, is information (in my mind).--DDupard (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DDupard, a red link is good if references are cited that show that the subject attended Académie Julian and also that he or she meets the Notability (people) guidelines. Unsourced information should not be in Wikipedia (but I don't actively delete it). Wikipedia articles (other than list articles) should be readable; not all facts about a topic merit inclusion. I now favour deleting the list of alumni and naming two or three in the body of the article, probably Matisse and Duchamp. I would delete the list of professors (or move it to a list article); we already name several instructors in the text and could reassess those which we name. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines for artists are given in WP:ARTIST. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Verbcatcher, that falls into the category: personal WP:POVPUSH. Why would Marcel Duchamp be listed excluding the others like Diego Rivera or Pierre Bonnard to name but 2, totally un-encyclopedic--DDupard (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DDupard, the Marcel Duchamp article says "Duchamp is commonly regarded, along with Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse, as one of the three artists who helped to define the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the twentieth century, responsible for significant developments in painting and sculpture" and cites sources. While Rivera and Bonnard are important artists, and arguably greater artists than Duchamp, Duchamp and Matisse are the most historically significant artists in the list. My prioritisation of historical significance over aesthetic merit follows the guidelines in WP:ARTIST. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Verbcatcher: complete section here: for this guideline.

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
 * 3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * 4) The person's work (or works) 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 .--DDupard (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 * DDupard, these support my selection of Duchamp. They do not mention artistic merit. For #2, Duchamp is known for originating Anti-art, a precursor of conceptual art, and for being a key figure in Dada and Cubism. For #4b I suggest the list here, the Norton Simon Museum and the Fine Art Society . For #4c a web search shows significant critical attention. For #4d I suggest MoMA, the Tate  and the Centre Pompidou . Only one of the the criteria need be met for notability, and Duchamp is preeminent in #2.

 * You have not justified your removal of the tag, other than saying that you found it "disgraceful". Most of the names have no sources cited in the article showing they are notable and alumni, and several do not cite sources for this in the linked articles. Should I add  to every name without a citation? Verbcatcher (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Verbcatcher, Citation: + or - 1,119 items in here oxfordindex and 36 items here universalis, 38 here treccani, and  151 here Highbeam, 423 Jstor (which tends to indicate a global interest in this information)--DDupard (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 * DDupard, I am not claiming that anything is incorrect in the list of students, I simply want to alert users that most of the names are unsourced, and to ask editors to cite sources for them and to remove the names if citable sources are not available. The availability of research tools increases the justification for this, because finding citable sources should be easier than in many other fields. Perhaps Template:Alumni is a little harsh in asking users to remove uncited entries without looking for citable sources, but this may follow Wikipedia policy. We could also add Template:Alumni edit notice (asking users not to add uncited entries) or Template:Cleanup list (more general).Verbcatcher (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have transferred the lists to List of people associated with the Académie Julian. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Lists of notable professors and students
User:DDupard, over the last week we have discussed whether the lists of professors and students of the Académie Julian should be in a seperate list article, see Talk:Académie Julian and Talk:List of people associated with the Académie Julian. I am upset that you have effectively reverted my edits without continuing the discussion on the talk pages. This is the sequence of events:

 * 1) I proposed transferring the list of alumni to a seperate list article, citing Manual of Style/Embedded lists.
 * 2) You reponded with "Your offer to create a list page or link to the category is fine with me".
 * 3) I moved the lists to a new article: List of people associated with the Académie Julian, with a link from Académie Julian. My check-in comment mentioned the similar List of people associated with the London School of Economics.
 * 4) You pointed out that the new structure did not match the Académie Julian articles in other Wikipedia languages.
 * 5) I indicated that making Wikipedia articles correspond in all languages was unachievable. As far as I know this is not a Wikipedia policy. I pointed out that having lists of faculty and alumni in a list article was common in Wikipedia, see Category:Lists of people by university or college. I indicated the reasons why lists might be included in or excluded from a parent article.
 * 6) You chose not to continue the discussion. You returned the lists to Académie Julian, albeit in a different format, and removed the link to List of people associated with the Académie Julian making it effectively an orphaned article.
 * 7) You have added a large number of red-linked student names, without citing sources to establish that they were students and were notable. We had also discussed this on the talk pages.

