Talk:Drake Circus Shopping Centre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Whilst browsing through Google Earth with the Wikipedia article overlay I noticed that this article is about 300 metres north-west of Drake's Circus's location. I reckon it's because the coordinates given in the article are slightly incorrect. Can someone please correct this? Keeper of the Matrix (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The co-ordinates in the Wikipedia article and Google earth are both right. The difference is that Google Earth have taken the co-ordinates of the real drake circus which lies roughly 300 metres North West of the mall. The real location of the mall is a downbeat part of Plymouth called Bretonside however to make the mall more appealing the developers stole the name drake circus from its more prosperous and academically more interesting neighbor -Drake Circus. Google Earth have done their homework and unlike Wikipedia are not plagued by the professional spammers being paid to promote an uneventful mall.81.132.165.205 (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wikipedia is plagued by professional spammers being paid to promote Drake Circus Shopping Centre? If so, please identify the spammers and present evidence that they are being paid for promotion; if not, please clarify. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

it is pitifully obvious who the spammers are when you read through this discussion and see all the various edits by the spammers who are so desperate to keep in their commercial links to their clients such as this uneventful mall. The Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt charitable corporation based in San Francisco, California - it cannot be said to be charitable when it links to commercial sites operated by shops of no historic or academic interest. To prove my point I have taken out the link to the spammers target site however you can guarantee it will be reinstated within 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.120.40 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So you can't name them, you can't present any proof, and all you can do is repeat yourself. Stop wasting people's time. -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Museum

I added a link to http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/museumpcmag.htm/ which will show anyone intrested in the real drake circus that it is located at "Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery, Community Services, Drake CircusPlymouth PL4 8AJ" This whole article is filled with complete crap about a run-down mall thats not even in drake Circus - very very sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.206.239 (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the details of the Cottonian Collection, which I have extended and moved to the correct article: Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery. However, please stop vandalising this article with your biased point of view.  —SMALLJIM  17:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your article on Drake Circus states "All of these buildings were demolished in 1966-7" and yet according to your own encyclopedia the Museum at " Drake Circus Plymouth PL4 8AJ " "was built in 1907". I see from looking over the past history of this article that many before me have attempted to publish a true and accurate account of the geography, history, politics and artistic achievements of this area however all their attempts have been systematically vandalized by you and one or two co-editors, purely for the purpose promoting a run down shopping mall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.206.239 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

keep up the good work Jim. The problem is this article is constantly being sabotaged by so called do-gooders, students and those trying to make Plymouth University more important than it is. Drake Circus is the shopping centre - period - no one cares about a few old buildings or the university. What matters is that people can enjoy shopping in a safe, modern and warm environment and at Drake Circus we offer a new level of customer service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.128.21 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This matter has been exhaustively discussed with you on this page, on another page and at an AfD. If you believe that the article is biased in some way, you can raise the issue at the Neutral point of view noticeboard. Or you can ask for a third opinion, or raise a Request for comment. In the meantime I've issued a final warning on your current talk page for vandalism and making personal attacks. People will only be willing to discuss issues with you if you remain civil and reasonable.  —SMALLJIM  00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the spam link to the malls propoganda machine and wonder when you put it back in you could kindly explain the justification of including a link to a mall (not even in this area) but excluding a direct link to the musuems (which is in this area)86.149.110.202 (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

By "the malls propoganda machine" (sprinkle "sic" to taste) you mean the mall. Its website is probably crap; most commercial websites are. Why provide the link to it? The answer is right here. Why not provide a link to "the musuems" (sic)? Well, what would it say about the mall? We all understand, Mr/Ms Distinctive-Spelling IP, that you loathe the mall and prefer the old shops, the museum, etc. You've asked for kind explanations; you've got them. Now please conduct your "Drake Circus Shopping Centre is evil" campaign elsewhere. If on the other hand you're feeling in a constructive mood and would like to write an intelligent, encyclopedic article on a museum, an article that accords with the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia, please go ahead and do so. -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

From googling around, I find that "Drake Circus" often does refer to the mall. However, there are many cases where it refers to the area or to nearby (but not mall) shopping/nightlife, or to the university or historical sites. And we do have a page about at least one other "thing at Drake Circus that isn't the mall itself": the museum, which was correctly off-loaded onto its own page. Seems like "nobody cares about the other stuff" is a {{citeneeded}}/POV and that Drake Circus should be a WP:DISAMBIG page instead of a blind redirect to the mall page. DMacks (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

you university and museum cretins just don't give up do you. We had all this before and the Drake Circus page was deleted because £12,000,000 has been spent on promoting and branding the name "drakecircus" and we do not intend to let the nearby university, museum, art college, shops, bars or whoever try and damage the goodwill which that promotion has earned. So what if the area next door happens to share the same name - they do not have the finances, marketing skills or intelligence to do anything with that name - so leave it. Luckily there are some here who recognize our valuable contributions and DONATIONS to Wikipedia. People want to know about responsible retailing in a state of the art environment - they do not want to be lectured about some damn reservoir that Francis Drake built or be bored by some bomb shelter tragedy. Drake Circus is the Shopping mall and we resent those who keep referring to one of the UK's prestigious shopping environments as a "run-down" mall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.125.54 (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether the IP immediately above is for real or just a straw puppet, what he's writing is mere fantasy. The article on Drake Circus was deleted as a result of this discussion. DMacks, you're most welcome to work on transforming the deleted article into something worthwhile. The problem is of finding authoritative materials if, like me, you don't happen to be near either Plymouth's central library or some first-rate library elsewhere in Britain. And if you do create any new article, keep it on your watchlist: it's sure to attract monomaniacs. -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC) .... PS though deletion review would probably be in order, even if the proposed article were very different from the one that was deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"he's writing is mere fantasy" - so how exactly does Hoary knows its a "he" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.110.79 (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, instead of "what he's writing", I should have written "what this fool is writing". -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected the article for a week. Anybody wanting to edit the article but unable to do so is most welcome to make persuasive suggestions here for changes.

To be persuasive you should start by venting your pet peeves elsewhere (some other site's message forum? the pub?), writing as a rational adult addressing other rational adults, avoiding potentially offensive and definitely stupid remarks about the assumed motivations of other editors, remembering that the subject of this article is a shopping centre (and that other subjects may qualify for their own articles), and by reading, digesting, and following WP:EL, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. -- Hoary (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you're still watching this page, Hoary. To avoid any repeat of last year's kerfuffle, I've been wondering whether WP:RBI would now be appropriate for this guy. What do you think?  —SMALLJIM  11:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again Hoary and Jim for looking after us. You should certainly block this guy - is there any way of permanently protecting our article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.193.190 (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Us", "our article"? No, this little list of stupidity shows it's just straw. RBI is the word. -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again to Jim and Webhamster/hoary for ensuring that this season will be a trouble free campaign. Nice to see you have removed all that discussion over the damn bomb-shelter, university and art college crap. Maybe at last they will get the message that you guys are not to messed with. Perhaps next week you could edit the rubbish about the carbuncle award and focus more on the message that people expect from quality retailers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.125.54 (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC) BTW a double thank you for deleting the article about our rival mall in Plymouth at the Armada Centre - good work;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.125.54 (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read all of the above and WP:OWN --Numyht (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the "Drake Circus" Shopping Mall

'Drakecircus' as their trademark, web-site, signage, e-mail spams will all confirm does not have the space between drake and circus. If I search Drakecircus I am redirected to this page which seems extremely odd given that all know it by drakecircus. The only reason I can see for this redirection is to capture those hoping to find some research on such matters as the drake reservoir or the drake circus planetarium etc and redirect them to this advert. Moreover I also find it extremely odd that all articles and references to the Armada Shopping mall are systematically deleted by the same handful of editors protecting the DrakeCircus mall. If one of Plymouth shopping malls is refused a reference then surely so should the other as frankly neither are any less or more notable than the other and certainly both are less notable than the actual Drake Circus area.86.149.110.79 (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Re the name sans space. It seems the Plymouth Herald disagrees with you.
• As far as the Plymouth Armada Centre article goes, well all I can say is that you need to do some reading up on the way WP works. Each article is there on its own merits. The justification for its existence depends on its own notability, it does not depend on any other article. This article is here not because there has to be an article on all shopping centres, it's here because it meets the criteria for notability. When I refer to notability I refer to the WP definition and not your definition of what YOU think is notable or not. If you want an article on the planetarium or the reservoir then you are quite free to create one. All you have to do is make sure it meets the same criteria that this article had to meet. --WebHamster 12:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hi WH. Please, let's not let this escalate like it did last year. I've just temporarily blocked this IP for making this edit. I've told him above what he needs to do. If he chooses not to pay attention that should be his problem, not ours. Contrary to his statements, I was the one who researched, wrote and referenced much of the original Drake Circus article and voted for its retention at its AfD. Oh, and by the way, IP, Armada Centre exists.  —SMALLJIM  12:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

