Why does Traynor not warrant a separate page from Yorkville Sound? 90% of this article is only about Traynor amps anyways. 207.219.3.222 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
- The Traynor brand is under the Yorkville umbrella, and always has been. There was never an independent Traynor, separate from Yorkville.
- The large Traynor section of this article is a terrible example of encyclopedia writing. It should be greatly reduced in size and rewritten. If enough good material can be incorporated neatly into the section, the Traynor brand could certainly have its own article. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
The material about the bad Tube (6ALQ7 or something like that) only appears in a source published by the company. Much of the company history is taken from the company site, aand is authored by a dubious looking author. If there were secondary sources for this material I would have no problem, but certain editors persist in restoring the page to the dubiously sourced version. Provide good refs. 104.163.156.0 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I second that. There's more than enough badly sourced trivia in the article already and the company's website is not a good source. Yintan 21:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks Yintan, maybe you could add some edits? The main problem here is the reliance on company history for a long narrative that just does not appear anywhere else. For example for the 6CA7 tube story, I could find nothing on the web or in Google books, and it does not apper in the 6CA7 article. It may well have happened, but until multiple reliable sources beyond the primary source that si the company write about it, it does not belong here. The same goes for much of the other info that I have reverted or edited. 96.127.247.5 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- @96.127.247.5: For now I've done some copy editing, removing obvious AdSpeak and irrelevant trivia. Get the text into a better, more encyclopedic, shape. Source checking is next on the list. Tomorrow, perhaps. Yintan 21:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Yintan, can you point to the Wikipedia policy which says that a company's own published history is not suitable for use in the company article? I was looking at WP:PRIMARY for guidance and it looks like primary sources are okay to use for fleshing out the details. Of course, secondary sources are required for notability, but that's not the issue here. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Binksternet Of course they can be used but if large portions of the article are based on them, it is better to have other sources (too). As WP:PRIMARY says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Also, if everything a company writes about itself would be a good source for that company's article, we might as well copy their website. Especially when company X claims to have inspired this or invented that, which is basically a notability claim, a secondary source is much preferred. Yintan 08:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I have added several new secondary sources. If Binksternet and MLPearc can consent to some small trims of unimporant info and the addtion of a few citation needed tags, then I think the article can be brought into line. 96.127.247.5 (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Article is looking a lot better already. Yintan 11:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
