Talk:Drake Circus/page 2

Notable or not?
Pity this article is so bare - Drake Circus was the roundabout at that location, and the area that was demolished was Eastlake Street, and the old shopping area above it. The old area was a shocking example of bad architecture. And yes, we seem to have an area full of bins still there today with no development slap bang in the middle of the city. A lot of potential for an interesting article. Stevebritgimp 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this article has changed substantially since May; what do you think of it now? Smalljim 19:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pity this article was orginally so inaccurate - Drake Circus is the postal district and official sub-district of North Hill, plymouth. It currently includes the Musuem, Art Gallery, library, pubs, bars, cafes, solicitors, barristers chambers and shops. It is also one of the few areas in plymouth that was not destroyed in the blitz on plymouth during the 2nd world war. It does NOT include the shopping mall known as 'drakecircus' which falls within the postal district of Bretonside. Drake Circus has no legal or commercial connection to 'drakecircus' which is a protected and registered trademark. Visual and pedestrian access to the southern end of Drake Circus was fenced off by a purple builders fence in 2006 where it remains to this very day. The only reason reference to the shopping mall should exist in any article on Drake Circus is because of the purple fence. In all other respects the article was made to promote the commercial interests of the shopping mall and bears no relation to real or accurate facts. The above comment was added by User:Yiwentang, 04:23, 30 October 2007


 * Pending resolution of the dispute that will probably arise from today's edits to this article, I have moved its former content to Drake Circus Shopping Centre, and added a pointer to it at the top of this article. I've also added a notability tag to this page, because I cannot see any reason why this "sub-district" is any more notable than thousands of others (see here).
 * Please remember that editing Wikipedia is a matter of consensus, and making wide-ranging changes like you have done here without discussion is not acceptable. Smalljim 13:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

By the same token I cannot see any reason why DrakeCircus shopping mall is any more notable than any other shop or shopping mall. It is blatant spam and used to promote a commercial interest. If you wish to state publicly that Drake Circus is purely a shopping mall and not an area or address of the university, museum and various other organizations, then you should be put on notice that they will institute legal proceedings against you for the considerable damage you are causing. For example every degree, be it Masters, Bachelor or Doctorate etc issued by the University refers on it to the registered address 'drake circus' If attempts to misrepresent that address by implying or expressing that it is purely a shopping centre then expect a class lawsuit against you and the editors and owners of Wikipedia in particular but not limited to, the lowering of the reputation of the University and the devaluation of the issued degrees. Moreover the businesses within that district have been associated with the name Drake Circus for over 160 years and to suggest otherwise is a blatant libel. You have been warned. Yiwentang 14:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)yiwenTang


 * I replied over at Talk:Drake Circus Shopping Centre. --Smalljim 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is an affrontry to academic research that a spammer trying to promote a spud-you-like site should be able to diminish the value of degree awards in this fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.220.163 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are over 27,000 Plymouth University students who are offended by the constant vanadalism of this article on Drake Circus by those seeking to promote a cheap shopping mall. The evidence of the truth is for all of them to see every day and Wikipedias denial of the truth has lowered its reputation to a level even lower than hitherto perceived by Universities throughout the globe. 11,000 of them dwell in accomodation halls in Drake Circus and to imply that Drake Circus is a term solely reserved to a cheap mall is insulting and degrading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.157.81 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As a curator I have thoroughly checked the accuracy and relevancy of this article and nothing in it suggests any improprietary or misleading information. I live and work in a builing that is over 170 years old and located in Drake Circus. It is a listed building and to imply that it is linked to the likes of "spud-u-like" is the subject of a great deal of ridicule to the many thousands who live, work and study in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curatorpccgovuk (talk • contribs) 00:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you check the history page of the article many others have cited reliable sources to corrorbate their statements however all these references are continually deleted/vandalised. In particular if you look at the shaded grey area on this map university campus and then look at the address on this page university address hopefully you might appreciate that the shopping mall is not in the Drake Circus area. H.H.Land Registry and H.M. Valuation office records will prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the shopping mall fronts Bretonside - not Drake Circus. If you want proof of the local resentment i then come here and ask the local retailers how they feel about having their historical identity misappropiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curatorpccgovuk (talk • contribs) 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

To suggest "drake circus is a shopping mall" is equivalent to saying "Seattle is a tower". Its absurd and neglects the 24,000 students, residents, shopkeepers, bar, night clubs etc that all live work and play in Drake Circus. It not only insults the culture of drake circus but Wikipedia itself for allowing such nonsense to be published.

