Talk:Trinity College Dublin

Latest comment: 8 months ago by 86.179.205.163 in topic Academic Boosterism


Proposed merge of Trinity Arts Festival into Trinity College Dublin edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: outcome was: merged/redirected to List of Trinity College Dublin student organisations#Trinity Arts Festival Society

Not notable on own merits Rogermx (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Support merge (or, indeed, deletion). What little content is here is incredibly promotional, tonally problematic, concerning in terms of core content policies, and (per nom) does not establish notability independent of the primary article. What limited verifiable content does exist could/should be merged into the primary article (perhaps the Trinity_College_Dublin#Student_life section). And this title could be redirected there. Or, in all honesty, this title could easily be deleted. Guliolopez (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete: it really does not stand the notability test on its own merit and there is little of value to merge. ww2censor (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Bump/comment. It's been the guts of 2 months. Unless there are other comments, I am going to create a section in List of Trinity College Dublin student organisations, titled "Trinity Arts Festival Society". Which, as per the "constitution" of the subject organisation, is effectively what the subject is. This section will sit alongside all the other guff on all the other societies. (None of which, like the subject in question here, are notable enough on their own.) And then I'll redirect the title there. IE: List of Trinity College Dublin student organisations#Trinity Arts Festival Society. While this suggested target isn't the one proposed in the nom, I do not see how we can possibly/reasonably redirect the subject to the "main" college article. Without creating some form of EASTEREGG. Or creating a section for one society/event. In a way that gives it airs above others. Otherwise I imagine we can just convert this to AfD. Guliolopez (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Architecture 1592-1700's edit

I have previously raised this point, to no avail. The university was founded in 1592. It's present architecture dates from the mid 1700's. Do any architectural renderings of the university from its foundation to the 18c "rebuild" survive? We're talking some 150 years. The previous structure deserves attention. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

There are a few webpages at archiseek.com, some of which seem old enough for your needs, such as this one. ww2censor (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, thanks. I've seen this before, and it's the only one I could ever track down. It seems strange that (apparently) no other drawing was produced. No image of quad, etc. I haven't even been able to ascertain whether the location was the same (top of Dame St/Westmoreland St). As said, we're talking about one and a half centuries here. That's quite a black hole. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Further digging in that site reveals that the Rubrics are the sole remaining structure of what was originally an entire quadrangle. So that's it. The whole thing was a redbrick quad. Not sure if you'd like to put that in somewhere. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oxbridge references edit

This article refers to Oxford and Cambridge, 15 and 17 times, respectively, including repeatedly in the introduction. I don't believe the links between the universities are particularly critical (as evidenced by the fact that both the Oxford and Cambridge articles mention Dublin only once). I would recommend reducing the prominence and number of references. Bartberrebart (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, they're fairly critical. Take a look at "Steamboat Ladies", which gives just one example of the long-standing connection. Trinity was modelled on Oxbridge, and the academic interchange alone (Ernest Walton or Oscar Wilde for example) are very important. I've taken another look at it, and the references seem in all cases quite useful. 86.160.21.41 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Academic Boosterism edit

Removed. I suggest that citations are requested where needed, or that specific issues be raised on the talk page. This is a blanket criticism without specifics which cannot be addressed without detail. 86.179.205.163 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply