Talk:Bankstown Central

Untitled
This article was put up for AfD previously: Articles for deletion/Centro Bankstown. The result was keep. enochlau (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Centro Properties Group Logo.PNG
The image File:Centro Properties Group Logo.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

questionable source
This source http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/humanity/2007/mbailey3.html. I would not regard a university assignment as a reliable source. It's being used to to back pov statements rather than statements of fact. LibStar (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * LibStar, if you think that is a university assignment then I don't think you understand how academia works. Nor, it seems, do you understand the correct meaning of WP:NPOV. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not something rigorously peer reviewed like a PhD thesis. The."findings " are not backed by other reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * actually it's not even an academic paper, it's something presented at a symposium. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that says every statement on Wikipedia has to be based on peer reviewed research. We have plenty of content sourced to primary sources and newspaper reports of varying quality across the project. You are deleting content on a misreading of policy. You have raised no reliable sources to contradict the statements in the article, so there is no contrary viewpoint to represent. The situation is not within the purview of NPOV. You are deleting good content based on either a personal grievance or some sort of agenda against certain types of sources, and that is not the right approach.
 * You are also misusing fact tags - they are for points that are controversial or which might be untrue. You do not seem to actually believe the statements to be untrue, you are adding tags because either you have a fetish for tags or want to see references for every statement - which is not how this project works. A fortiori, that is insufficient grounds for you to start deleting statements just becuase you have tagged them and no-one cares enough to add sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * uncited material can be removed under WP:BURDEN. You have provided no citations therefore anyone can remove uncited material. You have violated WP:CITE to reinstating uncited material. If the statements are so obvious you would have citations. Without citation of dates and statistics, it can be questioned.  My behaviour is consistent with WP:BURDEN. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are acting in bad faith - you have no real issues with the statements, if you did, you would be able to provide contrary citations, or at least state a contrary position. Removing content when you have no real issue with the content is bad faith. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Content discussion

 * I am opening this sub-heading for you to state why you believe the content you are mass blanking is untrue or controversial. Given your pattern of behaviour, my starting position is that every statement you have deleted is true or uncontroversial, and your mass blanking is in bad faith. Please review what you are actually deleting and state here which you believe to be untrue or controversial, and we can discuss from there. Please stop mass blanking until you get consensus. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Bankstown Central Shopping Centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821172327/http://gpt.com.au/gpt/main.nsf/all/newsgpt_20021030 to http://www.gpt.com.au/gpt/main.nsf/all/newsgpt_20021030
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822025420/http://www.burnett.com.au/content.asp?contentid=1778&title=%24140m+Centro+Developments+Approved to http://www.burnett.com.au/content.asp?contentid=1778&title=%24140m+Centro+Developments+Approved
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929120749/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/0/A373A5B4FAEC96A6CA256E5F00219617 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/0/A373A5B4FAEC96A6CA256E5F00219617

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Bankstown Central in commons
help me Some time ago this article was renamed from Centro Bankstown Shopping Centre but the "common category" template still shows it as Centro Bankstown. Can you arrange to have this corrected?Fleet Lists (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ The Commons category had to be changed. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)