Talk:The Triangle (newspaper)

Logo
Just so you all know, the logo's changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Expand
Please do not remove the expand tag until there's a history section, citations, etc. The newspaper did not just appear out of thin air, I'm sure it's been nominated for some awards (hopefully), etc. Until then this is at best, a stub and still deserves an expand tag. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Prod
I'm removing the prod for two reasons. 1) The paper has won a few awards by the society of professional journalists, this should be enough to assert notability. 2) The additional concern stating 21 unique google hits is misleading since the person searched using "Triangle Drexel" when googling it's correct name with Drexel '"The Triangle" Drexel' 53,400 unique hits show up. A combination of terms all come up with a sizable number of ghits. Both of these facts I believe warrant the removal of the prod tag, in anycase I'll remove it before it 'expires' and I'll find more citations sometime before Sunday. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Triangle.JPG
Image:The Triangle.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Trianglelogo.jpg
Image:Trianglelogo.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverts
Someone has been reverting edits that me and ImGz support and they don't explain why. In case anyone agrees with their point of view please post here. Else it's going to stay like it is now. --Mblumber (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure of The Triangle's editors is necessary, else the editor in chief's name should be removed. There is no reason to actively remove information from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.245.136 (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Full disclosure can be found on their website, this however is an encyclopedia and it is not necessary nor is it required to list the current editors. See WP:NOT - not an indiscriminate collection of information, not a webhost, not meant to be a complete exposition of all possible details, et al.. Editor-in-Chief is relatively notable and merits a mention because it does not change every two weeks and has oversight over the entire paper. If you feel that the editor-in-chief should does not merit mention please feel free to remove the mention, but please stop reverting rather than removing the information as you are removing past MOS edits and reinserting incorrect information. --ImGz ( t/c ) 00:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the Triangle constitution, section editors change, at most, every 6 months with the inception of a new EIC, not every two weeks like you suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.245.136 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted again. Please gain consensus before making a change. Also, the editorial/opinion section of the paper is called Ed-Op not Op-Ed. That shouldn't be controversal. --Mblumber (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Whose consensus do you have? And why do you care so badly? Also, please source your change, because if you looked into The Triangle, you would realize the section is specifically called "Op-Ed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.245.136 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and removed the position of editor-in-chief as well as the editors. Neither positions in a college level newspaper are notable to mention when push comes to shove. Also Op-ed is called Ed-op on the website, understandably leading to confusion, I've changed the article to reflect this. --ImGz ( t/c ) 19:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked into it, and yeah the paper calls their editorial and opinion section by two different names. Also, It's a reasonable compromise to delete all editors names. I hope that this is acceptable to everyone now. --Mblumber (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)