The obvious impression given to anyone reading this dispute is that certain administrators are desperate to keep in links to selected shops in which presumably they have a commercial interest. I have put 7 references on the other page and already they have all been swiftly removed. What a joke this encyclopedia is. Drake Circus is NOT just a shopping centre it’s an area which among other things includes the University of Plymouth. Any moron can see the administrators are desperate to hide the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.137.148 (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see new images of drake circusthis site has updated its page with the images the public outside plymouth are not suppose to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.171.40 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

as a student who has studied in this area for 4 years i see absolutely nothing wrong with this article and canot understand why it is subject to a notablilty tag other than childish revenge from adminstrators hellbent at spamming or advertising unheard of bands or shops selected from a mall. The main issue in the area is the purple berlin wall designed to cut off the smaller retailers in the real Drake circus from the city centre.

the images seem pretty conclusive to me - Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.171.22 (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see this article has yet again been vandalised by 'webhamster' who has removed the list of the larger occupiers of Drake Circus on the basis that 'WP is not a phone book'. By all means remove the telephone numbers but to remove all the shop names on this page yet keep them in on the shopping mall page - what possible justification is there for excluding occupier names in one article and including them in another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.171.203 (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the reply I left on my talk page when the same message was left. There was no vandalism. Please see WP:NOT. You've actually answered your own question. The fact that the details are already in one article means that they have no need to be in the other. Likewise a list of shops is more appropriate for the article about the shopping centre and less appropriate for a general article about the area. I suggest you check out similar articles and I'll be amazed if any of them contain lists similar to the one on Drake Circus. Either way it isn't vandalism much as you may think so. If you still consider it to be vandalism then I suggest that you report it to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, just be aware that reports without strong evidence are not taken seriously. WebHamste r  13:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Likewise a list of shops is more appropriate for the article about the shopping centre"

why? if you look at the list you deleted it referred to the Art Gallery, Musuem, Library, University, solicitors etc. The list of the shops in the shopping mall page specifically targets a few shops with promo-stubs leading from them - hardly 'encyclopedic' is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Incidentally i have just read one of those stubs. basically its a company logo for spud-u-like with 3 lines of text including "It provides fresh and healthy food at a price which satisifes every budget and taste". So this kind of commercial advertising meets your quality threshold whereas a paragraph that informs users of a university and musuem does not. Intresting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose i perceive the block is in place is to prevent new and better informed users to add to this article - such as the 'purple Berlin Wall' issue, images of its nightlife culture, its expansion and development into one of europes leading arts quarters, its academic and artistic history and connections - Joshua reynolds, Charles Babbage etc however i fear the article could be lost due purely to the fact it conflicts with the promotion of a shopping mall and to further achieve that aim chunks of its content will gradually be stripped away by those administrators promoting the mall as was demonstrated by the deletion of the major institutions in this area.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The major institutions you refer to are still in the article, they always were. All that was deleted was a list of addresses, which were, in effect, duplicated information as the list of institutions were already further up the article. Whether or not the article is lost is dependent upon interested editors demonstrating that it is indeed notable. The only way of achieving this is to stay within WP guidelines and writing the article per WP:MOS, using reliable sources.  WebHamste r  02:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Little chance of anyone being able to add content to this artice when over the past 6 months you have removed all and any content, images and references that might conflict with the malls publicity. Out of interest why was the link to Plymouth's other shopping mall - the Armada_Centreremoved? If it was because it had nothing to do with drake circus or was outside the area then why has the link to the drakecircus shopping centre also not been removed - the better informed know that too has nothing to do with the Drake_Circus district.

Also why was this link removed[http://www.midashomes.co.uk/developments/overview.asp?dev_id=34 50 drake cirus it shows part of the huge investment that has been made into the drake circus area and with up to date images
 * The Armada Centre was removed, based on the edit summary, because it isn't actually in the Drake Circus area. Presumably the Midas Homes link was removed as it doesn't relate directly to anything in the article. From what I can see the DCSC is there because someone wanted to clear up any confusion with the names. There's also a disambiguation link because of the similarity of the names. If you wish to edit the article directly you can either wait for the block to time out or you can create a user account and wait four days. The choice is yours.  WebHamste r  13:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Armada Centre was removed, based on the edit summary, because it isn't actually in the Drake Circus area." Neither is the shopping mall but you have left in a link to it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.102.112 (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

DCSC deletion
Will somebody try to explain to me why "The shopping mall has a UK post office address of 'Drakecircus Shopping Centre, Bretonside, Plymouth' and remains outside the official area known as Drake Circus. It is not to be confused with the area named Drake Circus." was deleted by WebHamster. The statement was verified by a number of sources not least the drake circus district ora mall - "separate and distinct from the shopping centre within the Drake Circus area" If he says it is irrelevant to the subject then why does he insist on a link to the shopping mall article from this article?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.155.198 (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the sentence had no relevance to this article. The confusion between the place names was covered further up in the article. Make up your mind, is this article about Drake Circus the area or Drake Circus the shopping centre? WebHamste r 12:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence is also inaccurate, the address is not Bretonside (it's Charles Street, which connects to Drake Circus, not Bretonside). The postcode is irrelevant (and Bretonside is also PL4). Also the two sources mentioned are owned by the same person. Snigbrook 16:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree in its deletion as it duplicates content however i think the posters question was why is there a link to the shopping mall article from this article? Its already been established the two are seperate and apart - geographically, historically and in every other way.Nicole 50dc 21:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which link are you referring to? The disambiguation link at the top? If it is then it's there because of the similarity in names and that's how Wikipedia works.  WebHamste r  21:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From a combination of old maps, Google maps and the BBC website, it looks like Drake Circus was originally a road junction where the shopping centre is now and gave its name to the surrounding area. The map that has been cited as showing the boundary actually shows the boundary of the University Campus. As for the claim that the different postcode proves it's a separate area: the shopping centre is PL1, Bretonside is PL4 and Drake Circus is both PL1 and PL4. Additionally one side of the shopping centre is on Drake Circus, and Google Maps shows it separated from Bretonside by Exeter Street. From that evidence it appears that the Drake Circus area includes the shopping centre. Snigbrook 22:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the pictures at - in particular the two taken from Old Town Street/New George Street looking northeast i.e. where the Drake Circus Shopping Centre is now. Snigbrook 22:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability
I've been thinking of nominating this article for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability ever since it was created. As WebHamster noted elsewhere  this sub-district doesn't appear to have had anything written about it.

What is a "sub-district" anyway? The Subdistrict article here says that in England it was part of a Registration district, possibly only a valid term until 1911; but maybe that article is wrong. My 10-year-old street plan of Plymouth shows Drake Circus as no more than a roundabout and a road leading off it to another road, North Hill. It's clearly less significant than areas of the city such as Devonport or Pennycomequick, both of which are named on my old map. What makes Drake Circus notable? Has anything interesting ever happened here? How does it compare, for instance, to Union Street, Plymouth? (should that even be here?)

There's interesting and conflicting guidance about parts of cities - some guidelines and essays that I've come across are here, here, and here. I must admit that I haven't yet read them all fully, but I'm working on it.

What does everyone think - should this article be put up for AfD to further help define consensus on the notability of such sections of cities? All temperate comments are welcome. --Smalljim 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By coincidence I left a message with Hoary a short time ago suggesting exactly the same thing. I wanted to take advice first in case my nomination could be construed as bad faith and/or trolling. I certainly think it should be nominated. It has no notability, it doesn't appear to have any historical significance. It's only a sub-district. The fact it contains part of a uni and a war memorial is insignificant as notability isn't inherited. Whilst googling I couldn't find any references to Drake Circus that weren't about DCSC. Either bin it or create an article for North Hill and merge (if North Hill itself is notable that is).  WebHamste r  14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

