Talk:Imagine Cup

Fair use rationale for Image:Imagine cup.jpg

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another use of Imagine CUP

Back in the 90s, Impulse, the company that made the popular 3D software Imagine, had a program called "Imagine CUP", which stood for Imagine Constant Upgrade Program. It allowed users to pay for the upgrade to Imagine up front and they could receive all the minor versions inbetween the major versions. Is this perhaps worth a disambiguation page, or is it too insignificant? -- Suso (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to proceed with the merge --RobertStar20 (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is proposed that the stub article Team OneBeep, one of the previous winners, is merged to this article. Fæ (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if this is done then there would be 70 more team articles that might need to be merged as each country has its own winner. These national winners compete with the other countries for the Imagine Cup at the worldwide finals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.155.203 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find 2 such articles, not 70. Please add them to the See also section if they exist. Fæ (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed here, I completely agree that the Team OneBeep article should be either completely removed or merged into Imagine cup. There is a great deal of confusion being caused by conflicting suggestions of either deleting the OneBeep article entirely, or merging it with Imagine cup. In any case, all participants in this conversation are either seemingly emotionally/personally involved with the team, or are of the opinion that the article is non-notable self-promotion.

All referenced sources refer to the team winning a corporate-run competition, which is clearly not grounds for notability. The team must surely be recognised as making a notable contribution beyond a competition to be considered even remotely notable. I therefore agree with any recommendation for deletion or merging, and recommend a single line on the Imagine cup page, at most.

Also, the suggestion that the Imagine cup should spawn 70 team articles per year (because that's how many national winners there are) only adds weight to the argument that articles about national Imagine cup winners are not notable and should be deleted. --RobertStar20 (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this page does not need to be here, it serves no purpose aside self-promotion of the group. I agree, it should be max one line on the imagine cup page, or deleted outright.--130.216.24.212 (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The group has done much more than merely winning a competition though. They have received incubation time in a business incubator and are in talks to deploy their product in a number of countries. They have developed far beyond merely being Imagine Cup winners. This is what differentiates them from most other Imagine Cup groups, and justifies the separate page 130.216.30.113 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed -- the business incubation is just a competition prize, and I see no evidence of the group developing "far beyond mere Imagine Cup winners." --RobertStar20 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm suggesting the compromise of redirecting Team OneBeep to the Imagine Cup page for now. If/when evidence enters the public domain that this is a truly notable organisation, the redirect will inevitably be organically reverted by independent contributors. --RobertStar20 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As stated above, the Team OneBeep article is a combination of a) the fact that Team OneBeep placed at the Imagine cup, which is already represented on the Imagine Cup page, and b) non-notable self-promotion. I therefore recommend simply redirecting the Team OneBeep article to the Imagine Cup#Winners section; the "merge" has already taken place. --RobertStar20 (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary - Although Team OneBeep have pleaded the case that their organisation is significantly more remarkable that other competition winners, there is no verifiable evidence of this. All other commentary above has reached consensus that at this time, the most appropriate course of action is to merge the pages. On a personal level, I want to apologise to Team OneBeep for losing my cool at one stage of the discussion, and hope that they achieve a level of success that will one day earn them notability! --RobertStar20 (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Imagine Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.microsoft.com/interop/events/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]