Talk:Art Students League of New York

This article has improved somewhat in the past year or so, with contributions from many sources, altough the content still needs further development. However, I would argue that the lists of students and teachers add little to the article, and that this not a particularly helpful format for anyone seeking particular information. There has been consensus that anyone considered notable should have their own article written before being listed here. As there are now categories for each of those classifications and the articles on each person can be listed under those categories, the lists here are also redundant. Based on this, I propose deleting the lists entirely from the article and leaving only the links to the category pages. Thoughts? --Shorn again (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment IMO the lists should stay. Perhaps be trimmed from time to time. They don't really harm the article, and they seem to constantly attract new inclusions. It must be important to people...Modernist (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment – These lists of people do harm this article in my opinion, it looks like a copy/paste or copyvio and it's not readable as a body of text. If these people are notable, why can't we find other citations? Anyone can add a name in the middle of the long running paragraph (without a new source) and we have no way of verifying it. Jooojay (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• As I mentioned above these lists must be important; they keep growing. However I do agree that the list of alumni should be edited as I said below...Modernist (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The school's list of renowned alumni also includes: Alan Brookman Beddoe, Aaron Bohrod, Angna Enters, John Philip Falter, Elaine Hamilton, Thomas Lamb, John Alan Maxwell, Jozef C. Mazur, Henry McBride, Ray Osrin, Sonya Rapoport, Bridget Bate Tichenor, Hervé Villechaize, Stow Wengenroth...Modernist (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent-reverted attempt to add an "Altheus T. Cole" to the page. This seems to be a misspelling, perhaps based on this reference: "Altheus Cole, a onetime teacher at the League". However, there is an Alphaeus Philemon Cole, who is probably the intended party. But, other than the mis-spelled NYT reference, a brief search did not yield a specific link to the ASL as teacher or student. Should probably be added if one can be found. Shorn again (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I recently reverted the add of a long-time ASL instructor who does not appear to be a 'notable' artist per Wikipedia criteria. In brief, generally everyone included is linked to an existing Wikipedia page, which we have taken as sufficient evidence of notablilty. The general consensus is that if someone is notable, build their own page first, then list them here. If there is a compelling reason to include information on someone not notable other than their association with the ASL, provide the rationale. Shorn again (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

This section needs editing; but otherwise is relevant to the article...Modernist (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Modernist: yes I am in agreement with you we should have this, but right now as it is, this list looks like a copy vio, and has no relevance without clean up and citations. It has been tagged for clean up since May 2020 with no actions. In this talk page from 2008 you were in discussion about organizing and clean up of this list too. How long do we wait? Jooojay (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I will get to it in the next day or two...Modernist (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to help, if you need it. Jooojay (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Modernist: So, you truly believe that the wall of text in your version is better than a nicely formatted list? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Absolutely! Let it Be, it works fine...Modernist (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Modernist: I disagree. A formatted list is preferable to the wall of text, and is the norm for every other list of notable alumni on every other page that includes such a list. WP:ALUMNI recommends:

    As the notable alumni of a school typically form an assorted group with little in common, describing all of them in prose would be clumsy. Unless there are very few notable alumni, lists are recommended as the most accessible way of presenting all of them.

Unless you can present a compelling argument to go against this guideline, the list format should be preferred. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• WP:UCS, the article works better the way it is now and consensus says Let it be!! And above all Wikipedia:Ignore all rules...Modernist (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Modernist: Your single decision does not constitute WP:CONSENSUS. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    • @Modernist: Furthermore, common sense would dictate that we maintain the list of notable alumni in a way that is both easier to read and easier to update (i.e. as a list rather than as a wall of prose). Finding the right place to add a name in alphabetical order is much simpler in the list format. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Your opinion does not constitute consensus either!!!!! Clearly we have differing opinions and common sense clearly dictates to leave this ARTICLE ALONE!!!....Modernist (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • That's not how dispute resolution works. I'll see a third opinion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been watching the article for a while and would like to see the names in a bulleted list, as this would be much more readable. I agree that it is currently a wall of text. I would also like to see both lists - staff and students - reduced to only those people with a reliable reference indicating attendance or teaching at the institution. Tacyarg (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC) - Adding that I did not see this through the Third Opinion call and am not uninvolved as I have been watching the article for a while, and have probably edited it, so have not removed this from the Third Opinion call. Tacyarg (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I see no compelling reason to use unformatted prose, and much reason to use a bulleted list, both for the artists and "instructors and lecturers" sections. A list is much easier to read, scan for the name in question, etc. I will say that the lists are rather long, but all the entries appear to have their own articles, so that's fine. I would recommend wrapping the lists in {{Columns-list}} to make them more compact. Ovinus (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the third opinion. Obvious improvement to the article. Since there seems to be a consensus among 4 editors, I will implement that change, with sourcing needing to be accomplished as well. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That is considerably easier to read and edit. Tacyarg (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thinking again about the long lists of instructors and former students. Another editor has tagged the lists as possibly having undue weight given the length of the rest of the article. What do people think about moving them all to List of people associated with the Art Students League of New York? I just spent a bit of time picking 12 former instructors at random and checking the sourcing in the articles about them; many of them are referenced to the League's own page, which isn't great. Putting them in their own list might give the rest of the article a bit of room to breathe and we could look to expand it with better sourcing, and take the opportunity to reference the students and instructors in the separate list too. Tacyarg (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

150 Stories: https://issuu.com/artstudentsleague/docs/150_stories_lives_of_the_artists_at_the_league 2603:7000:C903:1A74:74ED:41A6:97B5:FD4B (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)