After endless discussion which just seems to go round and round in circles why not move the shopping mall article into a stub from Shopping_malls and move this article into a stub from plymouth maybe review them both in a few months time and if they have not improved then delete them.81.155.65.71 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the first option isn't how things are done, i.e. specific articles aren't merged into generic ones, and the second option isn't likely. I'm sure the editors of the Plymouth article wouldn't be too impressed at this travesty being foisted on them. Easiest way is to nuke this one and leave the DCSC as is. Incidentally you need to get your terminology right, a "stub" is just a normal article that hasn't been expanded yet. It isn't a small part of a larger article.  WebHamste r  17:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicole 50dc may not be aware of how many shopping centres in this country already have articles. More later, I'm off to enjoy some fireworks. --Smalljim 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All the ones i checked were stubs.81.155.65.71 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well someone had to do it, there's going to be no sensible discussion here so it may as well be at AfD where other uninvolved editors can discuss and decide. The arguing here will go on ad infinitum so is pointless. It will either pass AfD or it won't.  WebHamste r  19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how all the things Nicole 50dc wanted to do to the page have now magically appeared as 81.155.65.71's edits. What an amazing coincidence.  WebHamste r  01:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reservoir
I will try and add some images of the tablets and the reservoirs shortly81.155.65.71 00:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst you're at it rewrite the text I had to delete. What you did use was a copyvio. You cannot just copy and paste text from other websites.  WebHamste r  01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bomb Shelter
Currently checking the copyright on images. I will add some of my own after the memorial ceremony expected in April 2008.81.155.65.71 00:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me some time. I am waiting for the ceremony as i have looked at my images again and frankly they could be of any bomb shelter as there is nothing of the surrounding topography.Nicole 50dc 15:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sub-district
Sorry to bang on about this, but I can't find any references to Drake Circus being a "sub-district" or a "subdistrict". As I said above, the term subdistrict appears to have gone out of use a hundred years or so ago. The subject of this article, Drake Circus, isn't even mentioned in any of the references already provided (other than one incidental mention as a part of the University's address). Can you give a reference that shows that the term Drake Circus refers to more than the street itself? --Smalljim 14:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not me who gave it the 'sub-district' title as i do not really know what that term means. I have always understood it to be an area that sprawls from the university - and includes the street offically sign posted Drake Circus. All the buidlings and businesses in the surrounding area have Drake Circus as their address (except the shopping mall) so all i can say with certainty at this stage is that it is a postal district. Many are not physcally in the same street e.g. or the large money centre buidling or thevoodoo loungeI am still learning how to upload old maps that are currently in Plymouth's library. Some are within copyright whilst others they will not let you copy. Until then i would have no problem with anyone changing it to 'area' or 'postal district'. (there is an old map circa.1903 in Plymouth library which shows 'Drake Circus' over an area north of the old Drake Street that leads into the pre-war position of the market and includes Portland Sqaure). I am still trying to verify a lot of data as so much of it is simply not on the internet and so much of it was distorted by an extremely 'pro-mall developement' press campaign.Nicole 50dc 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Deep breath - long reply. There's no question that there is a road called Drake Circus, and that there was also a traffic island of the same name that now mostly lies under the new shopping centre. Anyone can confirm that much with a recent map. What I've been unable to verify, despite trying, is that the name refers to any larger area, separate from the shopping mall, as is claimed in the article. You mention 50@Drake Circus: well that is the name of a block of flats being built in Ebrington Street off the Charles Cross (ruined church) roundabout (see para 6-7 of ). It's no more an indication of the name of an area than is the name of the eponymous shopping mall. It's also well outside the area claimed in the article. Your other example of the Money Centre building appears to have an address of 1 Drake Circus, as a Google search for "money centre" "1 drake circus" will indicate (22 ghits here). We need something better than this to verify the existence of this area. Could it be a purely local tag used by residents? Googling for "drake circus" * area doesn't help in this regard. Don't forget, one or two minor references won't be enough: this isn't an insignificant detail we're trying to verify, it's the whole article.


 * So, what about maps? I've spent some time working my way through what seems to be the best online collection at www.cyberheritage.co.uk. I found several maps showing this part of the city, dated between 1643 and WW2. The one with the most detail is a file called sutts.jpg in an archive ARP SECTOR MAPS 3.zip which is a 39Mb download from here . It dates from WW2 and it doesn't mention Drake Circus at all. None of the maps I looked at on this site do! I must admit that few of them show any district names, but the real surprise to me was that even the road itself was called Tavistock Street until some time after the war. So I don't think the 180 years claim in the lede can be justified either.


 * If we assume then, based on the present lack of evidence, that there is no area, then the sections about the bomb shelter and the reservoir should go: one is in the middle of the university campus, and the other is off North Hill (and may now belong to the Uni. too). Moving them to Plymouth University would seem more sensible. Then there's not much left of this article.


 * So to summarise, whether or not there should be an article here at all depends on two factors: 1. is there an area called Drake Circus, as defined in the article? - this is a question of verifiability, one of WP's core content policies. I've tried to find such an area, and failed; and 2. if not, then is the road (past and present) of the same name notable enough for an article here? As you can guess, my current answer to both these questions is no. Normally after doing this much research, I'd jump in and vigorously edit the article. But considering the circumstances, I'm going to delay for a while to see what response there is to these comments.