Rather than start an edit war, let's discuss this here. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 * 1) No reverts: the link to the list is still in the article. 2) One article does not preclude the existence of another one in a different, (if not more informative) format. 3) Red links are calls to create articles, calls for enrichments, calls for users to participate in creation. 4) And for red links and ref., there is a global reference in the external link section. 5) There is no neutral, objective, dispassionate reason for your being upset. --DDupard (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 * User:DDupard, even though you did not use the undo facility you have effectively reverted my edit. After discussion I removed the lists in the article; you have added similar lists without continuing the discussion. We could make improvements to the format of the lists wherever they are placed. There is little point in maintaining parallel lists in both the main article and the list article.

 * The format of the lists and whether they are in a separate article are editorial judgements for which there are no clear-cut right or wrong answers. However, I am clear that the inclusion of unsourced red-linked names in the list of alumni breaks Verifiability. We need to cite sources that show that all the names in the list of alumni were alumni, and that they meet the notability guidelines (in WP:ARTIST). The policy is that all facts should be verified where they appear (see WP:LISTVERIFY), however this is often not achieved and it is probably acceptable for the facts to be sourced in the linked articles. Unsourced red-linked (or unlinked) names are not acceptable.

 * Your new lists in Académie Julian do not include the references cited in List of people associated with the Académie Julian. This is a backwards step, and risks losing these citations if the list article becomes moribund. Presumably the names in your new lists come from the source in the external links section. If so, you should explicitly cite this (I suggest a citation next to the title of each table). As I have pointed out, this is a self-published source which we should treat with caution. This source only indicates who taught at or attended the Académie, it gives no evidence of notability.

 * As you point out, red links are a way to request new articles. This does not justify including unsourced material. Also, the onus is on you to establish that the subject meets the notability guidelines, see WP:REDYES. Another motivation for adding unsourced names is to help develop the list, adding names that may eventually be sourced. This is the wrong place to do this, see WP:PURPLIST.

 * I propose to delete the lists in Académie Julian. We could move the lists in your new format to replace those in List of people associated with the Académie Julian, but this would lose citations. If the new list is to stay then I propose to delete the unsourced red-linked names. Do you think it is useful to continue discussing this here, or should we use Dispute resolution, probably by seeking a Third opinion? Verbcatcher (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 * 1) I repeat, the link to : List of people associated with the Académie Julian is still in the article Académie Julian, 2) Sources or better, links to the equivalent page in another language for each red name can be added if you wish so, 3) I repeat WP.in English is a version in English of an international encyclopedia. 4) The chart format listing country of origins shows or tends to show that the académie attracted people from all over. 5) My personal opinion is that listing faculty and students on the Académie Julian page is relevant to the article. 6) I also placed the charts in "Show/Hide" mode so as to limit clutter. 7) If you wish for a third opinion, I prefer that to be plural, in which case it would be o.k with me.--DDupard (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 * User:DDupard:
 * 1) I was mistaken when I wrote that you had deleted the link to the list article. Sorry.
 * 2) Sources are better than links. Links to Wikipedias in other languages are useful if there is no English Wikpedia article. Presumably the notability guidelines are broadly similar in all Wikipedias. If the linked article (in any language) has reliable citations then this reduces the importance of a citation in this article; ideally the citations should be added to this article but this is difficult if the sources are not available on-line: you should only cite a source that you have inspected personally. However, in my limited experience, the French and Spanish Wikipedias are often less well cited than English Wikepedia.
 * 3) Wikipedia is not a single encyclopaedia in multiple languages. There are Wikipedias in 294 languages, each of which is a separate encyclopaedia which may have different policies and conventions.
 * 4) I do not object to giving nationalities in the list of students, although this can be difficult because countries change and people change nationality. I don't feel that it is necessary to illustrate the wide range of nationalities by including the list in the article: we could say " [...] it was popular with French as well as foreign students from all over the world, particularly Americans, and attracted students from at least forty countries, see List of people associated with the Académie Julian" (although some fanatical editors might object to the lack of a local citation).
 * 5) I agree that the lists are relevant to the article. However, as I said earlier, the list of alumni is of little use to our readers and is out of proportion in this article. Just because the lists are relevant does not mean that they need to be in the article. Many articles on colleges have a list of notable alumni in a separate list article.
 * 6) The show/hide mode helps, but I don't think that it is the answer.
 * 7) Do you mean by "plural" that we should seek multiple third opinions? We might only get one editor giving an opinion through the Third opinion process. However, this would be advisory and not binding, and it would not preclude other options described in Dispute resolution. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A quick remark: not sure the term "Dispute" applies here : User Verbcatcher, has been present on this talk page since 22 May 2014, with the same proposal to remove the list. October 2016 sees the same.... (!)--DDupard (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, I proposed removing the lists in 2014, in reponse to another editor. There were no comments on this, and I did not follow it up at the time. I have since been keeping an eye on the page and have made a few edits. Does this make me less qualified to comment on the page and to try to improve it? As I see it, we disagree about two issues:
 * Whether it is preferable to place the lists of faculty and alumni in the main article or in a separate list article, or in both. This is an issue of editorial judgement. I favour having the lists only in a list article, User:DDupard favours having them in the main article and is content for there to also be a list article.
 * Whether it is acceptable to include names in these lists that are red-linked with no evidence of notability. This is an issue of interpreting Wikipedia policies. I want to delete these names, User:DDupard wants to keep them. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

