Talk:Royal Institute of Oil Painters

Copyvio

It appears that this article was taken nearly verbatim from the organization's web page, theroi.org. Ma^t_chups 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears the organisation's web page, the roi.org, has taken their text nearly verbatim from this page. I wrote the original text on 16 February 2007.[1] The source was the Federation of British Artists.[2] (Click on the left "the FBA and art societies", then "Royal Institute of Oil Painters".) I paraphrased and rearranged the source text to avoid copyvio. There was also some information referenced from the Victoria and Albert Museum.

At the time of writing the article, I could not find an independent web site for the ROI, such as now exists. The ROI web site was not added as an EL to the article until 8 months later on 17 October 2007 by an IP address.[3] The google cache of its history page http://theroi.org.uk/historyroi.html, which is the one in question, dates only from 4 December 2008.[4] The google cache of a number of its pages dates from late 2008, which indicates that they were either created then or changes made to them at that time.

The ROI "meta name, description, content" on a number of the ROI pages, as shown by a google search,[5] also uses text taken directly from the wikipedia article: "The Royal Institute of Oil Painters, also known as the ROI, is an association of painters in London and is the only major art society which features work done only in oil."

I am emailing the ROI to point out their copyvio and asking for proper acknowledgement or the text to be changed.

Note also that "The History of Oil Painting Medium" on the ROI site [6] has been taken verbatim from the Winsor and Newton text.[7] This is acknowledged on the ROI site.

Ty 19:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could knock me over with a feather. The ROI has now acknowledged Wikipedia as the source of their page, so I will remove the copyvio notice. Ma^t_chups 16:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia? ROI? RIO?

Why are the second two letters in the acronym transposed relative to the words for which they stand?

I have not been able to find any information about this and it seems plausible that the original coiners / publicists of the acronym were either careless or dyslexic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.222.119 (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Institute of Oil Painters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]