money centre

Hi all. If you search google 'money centre' plymouth you will see many results of establishments within the money centre of Drake Circus, plymouth. I once worked in the money centre and i fail to see why on the subject of drake circus it is not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.120.149 (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement that all the buildings were demolished in this article is simply not true. [The money centre] still stands and is clearly part of Drake Circus.(The Money Centre Drake Circus Plymouth PL1 1QH) Drake circus covers quite a large and notable area. It has absolutely nothing to do with the mall next door. 125.24.120.149 (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article states that some of the buildings, not all. I've removed the badly spelt and badly linked paragraph as it is irrelevant to the subject matter, i.e. the shopping centre. As you put it above "It has absolutely nothing to do with the mall next door". As this is the case it has no place in the article. --WebHamster 12:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If this turns out to be important, someday, someone will come along with reliable sources to write about it. A flickr photo of a nondescript office building is hardly a reliable source for the importance of... well, anything. I have a flickr photo of my cat, but that doesn't mean he's notable. Although he is a very nice cat. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Junk removal

Some IP is rather desperate to tell the world about shopping-centre-related injustices that he or she perceives. This person has twice (that I've noticed) posted a rant on this page starting Hey Mr-corrupt-editor who keeps spamming our e-mail boxes with drake-circus crap: perhaps you get the picture.

I've deleted this rant and I'll delete it again if it occurs again. Likewise, I'll delete any similar rant by this person's adversary/straw puppet. This talk page is nobody's soapbox for Plymouth politics. If you want such a soapbox, find it on some other website. This talk page is for this article. If you don't like this constraint, tough. -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sideline but given the behaviour of the IPs spamming en wp over the past two/three days I personally would be inclined to block immediately anyone behaving in the same way again. This page is a great illustration of their approach to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also renewed the protection on the article itself; I've been cheerfully blocking our disruptive student on sight. I have no idea what he's on about, but if it's important, someone who understands the rules and has some reliable sources will come someday. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems they are possibly on holiday in Thailand and taking advantage of the different range of IP addresses. Maybe OCD is an issue? --WebHamster 13:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to judge his mental health based on the evidence we have; what is clear is that he doesn't understand how to work within Wikipedia's rules to achieve his desired results, so he's unlikely to get what he wants. It's a shame, too, because if he is interested in the subject and living in the area, he probably has access to just the kinds of sources that would be needed to create the article he thinks should exist. And it looks like he is never going to do that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys. I've just reverted two more edits and blocked his latest IP. For what it's worth, I did quite a bit of research on Drake Circus this time last year, and although there was a well-referenced article, it was AfD'ed away as non-notable. He's been told numerous times what to do, but ignores every suggestion, preferring to rant. Over a year's worth of this nonsense (with a long welcome gap, I must admit!) has shown that he's not amenable to reasonable discussion, so I'm continuing to RBI as the only option. Unless he takes the correct steps, of course.  —SMALLJIM  16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Commercial name

Does anoybody oppose me noting that it's commercialy styled as "drakecircus"? If so, why? Tis the season to be jolly (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just a graphic design choice rather than a "commercial styling", it's irrelevant to the article and can be seen by the logo itself. BTW "commercially" has two Ls --WebHamster 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First, the proprietors of the mall call it (or style it as) "Drake Circus". Just look at the text and (in the technical, HTML sense) title of drakecircus.com the top page of their own website]. Secondly, while yes, the logo presented in the article is all in lower case, there's noticably more of a gap between "ec" than between the preceding "ke" or the following "ci". So the typographic detail/novelty/gimmickry is on display not in the unspaced "DrakeCircus" but instead in the uncapitalized "drake circus".