So lets get to work and add sources to better things instead of a delete, as far as the existence of 2 lists is concerned, please understand that I am only trying to accomodate your "creating" of that second page, as it seems to be a recurring preoccupation of yours--DDupard (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So, with this last exchange in mind, please do work at bettering your list, and just leave the one on Académie Julian alone, I promiss I’ll give all requested references for your satisfaction and that of the WP guidelines, that is to say either include those in the corresponding artist article or on the Académie Julian page. It might take a few weeks but please do bear with me and time constraints--DDupard (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 * User:DDupard: Asking me to not to edit an article while you work on it breaks Wikipedia conventions. You should not do development work of this sort in a live article, use your sandbox. It would be a waste of effort for us to work simultaneously on separate lists of the same people in two articles.
 * I am concerned that your list does not use the references cited in the the list article. Many of these are of better quality than the self-published site that you are using. Several (or most) of the entries in the site you are using do not establish notability.

 * However, our disagreement centres on the location of the lists and on redlinked names whose notability has not been established. We can discuss the format of the lists and whether and how we merge them later. I am now going to seek a Third opinion. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I have not specified what source I was going to use, and please do seek a neutral third opinion, keeping in mind that I have been offering a compromise. --DDupard (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Académie Julian, its place in Art history : Students and Professors

