Talk:Trafford Publishing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Suggestions for removal of content
This page seems to be a ad for the company, I think that the What trafford is/isn't is basiclly directly from their website. I think that those parts should really just be taken out, they really don't have any place in an impartial article. An7drew 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that if content is lifted from their web site or is written like a sales brochure, it needs to be edited and/or trimmed down.
- But also be aware there has been a serious effort to make sure that vanity publishers with their own articles be characterized as such, in no uncertain terms. A large part of the reason for this is that more and more people are using vanity publications as references in other Wikipedia articles, essentially misrepresenting the reliability of those sources because people see the name of the publisher and an ISBN and think it's a legitimate publication, whereas for a given title, the company is quite possibly just a printing service. (Perhaps someday people will be more informed about the changes taking place in the publishing industry, or there will be a system for rating sources, but until then, we kind of have to anticipate what people know & how they use this information)
- So, regardless of whatever changes are made, we need to be sure that the article remains sufficient for readers to use in gauging the reliability of sources attributed to this publisher. —mjb 05:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-prod on basis of above comments. DGG 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Vanity press" removed, as it is a pejorative term and needs to be substantiated with sound referencing. At the moment, it's pure OR. It's not the job of an article to advise wiki editors what is a sound reference. Not to mention the difference between the classic "vanity" publisher and the new breed of POD publishers - some of whom have produced best sellers. Ty 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Certainly a vanity press
According to this story in a reputable Canadian newspaper[1], this company is definitely a vanity press: "Trafford Press in Victoria — which has issued 8,000 titles since it started in 1995 and charges up to $2,549 to produce a book." There's just no other honest way to look at it. Vanity press. And the article should state that truth. Qworty (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article describes Trafford as print on demand and does not describe it as a vanity press. The only way we look at anything is by following precisely what verifiable sources state about the subject, not editors' personal evaluations. Ty 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- POD is a technology, it has nothing to do with vanity vs. non-vanity. The fact remains that Trafford is a vanity press because they charge for publication. That's not a personal evaluation. That's a fact from their own website and many other sources. Qworty (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- And your reliable secondary source(s) that say all of that? Ty 07:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- POD is a technology, it has nothing to do with vanity vs. non-vanity. The fact remains that Trafford is a vanity press because they charge for publication. That's not a personal evaluation. That's a fact from their own website and many other sources. Qworty (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
