Talk:Tribune Publishing

Reformatting references

I get cross when contributors unnecessarily rewrite references in their preferred format. I don't like it, as it unnecessarily erodes the value of the history mechanism. If I come across a reference in the all fields on one line format, and I want to add fields, I preserve the "one line" aspect.

It really bugs me when someone who prefers that style rewrites the references I placed in the one field per line format, into the all fields on one line format. It can make an article look like it has been vastly changed, when there has been no change to the intellectual content, at all.

I found this article had some really bad references, some missing essentail fields, or references that didn't use a template to categorize the fields.

I did rewrite those, but put the references in the instance of the {{Reflist}} template. Some contributors have complained that this is a violation of WP:REFSTYLE -- but they don't understand that wikidocument. Geo Swan (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:CITESTYLE...  ;) --IJBall (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like "Citation style" as described in that guideline refers only to the choice of style method (inline parenthetical vs. reflist style, for example), not to how those citations are internally formatted.

I happen to find "one field per line" to be infinitely easier to parse and edit, so if I am making additions or corrections to references that are in "one blob of fields" format, I will very often break the references I am editing into one field per line. Maybe even others in the same paragraph, as that makes it easier to make sense of the paragraph. No apologies from me for that.

I do not understand how this is found to be objectionable, when it's the style used invariably for info boxes.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

New Name

I would begin the history of this company in August 2014 - it was a spinoff from Tribune Company - and I would cross reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_Media to explain everything that preceded August 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.221.254 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking the page should be renamed "Tronc" as the name "Tribune Publishing" is history. RobinInTexas (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I just edited the infobox for their new stock symbol. The announcement is at http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160602006557/en/Tribune-Publishing-Announces-Corporate-Rebranding-tronc

Agree. Should be primary topic for "tronc", as the only other standalone meaning on the current dab page is already relegated to a section on another page.--NapoliRoma (talk)

Even though the article name has now been changed, I still believe the ultimate name should be "tronc", per WP:NCCORP. As I mentioned above, I think this company qualifies as the primary topic for this name, so the legal status suffix should not be part of the article name. If there's no objection, I'll submit this for renaming.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection, be bold and do it yourself (while making sure the cats and infobox are changed). Calwatch (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure)  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  05:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

---

• Tronc, Inc. → Tronc
• Tronc → Tronc (disambiguation)

– With the renaming of Tribune Publishing to tronc, its article becomes the only actual article named tronc (tronc is a dab page, and tronc (gratuity) is a redirect to section; the other entries listed on the tronc dab page are surname PTMs). Per WP:NCCORP, as the primary topic for "tronc" it should be named without the legal status suffix. NapoliRoma (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 14:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legal status in title

If the first sentence says 'tronc inc' shouldn't the title correspond to that? Cookiemonsterfun (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see the cited WP:NCCORP for the answer to your question.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  20:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Roll of Los Angeles Police Union? LAPPL Pension fund?

http://www.ibtimes.com/los-angeles-times-defends-firing-ted-rall-editorial-cartoonist-fierce-lapd-critic-2063321

https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/19/l-a-police-union-bought-newspaper-stock-used-leverage-to-try-to-fire-editorial-staffers-it-accused-of-being-anti-police/

"The Times itself reported in 2009 that the LAPPL pressured the San Diego Union-Tribune to fire editorial writers critical of police officers after Platinum Equity, which managed LAPD pension funds at the time, bought the paper’s publisher.

"Since the very public employees they continually criticize are now their owners, we strongly believe that those who currently run the editorial pages should be replaced," the police union’s president, Paul M. Weber, wrote to Platinum’s CEO."96.37.26.82 (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

Once Tronc completes its move out of the Tribune Tower, how should we revise the infobox? Should we replace the current image of the Tribune Tower with one of what will be the new home of Tronc's HQ, One Prudential Plaza?? SecretName101 (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Tronc may be split up soon

Heads up, Tronic may be split up. For now, no content change is appropriate, but keep an eye on this Shushugah (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 08:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Tronc → Tribune Publishing – Company has renamed to Tribune Publishing. Chicago Tribune, WSJ and more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support; when the official rename occurs next week (Oct. 9/10). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 12:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support seems routine.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support now that the name change has officially taken effect (there was a gap between the announcement on October 4 and the change at the end of the business day on October 9). CR85747 (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support And maybe move the DAB back to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Re-branding is now official; let's consign this name to the Bad Branding Redirects dustbin where it belongs. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Mrschimpf: Amen. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

LA Times / San Diego Ownership?

Both the content of this article and the Current/Former holdings sections state that the Southern California holdings of Tribune Publishing are historical, having been sold and spun off. However, it's clear they are still at least sharing systems with Tribune, as made clear in their shared outage with the rest of Tribune properties:

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-times-delivery-disruption-20181229-story.html

Notably, the LA Times repeatedly refers to these papers as Tribune properties, never suggesting they're held by a different company. And, the LA Times - is one of those papers. They would be a very strong source on this matter.

So, which is it? Were they spun off or are they still Tribune companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.112.158 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

BestReviews listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BestReviews. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

3rd para in intro needs work

Right now, it is a "this happened, and then that other thing happened, and then yet another thing happened" paragraph. Some of the earlier events are no longer relevant and meanwhile, yet more events keep happening that are headline-relevant to the company, and adding them which just make this para worse. I will try to work on this over the next few days. Novellasyes (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

GrowthSpotter

GrowthSpotter should be added to this article, since it is also owned by Tribune Publishing. Catfurball (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)