 * Illustrated here by 26 inter-wiki versions of the page hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation,  "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content" , .--DDupard (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Note:advice below was rejected by one of the parties, so I prefer if someone else gives an third opinion as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the article and I'm not sure if we really need to duplicate the list. The organisation of notable professors and students by country can simply be moved to List of people associated with the Académie Julian. It can be organised and cited better over there instead of cluttering this article. As for the red links, how about moving them to a talk page and demonstrating notability. I'm usually hesitant to allow redlinks in lists because the notability of an article is usually unclear until it is created. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping and . --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you Lemongirl942, could you please indicate your alternative account? Thanks--DDupard (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean an alternative user account? I have only one User:Lemongirl1942. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case, I would prefer a third opinion coming from a user with time-wise a longer experience. Thank you anyhow--DDupard (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's your wish, I am fine with it. I am however restoring the tag as it should not be removed till the problem is solved. I appreciate if you do not remove it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The tag is not supposed to be removed. The issues have not been solved. I would appreciate if you do not edit war. If you want to remove the tag, you need to demonstrate consensus here for removing and I don't see it at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I should specify that we are in need of third opinion(s) on the part of users with a clean record : User talk:Lemongirl942 and User talk:Lemongirl942--DDupard (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you to WP:AGF a little? We usually tend to discuss about the content at hand not the contributor. If you notice, I have commented only about the content here, not the user. (I have not commented anything about you. That would be like me saying that your edit count is 1400 which possibly indicates that you are less experienced.) I haven't been doing that.
 * Now as for the clean record, there is no such requirement of a "clean record" and quite a few of the admins have blocks. Where do we go for a "clean record" then? What matters here is whether the advice is based on current policies/guidelines. Btw, if you are really particular, then please do read this (as well as the next report on that same page) in full before making a judgement. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If I may venture an opinion (my edit count in WPen is only 2346 to whoever may feel the need to ascertain it): the separate list of people associated with the Académie Julian art school is duplicative with the Category:Faculty of the Académie Julian page and Category:Alumni of the Académie Julian page. So wouldn't it be preferable for both lists to be reinserted back into their original page whence they should never have been removed (resulting, as could be expected, in edit warring). --Elnon (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * User:Elnon, thank you for your opinion. However, if you check the history I think you will find that I have acted reasonably: I proposed the the move on the talk page. The only responder appeared to be ok with my proposal so I made the change. There has been no edit warring: when similar lists were added back to the article I raised it in the talk page and I have not re-reverted. While I am not questioning your motives for intervening, you are not an independent observer: you have been, although you have since deleted this. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I propose, to go back to the antebellum state on page Académie Julian, remove the tag , take a break leave things alone for a moment.--DDupard (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - When I was first approached by DDupard about his predicament, after a cursory look I gave him an answer that was favorable to your option of a separate list (see our discussion on Académie Julian here, more particularly my original answer: Je viens de jeter un coup d'œil à la PdD. Si je puis me permettre un avis, trouvez un accommodement avec votre interlocuteur, il m'a l'air compétent et civilisé, sa liste est bien présentée et le fait qu'elle soit séparée du texte n'est pas une difficulté insurmontable, il suffit d'un clic pour y accéder et d'un autre clic pour retourner à la page principale. Pour commencer, vous pourriez peut-être donner suite à sa demande d'enlever les liens rouges des deux listes cachées ainsi qu'il vous le demande, cela détendrait l'ambiance.). When I looked again into the matter a few days later, I realized that things were not as clear-cut as they had seemed to me in the first place. It occurred to me that the faculty and alumni categories offered a substitute for the separate list page and there was no need for more or less the same thing being encountered in three different places. As we say in French, trop, c'est trop. I believe an opportunity for fruitful collaboration between DDupard and yourself may be lost if some sort of compromise is not achieved. --Elnon (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 * User:DDupard returning the article to "the antebellum state" amounts to returning it to the state that you preferred, this does not amount to a compromise. I favour leaving the pages with their current layout for now. I hope that another third opinion will appear soon and that this will help a consensus to be reached. Meanwhile, please continue your work adding links and citations, this is valuable and if necessary can be merged into whatever layout we end up with. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As you say that is "work".--DDupard (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Reminder
Also note, (Repeat): references are included in each corresponding artist page so as not to have too long a references-section on the Académie Julian page--DDupard (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That would have been perfectly fine by me: except that it is not the case here. Many of the articles are red links. I see that you have included links to the French Wikipedia. However, the notability standards differ across Wikipedia and what is notable on the French may not be notable here. We require references on "this Wikipedia". As for your concern about a "too long references section", that is the reason why I suggested that this should be split off to List of people associated with the Académie Julian. There really isn't a need to duplicate information on both pages. If you don't like the format at List of people associated with the Académie Julian, that can obviously be discussed or changed as required. But the data itself should preferably go there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See above (International). There are links to (fr), (hu), (uk), etc. Which is to say, references do exist on Wiki-Data, also hosted by the Wikimedia foundation.--DDupard (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The references have to exist on the "en" Wikipedia. Whether it may exist on other projects, I don't know. But over here, we require references. The reason is that each Wikipedia project is governed differently and we don't know the standards on other Wikipedia. What are considered reliable source at other places may not be considered reliable here. Which is why we require references here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See above: enrichment and call for translations (evidently with references). --DDupard (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that if the red links exist, then someone will create an article? Note that this is usually true for prose text, but not for list items. See the guideline at WP:REDLINK which states Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should often be removed, depending on the list-selection criteria chosen for that list. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See above: a red link is a call for the creation of the corresponding article (i.e. text), please let's take a break.--DDupard (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you are actually understanding me. No one here is saying that we are going to go and delete all of the red links. What we are saying is that "if it is determined, that a red link is not notable enough for inclusion in the English Wikipedia, there is no need to keep it in the list". We do stuff here by discussion - we do not remove all red links immediately and certainly not without discussion and evaluation. Some of the red links for example (particularly some of the professors) are clearly notable. No one here is asking to delete all of them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Also
The page was started on January 16, 2003, with the list appearing after a few edits on the same date. In my mind, it is also a matter of respect for what other editors have worked for, over the years.

