Talk:Trinity News

Discussion
Removed garish Icarus winning magazine of the year in Awards section - nothing to do with Trinity News. Should be put in Trinity Publications, Trinity College, or else a new Icarus page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.238.17 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 May 2006 Just to point out that the editors list is completely wrong, especially for the first 20 years or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 March 2007


 * If so, then be bold and feel free to correct the list yourself. Be sure to also give a reference that corroborates your changes. --Kwekubo 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * May I be so bold as to ask if having a list of editors is even necessary? It seems like filler to me.134.226.1.229 10:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You could say that about the Awards list aswell... Think outside the box 11:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that about awards too. Most of them aren't awards anyway, but nominations for awards which weren't won.134.226.1.229 14:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I agree that a list of all editors is not really necessary, and the awards look rather trivia-ish too. The first editors are definitely useful information, and any other notable editors should be kept too.  The problem is that its hard to know which of them went on to be notable.  Some reliable sources would be handy.   John Vandenberg 11:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made some significant revisions to this page to make it more generally informative. The www.trinitynews.ie site is due for updating in September so I will reference much of the new information once this source is available. Currently the site is 4 months out of date - Gearoid O'Rourke, Editor, Trinity News.


 * In what way is the website 4 months out of date? You say it is only published during term time. What information will be added to the website that will be relevant to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.194 (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Upgrade of this article
I have removed a significant amount weasel words and material that has been uncited for sometime. A major problem with this subject is the lack of unpublished material in the public domain. Is anyone aware of reliable sources that we can use to develop this subject? After trinitynews.ie there isn't much else to go on.AleXd (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "foundation" :

Reliable sources needed
This article appears to periodically get bombed with promotional material, from editors likely affiliated with the paper. All who edit here should be familiar with neutral point of view and Verifiability, which are core policies. All statements should be supported by reliable sources, and sources should primarily be secondary, third party sources so that this doesn't become a mere extension of the official website for publicity. Not everything that is true or verifiable need be included, per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. This article should read the way you'd expect an article in Encyclopedia Britannica to read: no one besides the staff itself really cares who became editor in 2018 (see also WP:RECENTISM). See also Avoid academic boosterism. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate
Not only is this article filled with promotional material from editors likely affiliated with the paper, but many of the details that are included are factually inaccurate and inflated interpretations of the role that the paper's reporting played in certain events. And the edits that introduced these statements did not even attempt to include citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.51.52 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)