Should this article bother to mention this little matter? Sanyo doesn't bother to say that the company consistently (as far as I know) calls itself "SANYO". And as we've seen, Drake Circus (the shopping mall) doesn't consistently call itself "drake circus"; indeed, perhaps it only does so in its logo. Should we pay attention to the logo? In its logo (or anyway in the one shown in the article), Hewlett-Packard calls itself "hp® invent", but the article doesn't make a point of this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

uk patents office shows their legal trademark and trading name is "drakecircus". If you search drake circus in that registry you will find five other entries relating to "Department, Central Library, Drake Circus PL4 8AL" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.197.193 (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Yes, the first link shows that the company has registered the trademark "drakecircus". I can't see any implication that this is of any more significance to the company than, say, "hp® invent" (or either of its halves) is to Hewlett-Packard. I searched for "Drake Circus" and found not five but 499 entries; a typical one has a section titled "PATLIB UK Centres" that contains, among many other entries, "Patents Collections and Services, Reference Department, Central Library, Drake Circus PL4 8AL". I may have missed something but I didn't notice that anyone had registered a trademark "Drake Circus" (with space). -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

IP you really didn't read the link you posted did you? It's trademarking logos as can be evidenced by the, surprisingly enough, logos shown on the page. The funny thing about logos are that they are design elements done to give a stylistic take on whatever it is they are being used to represent. The fact that the logos say drakecircus has as little a relevance as McDonald's being officially called M. --WebHamster 19:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The UK patent's office "Mark text" is "drakecircus". Their logo is similarly "drakecircus". The legal name in Companies House is 'drakecirus' The signs above its door clearly spell 'drakecircus'86.146.197.193 (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. The "mark text" refers to the text included in the logo. There is no company listed at Companies House as either drakecircus or Drake Circus. Presumably you make these things up as you go along? --WebHamster 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

no i was just quoting from the terms and conditions page of the official web-site upon which this article so heavily relies. It states "please contact The Company Secretary Drake Circus GP LLC, 10 Upper Bank Street , London E14 5JJ"

Ooh, the address seems to have gained a space, how strange! Now if you've finished trolling I have better things to do than try to educate anonymous IPs who don't want to be educated. --WebHamster 22:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

in companies house the term Drakecircus can be found in the documentation relating to the company 04321577 LEONORA ESTATES(PLYMOUTH) LIMITED which was the malls formation and initial development company. The official web-site refers to drake circus GP LLC which i agree does not exist and cannot be found in Companies House. So why are you linking to a web-site that is clealry wrong and misleading.86.146.197.193 (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Aah, so now you are changing what you said. So "drakecircus" is NOT the company name, and has no standing in law other than the wording included on a graphical logo. You've already stated twice now that the information you have garnered shows the name as having a space, so whay are you still banging on about it?

As for getting info from the official website... what is it you don't understand about the concept that WP isn't about what is true, it's only about what can be verified? The official website is an official source of info. Whether that info is correct is beyond the remit of a WP editor. So far you have given absolutely no reason for anyone to accept the non-spaced version as the official and legal name. --WebHamster 15:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You should really get an account. I pressume that you are Whiteworks? Jolly Janner (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

i have no idea what you atlking about. All i wish to clarify is why the offical web-site states the company is "drake circus GP LLC" and yet

Quite a simple concept really. It's because the website is official and it's not our place to argue with that. WP editors just report information from official and reliable sources. We do not synthesise information from multiple information sources. --WebHamster 15:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think Drake Circus Shopping Centre is less notable than Drake Circus?

Various IPs (all writing in a similar style) have claimed that Drake Circus Shopping Centre is less notable than Drake Circus, and therefore that an article on the former requires an article on the latter, or that the lack of an article on the latter requires the lack of an article on the former, or questioning the Drake Circus→Drake Circus Shopping Centre redirect.

If you think this article should be deleted, follow the instructions here. (Note that there has already been one AfD for the shopping center article and another on the location article, so follow the instructions for a second or subsequent AfD.)

If you think that the earlier article on Drake Circus should be undeleted or that a new one should be written, take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drake Circus to "Deletion review".

If on the other hand you do neither of these but instead continue to whine on this talk page, you'll simply be ignored by everyone other than trolls and your own straw/sockpuppets. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If we want to delete it your instructions state "Insert the tag at the top of the article" which none of us can do because the article has been protected from editing. ......... added by User:86.146.197.193, whose only other "contribution" so far has been this oddity.

1. They're not my instructions; they're Wikipedia instructions.
2. I'm puzzled by "which none of us can do". Keeper of the Matrix, Smalljim, DMacks, Numyht, WebHamster, Herbythyme or I could do it.
3. The article has not been protected from editing. It's been protected from editing by people who have chosen not to bother to log in before editing. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Keeper of the matrix can't do it. Jolly Ω Janner 17:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that it goes without saying that the would-be editor must not be blocked. (Keeper of the matrix has been blocked since September.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)