The point being: building, adding, organizing, continuing... --DDupard (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request
The reposting of the Third Opinion request has been removed (i.e. rejected) since a 3O has already been given and another opinion would be a fourth opinion, which is not available through the Third Opinion Project. As is made clear there, 3O's are not in any way binding and do not "count" towards consensus and, thus, disputants are free to accept them or reject them as they see fit. (And see my history of 3O's not counting as tiebreakers.) If you feel you need additional content dispute resolution consider Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * User:DDupard, I have reverted an edit by User:Primefac that preempted this discussion (in spite of the edit implementing my preferred resolution); in my check-in comment I asked Primefac to contribute here. As we have exhausted the formal third opinion process I am trying to recruit further help. I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice. I have also left a note at User talk:14GTR, as this user edited this page today. Do favour using the Dispute resolution noticeboard? We may yet need to use Requests for mediation, but we should first try to reach a consensus. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I firmly stand by my decision. The alumni list was entirely too long and poorly-formatted to include in this article, especially since the "List of alumni" page exists. While I will not speak on their behalf, I feel that would most likely agree with it (diff, for reference) based on the above conversations. Please note that I did add in some alumni to the updated list, along with references, and obviously more could potentially be added if desired. So... that's a fourth opinion (undo the undo and implement my changes). As a note, it was DDupard that brought me into this with a help me request, without mentioning the debate raging on this talk page, which is why I BOLDly made the changes I did. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Verbcatcher, Have transferred the chart with country of origin, (you probably do understand by now why this is meaningfull), on List of people associated with the Académie Julian, as long as the list is maintained, updated and respected, it’s ok with me, I am getting tired about this ( somewhat mundane)  discussion about format. Please let's drop it. Thank you for your participation User:Primefac.--DDupard (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:DDupard, thank you. I also favour removing the list of notable professors, which is already in the list article. Are you ok with this? If not, the section title Notable professors and alumni is misleading because all the names are professors. When you moved your list to List of people associated with the Académie Julian did we lose any of the names or references in the old list, or had you incorporated these in your list? Verbcatcher (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The link should not say "See also " but rather "Complete article" or "Complete list", since this is not at all anecdotic to the main subject of the article.--DDupard (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The list article is not a complete list of professors and alumni: it is only intended to list those that are notable, and we have probably not identified all of these. I propose to delete the section Académie Julian, as the professors are listed in the list article, and the list article is linked under See also. But perhaps we should give more prominence to this link. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The most prominent place for the information relating to faculty and students is/was on the article itself. Enough of this disorganizing. Please.--DDupard (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 * User:Primefac, do you have any comment the the inclusion of uncited, red-linked names in the list of alumni? Verbcatcher (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that having redlinked names that have fr articles (such as ) is perfectly acceptable, but there are a huge number of non-notable alumni/professors that will never get articles. There are plenty of fr/redlinks at the moment, so I would start by only including those.
 * As for the section breaks - both sections link to the same List, so it's probably better to have the prof/alum groups as subsections (which I've done). As for actually keeping that section; it's a matter of preference I suppose. A short "teaser" list of people is perfectly acceptable, and it's a bit more obvious than a simple link in the "See also" section. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "huge number of non-notable alumni/professors" seems, to me, a bit much:)--DDupard (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:DDupard, sorry to keep bugging you, but in the light of Lemongirl942 and Primefac's comments will you accept to the removal of names that are not linked to a Wikipedia article in any language? I would be content to defer their removal until you have completed your current work on these lists. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Removal of names that are not linked to a Wikipedia article in any language", fair enough;)--DDupard (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't have so much of a problem with red links. Even if no version of Wikipedia has an article, it is still OK to keep the red link, as long as a reliable citation is provided which shows that the subject is notable. Some of the professors, for example, are red links, but are clearly notable due to having received civilian honours from the French government. Wikipedia is a work in progress and it takes time. It is for situations like these that we have the tag. The tag shows that it is a work in progress and it invites users to chip in and help. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should include red-linked names where good references are cited that show that the subject was a student and is notable. However, the criteria in WP:ARTIST are rigorous. In my opinion the criteria should be broader, I would probably include anybody with an article in a top-grade authoritative source such as Benezit, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or the Encyclopædia Britannica. But this is not the place to raise this issue. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, a stub in Bebezit like this is inadequate. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * BeNezit = Dictionary of Artists, a stub is a stub, like this wp encyclopedia, it is a work in process, a work in process (repeat), not a delete  --DDupard (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Source of quotation
User:DDupard, who is the author and what is the source of the quotation you added recently: "By my count, more than 50 nationalities [...] "? Is this by Egmont Arens? The quote cites The New York Times, but it does not appear there. Is it from the source cited in the previous paragraph ? I can't see it there, but it's a blurry image and my French is poor. Was the quote originally in English? If not then you should give the original with a translation, see MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote is from New York Time : Russel: An art school that also taught life,  Page 2, As far as Gallica is concerned, I agree it is not the most modern access, but if you click on the page, it activates a Zoom mode, I summarized  the content from the French critic,(i.e) " ... on s'habituait ... à considérer l'art américain comme une sorte de reflet de l'enseignement de l'Académie Julian". A bit of trust please--DDupard (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I didn't notice the second page. It's not that I don't trust you, I initially looked up the source because I was tempted to change 50 to fifty, following the MOS. The source has 50, so it should not be changed. According to Manual of Style we should name the author in the main text. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--DDupard (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Art Nouveau
We should probably mention Art Nouveau, which was important in Paris during the Académie's heyday. How does this relate to the less conservative, freer, more sincere approach to art, corresponding to the Secessionist art movement in Germany? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Art Nouveau" related to Louis Comfort Tiffany (U.S) ), Jugendstil (Germany ), Sezessionstil (Vienna), Nieuwe Kunst (NL), Stile Liberty (Italy), Modernismo (Spain ), Style sapin (Switzerland), Modern (Russia ). French term « Art nouveau » was coined by a French gallery  for a show exhibiting this kind of work, and the "name was adopted". One can find examples of art nouveau in areas of France close to  the actual German border. Not representative of France general preference in term of aesthetics.--DDupard (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does make sense, since there were a few Germanic students, along with Mucha...;)--DDupard (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

