Talk:Dartmouth Crossing

Untitled
Anybody able to upload a photo or graphic from the officil website? --RobNS 03:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK people, we STILL need a better photo. Thanks.--RobNS 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Future Shop?
Future Shop went bankrupt closing all its stores. Best Buy moved in and is located near Walmart and Canadian Tire.

individual stores
it seems to be one of the few things that were agreed by the project on malls, is that individual stores, restaurants, etc., other than anchors are to be removed as unencyclopedic -- essentially spamlinks for the companies.DGG 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

individual stores (Update)
I put the individual stores back in, since this is a development in works, and im always checking to see if my favorite stores are open yet. If somebody wants to remove the links, go ahead, but don't delete the list of stores. Beside with wikipedia now set to nofollow, links are useless anyways. (unsigned ed. by Hydrogen Iodide) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hydrogen Iodide (talk • contribs).

ILIKEIT is not a reason. use your own web site for the purpose. ! DGG (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with DGG. Wikipedia is not the promotional site for Dartmouth Crossing, is not a news site for the store openings in this centre, and is not a tenant directory.  If you want to see if your favourite stores are open yet, Wikipedia is not the website for you.  In its current state, the article is not much more than a promotional tool for the shopping centre.  Skeezix1000 20:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's my suggestion
I agree that we should keep the list of stores for now, at least until they are all open. And then, we just keep the anchors. Since this is not a converntional 'Mall' per say, I think it is OK to keep the list. But obce the project is complete, we should shorten it.

Also, PLEASE make sure to sign ALL of your posts and comments with a signature. That's the little box above, 10th from the left, so you get this. -- Rob NS  15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are both confusing the encyclopedia with a web page for the project. This is where people go for encyclopedic information, not for a current listing of stores. And there is no end--the stores will never be all open--there will always be changes and new ones and closed one. There is no basis ever for such detail in a WP article. We are not a directory, and a list of stores in a mall is a reproduction of the mall's directory. (Not to mention the linkspam. ) I'll just mention that articles with that sort of content are extremely hard to defend at AfD. DGG 05:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, leave the stores there until the project is close to completion as I'm sure this site has been informative for the general public, and not an advertisement as suggested by DGG. --Shorens 18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC) "Informative for the general public" about the latest stores to open in a mall is not encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually am going to be the dissenting voice on this issue. I would go against keeping information on minor stores within the article as it's unencyclopaedic on WP:NOT and WP:NOT grounds. Also, the website of the article subject already contains this information, so what benefit is there providing that information here? Anchor tenants and major facilities are fine, but a list of stores is one of the key things I thought the shopping malls project was trying to avoid IMHO. A good example of a well structured shopping mall article is Karrinyup Shopping Centre which recently survived an AfD thanks to a snowball keep which got even bigger after massive improvements managed to increase the article fifteen fold. Thewinchester (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are reliable sources to show that the construction is only going ahead because certain "anchor tenants" have signed leases, then that should be integrated into the article and a list of anchors could be retained.
 * This isn't WikiNews - the photos of building hoardings are a form of WP:OR. Nobody has shown reliable sources discussing what retailers are intending to open in this complex so the photos should be removed as should any text using them as a source.Garrie 04:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Thewinchester. We need to look to WP:NOT, WP:NOT and WP:ANCHORS.  Wikipedia is not a directory, so tenant lists are really inappropriate and should be removed (whether or not the centre is open yet is irrelevant).  Giving their drawing power and significance, lists of anchor stores would be fine, but the anchor lists must be sourced from a verifiable and reliable source (i.e. the source needs to identify the anchors).  Otherwise, the anchor list violates WP:OR and WP:V as it would simply be one editor's speculation as to what constitutes the anchors.  Besides the anchors, there may be other encyclopedic reasons to mention specific tenants (i.e. the largest Canadian Tire store in Canada).  However, these facts must also be sourced. Skeezix1000 11:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There has not been a lot of response to the last few comments. Unfortunately, "it's useful" is not a valid ground for keeping content in a Wikipedia article that otherwise violates policies and guidelines. A tenant directory, along with information as to store opening dates, is not appropriate Wikipedia content. This is not a promotional site for Dartmouth Crossing or its tenants. People who want an up-to-date tenant list should be directed to the centre's official site. I have revised the article so that it focuses on the notable and noteworthy aspects of the centre. Individual tenants should not be mentioned simply because they happen to lease or own space in the centre (e.g. the fact that La Senza has just opened an outlet is neither notable nor noteworthy in and of itself). The presence of some tenants might be encyclopedic -- for example, the fact that the Canadian Tire store is the largest in Canada is worth mentioning. If any other tenants are noteworthy in any respect (e.g. first location in Nova Scotia, etc.), then that can be added as long as it is properly sourced. Normally, it is also appropriate to mention the centre's anchors, as long as the list of anchors or main/major retailers can be properly sourced. In other words, it is not up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to deem some tenants to be majors or anchors (doing so would be speculation, and would violate WP:OR. I tried to find a reference where the mall owner or a reliable source identified the list of anchors/main tenants, but could only find a source indicating that Empire Theatres was anchoring the entertainment component (I have added it).  Skeezix1000 14:57, 23 July 2007(UTC)
 * I would just add -- to the extent that there is store opening information that is not on the official site, it should be posted over at WikiNews. Skeezix1000 15:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

the gallery
The gallery of photos is equally unencyclopedic--perhaps one showing the construction would be enoguh, to be followed by the addition of another when they finish. DGG (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They could be uploaded to the Commons, with a link to the Commons page added here. Skeezix1000 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will give it another week or so to see if there are any objections, but otherwise I will upload the gallery images to the Commons, add the Commons link and remove the gallery. Skeezix1000 12:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even wait. Let's fix it now...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never uploaded the gallery to the Commons. Frankly, the images weren't that great, so it was hard to find the time or motivate myself to work on transfering mediocre images when there are better images on Wikipedia that need to be transfered.  As per the discussions here, I have deleted the gallery.  If someone is interested in transfering the gallery to the Commons, be my guest.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

status
As for the other material, there appears to be consensus of all three previously uninvolved editors that the material was not encyclopedic. The present state of the article, with Skeezix1000's edits, should stand, unless reasons based on policy can be presented for re-inserting the material. DGG (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think it's a lot more appropriate since Skeezix1000 made those edits. I will try and clean up the photos too, with more recent ones, if necessary. Cheers -- Rob NS  04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)