Talk:Joël Robuchon

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

26 stars

On Masterchef: The Professionals 2010 (Episode 16), Robuchon was listed as having 26 Michelin stars (as opposed to 25 as stated in this article). Can anyone confirm this with a reliable source? Papa November (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's already good enough, I've now added another. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

22 now, new york atelier has closed, and both las vegas don't receive michelin stars in the last stars because... there's no las vegas michelin guide anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.10.171.228 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joël Robuchon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128152532/http://www.stardiamondaward.com/newsletter/objects/TI_Spring05_4.pdf to http://www.stardiamondaward.com/newsletter/objects/TI_Spring05_4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128080639/http://mof-cuisine.com/index-4.php to http://mof-cuisine.com/index-4.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bonappetitbiensur.france3.fr/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Article issues.

As a BLP the standards for sourcing are higher. Crusade sources advancing a cause with derogatory content, that may or may not have passing mention of the subject, and advertising is not allowed on any article let alone a BLP.

There is unsourced content that has been contested by inline tags that either needs sourcing or removal.

The "Restaurants", "Awards", and "Cookbooks" sections are under-sourced to unsourced that while possibly true is presented as OR. If there is no sourcing for this content it needs to be removed and the article possibly needs to be reduced to a stub by deletion of OR.

I ran across this article by at least two sources and I included one and content that also de-orphaned another article. I was attempting to find more sources for this article, but a suspected article owner (@Traveling Man:) decided the referenced material was trivial and reverted. "IF" Wikipedia has started selling articles then we need a receipt. If not then good faith edits that are referenced --- on a "start-class"--- should not be immediately jumped on and deleted. This class is just above stub-class and in the scheme of Wikipedia life it means a pretty crappy article to begin with. Improving it with sourcing, that might not be about his restaurants or accolades as a world-renowned chef, do add more than dead links, derogatory sources, advertising refbombing, and even helps other articles. I can understand an article "protector" of maybe a good C-class, or B-class and above, but I am perplexed by someone deleting sourced content on a BLP that needs all the help possible. Then again things never cease to amaze me on Wikipedia.

Since I do not intend to buy shares of this article I will leave the adding of referencing and content to the principal owner(s). I have a disdain for low or unsourced content (especially BLP's), and this is backed by a multitude of WP:policies and guidelines. I like to add references to articles. When not doing this I pursue article maintenance. The removing of sources that are not relevant at all or that is insulting might be reverted with care if the thought arises.

I will review this article from time-to-time and I hope those involved can appreciate that policy-based maintenance carries broad community consensus. I will re-examine the article for needed tags to help any interested. Have a nice day. Otr500 (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

in biography, changed opens to opened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.156.12 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

No longer a living person

As this person passed away on August 6 2018, the tag that says "This biography of a living person.." needs to be rewritten. Vorbee (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Done --Racklever (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)