for the record
'''Most links were blue before splitting  and reshuffling. By the way, the new format is not exactly user friendly '''.--DDupard (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I added Template:Alumni, which generates "This article's list of alumni may not follow Wikipedia's verifiability or notability policies." It does not mention red links, this is only a symptom of the problem. As I said at the start of this discussion, "many of the linked articles do not provide citations for these people having studied at Académie Julian. Of the first five in the list, only one cites a source for this." This issue remains to be resolved.

 * We discussed the format of the new lists in Talk:List of faculty and alumni of the Académie Julian. I posted a draft. You appeared to approve my deaft when you wrote "I trust that you are going to craft a beautiful page, judging by the glimpse you offered above." The current tables follow my draft, with the additional column for references that you suggested.  Verbcatcher (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, correct, however adding or removing from the page is in fact no simple task. but let's leave it as is for peace sake.--DDupard (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pages should be formatted for the convenience of readers. The convenience of editors is less important. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Readers are editors as well, but let's drop it.--DDupard (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Académie Julian


text:
CLE

CLE or Cle may refer to:

United States

 * A common abbreviation for the U.S. city of Cleveland, Ohio and the city's major professional sports teams:
 * Cleveland Guardians, the city's Major League Baseball team
 * Cleveland Browns, the city's National Football League team
 * Cleveland Cavaliers, the city's National Basketball Association team

Science and technology

 * Chemical Langevin equation, a stochastic ordinary differential equation
 * Conformal loop ensemble, a conformally invariant collection of fractal loops which models interfaces in two-dimensional statistical physics
 * Chu–Liu/Edmonds algorithm, an algorithm for finding optimal branchings in graph theory
 * Current-limiting element, a fuse designed to limit current in power systems

Medicine

 * Clear lens extraction, a surgical procedure to correct refractive errors
 * Congenital lobar emphysema
 * Continuous lumbar epidural infusion, a common type of epidural anesthesia
 * Leukoencephalopathy with vanishing white matter

Organizations

 * Cleveland Weather Forecast Office, of the U.S. National Weather Service
 * Central Landing Establishment,
 * Claire's (stock symbol), a retailer of accessories, jewelry, and toys

People
People with the name Cle (or Clé) include:
 * Clé Bennett, Canadian television, film, and stage actor
 * Cle Jeltes (1924–2010), Dutch sailor and Olympic measurer
 * Cle Newhook (1943–2018), Canadian theologian, author and politician
 * Cle Shaheed Sloan (born 1969), American activist, actor and documentary director

Transport

 * Clementi MRT station (MRT station abbreviation)
 * Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (IATA airport code)

Other uses

 * Canadian Lakehead Exhibition, in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
 * Continuing legal education, the professional education of lawyers that takes place after their initial admission to the bar
 * Clé, a collection of albums by South Korean boy band Stray Kids
 * Mercedes-Benz CLE

title: CLE