 * Please don't think that I'm sniping at you, or pursuing commercial interests. All I'm interested in is the same as everyone editing here should be - to build a good encyclopedia. Oh, and don't expect any further extensive replies from me unless you can come up with some new good evidence. I'm not usually this verbose. --Smalljim 01:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The bomb shelter was in the vicinity of the planetarium"as shown in this image which as this site confirms was in "...Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA United Kingdom"Nicole 50dc 02:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, a search on the Royal Mail website for "drake circus" only shows the street itself (17 addresses for PL4 codes and 7 for PL1 codes) so it's not even an official postal district. This is looking more and more like a local nickname for an area around the street itself rather than an actual official district/area name. Unless someone can come up with anything official then it's looking like this article has no right to be here. Incidentally, for those interested parties, the fact there's a bomb shelter and/or a reservoir does not in itself confer notability regardless of how much it was bombed or lost, or how it ran out of water over 100 years ago. Given the amount of hosepipe bans in the area in recent years it's quite inconsequential.  WebHamste r

01:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The large multi-million pound Plymouth business schoolis next door to 50@Drake Circus and as you can see its postal address is clearly 'Drake Circus'. Maybe if we were having this discussion a year or so ago I would have been inclined to agree with some of your points however times have moved on and there has been a massive investment in this area which like it or not has expanded the name Drake Circus as far as Charles Street (to the chagrin of the shopping mall.) I think if it were just a street or roundabout the council (and post office) would have a sign that says 'Drake Circus Street' or 'Place' or 'Road' or whatever. Instead it is signposted 'Drake Circus'. The fact that the Royal Mail web-site confirms it expands over at least two postal codes is in itself some evidence that it is not just a street but an area. I hope to upload more images and content over the next 48 hours as soon as I get the Building owners written permission to publish images of their buildings. In the meantime maybe worth noting that most old (and some modern) maps of London do not officially recognise [Chinatown,_London] so does that article likewise have no right to be here.


 * sorry yiwentang but i changed it from 'sub-district' to reflect all these concerns.


 * Do a search at your own leisure, the Royal Mail does not describe either PL4 or PL1 as "Drake Circus". Nowhere on the Royal Mail site will you find Drake Circus being described as a postal district. BTW, you don't need permission of building owners to publish pictures of their buildings on Wikipedia. Anything that is on a public street can be photographed and published without consent. All you need is the copyright permission of the photographer who took the photograph. If that's you then all you have to do is choose the appropriate license. Hope that helps speed things up. AfDs only run for 5 days and so far you haven't demonstrated notability.  WebHamste r  15:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the web pages being cited for the bomb shelter only mentions Portland Square, there is no mention at all of Drake Circus. Likewise the reservoir citation also make no mention of Drake Circus. This being the case it's looking like these two sections need to be deleted.  WebHamste r  16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Portland Square and the relevant part of North Hill are all in the Drake Circus area as verified by the other links. I have put in links to some of the bars/clubs which i admit look a little spammy however i am only following the example made by the shopping centre article.Nicole 50dc 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is neither here nor there, neither article mentions Drake Circus so therefore they aren't classed as reliable sources. The fact you say they are is purely original research and is not a reason for inclusion, in actual fact that's a very good reason for exclusion. Either cite a reliable source that says they are in the Drake Circus "area" or they go.  WebHamste r  17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not repeating all the references again except to add Drake’s Place Gardens and Reservoir whether the shopping mall likes it or not the reservoir is now firmly encompassed within the Drake Circus area.Nicole 50dc 21:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just as well you aren't repeating them as they do not provide a reliable source to the fact that the reservoir and bomb shelter are in an area arbitrarily named Drake Circus just because there's a name of a road there. Likewise the above link you just gave does not link the reservoir to Drake Circus. The phrase "Drake Circus" does not appear in that article at all. Merely having "Drake" in an article is not good enough, Drake's name is all over Plymouth and the south-west so is not an indicator. I do wish you'd spend as much time on figuring out the rules of WP as you do trying to find reasons not to photograph buildings. Citations are supposed to supply a reference to what you write and what is verifiable. You have not done so. How can it be when none of the articles about the reservoir and shelter actually mention Drake Circus. As I keep saying, either supply a reliable source that specifically states that the reservoir and shelter are a part of Drake Circus or delete the sections as unverified.  WebHamste r  21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, FYI, links to pages waxing lyrical about how iconic a university building is when the page in question is written by the university it belongs to are not deemed to be independent so I would suggest you delete that bit as PR puffery rather than verifiable fact.  WebHamste r  21:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the 'iconic' sentence for the time being. It is also used in a Western Evening Herald (thisisplymouth) article however are they a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a reliable source, but the article isn't about Levinsky and it's not about the building so it's irrelevant to the Drake Circus article. Feel free to add it to Levinsky's own article though.  WebHamste r  00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Draft rewrite
Hello. You two still at it? You really deserve one another! While you've been bickering, I've produced a draft rewrite of the article based on verifiable information. It's at User:Smalljim/Drake Circus. This is in my user space, so don't edit it. You can comment on it here or on its talk page, but I repeat, it's not an article, it's my page and I'll revert any changes. I know it has rough edges and I will incorporate any sensible suggestions. I also know one of you won't like it, so, really, just don't bother me with all that unverified area stuff.

I invite the closing admin (pity him/her having to plough through all this!) to consider use of this draft as a possible outcome. --Smalljim 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

College of Art and Design
Before anyone disputes the fact that the college of Art is in Drake circus the link webhamster removed (because it seems their site returns a 404/missing for any external linking to a search result) was to the national archives. (Search terms are 'art college drake circus)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, there's already an article about the college, I wikilinked it, as such there is no necessity to give either a citation or an external link. If you read WP:EL as I suggested you would see that it says to keep external links to a minimum, whereas you appear to be trying to get external links for everything. Likewise WP:EL also recommends not putting external links inline and putting them in the links section at the end. Similarly you only need to supply inline citations when you are supplying verification for statements made in the text, you don't use them to supply a link that has pictures you want people to see. WebHamste r 02:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Planetarium and bomb shelter
The reason the Planetarium's postal address is Drake Circus is because it has been allocated the post code PL4 8AA, which, if you search on the Royal Mail site, is the generic post code for the University under whose auspices the Planetarium lies. It's actually on Portland Square from what I can see. So it's looking very much like the fact that mail isn't delivered direct to it, rather it is delivered in a mail drop/box in the Uni. Strike one for the local. As for being in the "vicinity" of, well that's virtually a WP:WEASEL word. How far is a vicinity in metres? Google would only convert from feet or yards. WebHamste r 03:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Its location is directly opposite the local authority sign 'Drake Circus'. Should i simply publish an image showing this.Nicole 50dc 03:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Images
The thumbnails are too small for partially sighted people to see them. Why can't the two leading images have a pixel width of at least 250 so that people can see them? Both images are optimized and within acceptable KB limits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The aspect ratios of the images don't lend themselves to fitting into normal articles like this one. If you try to fit it in at the top it sandwiches the text between the image and the infobox, this is a no-no.


 * Thumbnails are just that, they aren't meant to be seen clearly, if people want to see them they they just click on them to see them full size. I already left a message on your talk page telling you that there's already too much weight given over to pics already. The particular images you are trying to fit in aren't really suitable for the article anyway as they are more arty than informational, really they should go. I didn't want to deal with a hissy fit so I compromised and put them in the gallery so at least they aren't disrupting the article too much. Don't forget that this is an encyclopaedia not a photo gallery.


 * The other thing you have to bear in mind is that people have thumbnail defaults set at different sizes, they have browser windows at different sizes, and they have computer screens at different sizes. You won't make it work for them all. This is why the default articles setup has been derived at after much debate. Please see WP:MOS for more info. Are you actually reading these links I'm giving you as you seem to be ignoring all the standard way of doing things?  WebHamste r  03:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it’s just my IE7 - In gallery/centre layout the images sometimes appear and sometimes they do not.(not just this article) however I will stick to the guidelines. As for being arty - it is an arty area but fair comment as although they had no editing I was a little concerned they might appear otherwise.Nicole 50dc 04:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Existence of area remains unverified
In this edit that you (Nicole 50dc) made to the article yesterday, you stated that Drake Circus occupies: the area in and around North Hill, Portland Square, Charles Street, Tavistock Place and the Western section of Regent Street. This statement is central to the article, and it is unverified and disputed. You must have had a reference at hand when you wrote it. Please provide this reference. Smalljim 10:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise the Levinsky building (I so keep accidentally calling it the Lewinsky, maybe 'cos the whole premise of this being an "area" sucks ) is described as "falling within" the Drake Circus area, whereas the citation provided for it describes it as "on the main Plymouth campus". There is no mention of Drake Circus. As I mentioned above, the revelation that the postal address of these places is Drake Circus is a misnomer. The main mail office for the university is on Drake Circus so that's where the mail goes, it doesn't necessarily equate that the buildings are actually part of the area too. To do so is pure WP:SYNTH. So far all research shows that it's the name of a short road with nothing concrete showing it to be an official area.  WebHamste r  12:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Charles Street is not in Drake Circus which is why it cannot be verified and which is why I took it out and replaced it with Hampton Street which can by for example the 50@DrakeCircus and Business school sites. Portland Square is in Drake Circus and has been verified by many references e.g.University, Planetarium and bomb shelter references etc and can plainly be seen by any image you wish to publish of the area. As for the western section of Regent street this is home to the College of Art which I have verified by the UK.Gov site. Tavistock Place is the postal address for some of the premises in the block of Edwardian Buildings which front what you mistakenly refer to as Drake Circus street or road. If Drake Circus is not as you allege an area you still have not explained why for example the money centre has a postal address of Drake Circus which can be supported by Rates Valuation Office records etc. The expansion of the university has meant that some areas like Hampton Street which hitherto were outside the old drake circus area have now been brought into the area by postal, commercial rating and common usage by everyone who works, studies or lives in the area. As they now own the majority of the buildings in that area (in some case all of it e.g. Gibbon Street) they are the biggest influence on what that area is called in much the same way as the Mall made Eastlake Walk, Charles Street and Catherine Street all part of the DrakeCircus shopping centreNicole 50dc 12:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do wish you would read WP:SYNTH as all of the above is a perfect example of it. It isn't incumbent upon us to disprove it, it's the responsibility of the editor adding the info to prove it. To justify the description you will need an official description of the boundaries of the "area". If it was indeed an official area then this would be trivial to do. The fact that you are having to synthesise it is an indicator that there is no official definition of the area, which it turn means that there is no area. There is going to have to be some serious pruning of this article if no evidence is given.  WebHamste r  12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What does an official area mean? I repeat there is no 'official' area called Chinatown however we all know they exist and there are many articles in this encyclopedia. I have referred you to offical sign names, university web-sites, uk Gov arhcives, images of Drake Circus, commercial web-sites with Drake Circus in their name and/or address, an unbiased site that outlines a brief history, original evidence of the old drake Circus reservoir ect etc. Most maps are out of date as they do not reflect the changes made to this area in the past 12 months and those that do come from far from reliable or trusted sources.Nicole 50dc 13:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All councils have all their official areas mapped and given designated boundaries, so far there is no evidence to say that Drake Circus has a council designated definition. You can come with as many links as you like it makes no difference as what you are doing a synthesising a conclusion based on your own research. It doesn't matter what other articles contain or don't contain, they're irrelevant per WP:WAX which you have been pointed at before. Your truculence is not doing the article any favours, neither is your wilful disregard for the guidelines of WP. It doesn't matter what YOU want the article to contain or not contain, what matters is what the guidelines say it can contain. Whether you like it or not there is no evidence whatsoever that there is an officially designated area called Drake Circus. All that has been proven (per WP guidelines) is that there is a street so named. You strike me as an intelligent person and these are easy concepts so per Occam's Razor, the only assumption that remains is that you are being deliberately obtuse for some reason. Remember, before you start handing out the traditional accusations of commercial interests, Smalljim and myself are general editors with quite a number of edits under our collective belts, whereas you are a single purpose editor with only one interest, little WP experience and a whole lot of stubbornness. Our priority is maintaining the rules and standards of WP, so far that doesn't appear to be on your radar at all much less on a priority list. We have both spent considerable time on an article that is destined for deletion, we have done so because of the, albeit small, effect on WP that leaving it in the hands of irate locals would have.  WebHamste r  13:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Yup. You are clearly hoist by your own petard, Nicole 50dc. If you can't be bothered to read the guidelines here, that's your problem. Now - I suggest, WebHamster, that we leave the article as it is and let the closing admin decide its fate. I hope you approve of my latest draft rewrite, BTW. I'm off to do something more productive. --Smalljim 13:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are maps of the area to be found in all the various links to the University sites. Since both of you have resorted to insulting behaviour I refuse to answer or deal with any more of your trolling and deliberate disruption/sabotage of an article that clearly conflicts with your promo for a mall.Nicole 50dc 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean our edits interfere with your promo of the Midas Homes project, or is 50@Drake Circus and "Nicole 50 DC" a big coincidence?  WebHamste r  16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I took out reference to the shopping mall as all parties agree that it has nothing to do with Drake Circus the area.Nicole 50dc 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As it's an arbitrarily decided area I put it back in. You have not provided proof as to the boundaries.  WebHamste r  16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Local Authority Archives
A point to note is that when researching old records or archives a lot of material was filed under 'Drake's Circus' or 'Drakes circus' and not just 'Drake Circus'. Also a lot of old maps and records on the subject were destroyed during the war making research difficult.86.151.170.3 13:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's true, of course, that many records were lost in the war, but I don't think it's particularly relevant because we know that the road was called Tavistock Road until at least 1955 (see my draft rewrite).
 * Look, instead of us both working on different versions of this article and waiting to see if it survives its AfD, can we compromise in some way, and see if we can agree on a merging of the two pages? Smalljim 13:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done on finding that PCC archives search page, by the way. I think you've made a typing errror to get 3327 records, because I can only get it to give me 20 for a search on Drake Circus with the AND operator (Drake's Circus gives 6 hits, but I think they're the same). I'm looking through them all now. Smalljim 13:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromising

 * Re: compromising. For instance, I don't think anyone would object to adding a section to my rewrite saying something along the lines of local people consider the name covers a wider area which defines their community that includes the shops and the uni students etc. Then we can even mention the reservoir and the bomb site as being interesting things "nearby". What do you think? Smalljim 13:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For some reason their results page mis-spells the search term despite it being correctly spelt in the search box as can be seen when you examine the full url in the artcile. It still returns 3327 records. I think the results vary if you use the operator 'or'. Using 'and' brings up results going back to the Eighteenth century! No disrespect but if I wanted to find out more about the old Drake Bone Mill or the old Guinness building I search 'drake-circus' I would not think of using the search phrase 'drake circus shopping centre' so my worry is that users will never find what they are looking for, if all this content is shifted across to the shopping mall which was built a long long time after. If I wanted to research an old battle during the American civil war I would not think of searching 'Wal-Mart' just because they built a store over the battle ground. Personally I do not have any issues with the mall, as that is all it is - a mall - however surely the sensible course would be to either keep it as it is or sectioned in this article about Drake Circus. Anyway thats just my opnion - you guys decide - i'm outta of her - have a nice dayThedogman 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Slow down and reread back a bit- no-one is proposing moving stuff to the shopping mall article. I am offering you a compromise, you know - trying to help? I have written an alternative Drake Circus article that only makes passing reference to the shopping mall - you have read it, haven't you? It's here. I've also just added a bit at the top of it about local thoughts about an area, and am happy to move in the reservoir and bomb site stuff if you want. The aim would be to agree a rewritten article and move it over the existing Drake Circus one. Are you prepared to compromise a bit, as I am? Smalljim 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah that looks good to me. I would add the bomb shelter/reservoir/arts centre as even i can see with my own eyes that its in the same Drake Circus area/zone/district/street/road/river/planet... whatever you guys want to call it. (can't see why the MoneyCentre is in - its just a darn great eye-sore but hey thats just my opnion) Thedogman 15:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have another look now, coincidentally I've just been adding those bits. It's still a little rough, but can I take it that you would agree to me moving it over your article when I've cleaned it up? Smalljim 16:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell you what, since the AfD ends tomorrow - and I guess that means any time after midnight, and someone has just recommended delete on the existing version, I'll copy my version over now. I'm sure it will stand a better chance of passing than yours, which is still obviously controversial. If you disagree with anything in it we can discuss later (assuming it passes, of course). Smalljim 23:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know I'm late to this, but time has been short today. I am in favour of the rewrite, I'm also in favour of the bomb shelter and reservoir being described as nearby rather than part of, after all if the mall is mentioned as being nearby...


 * What I'm not in favour of is the large photo in the middle of the article. It breaks conformity with most (if not all) other similar articles. Likewise I'm not in favour of the archives citation and the text it relates to. This is due to its synthesis. The search term may show up 3000+ times, and the articles it comes up with may date back to 1833, but that isn't enough. None of the articles that are found in the search are readable therefore we don't know how the term drake circus is used. It maybe "drake" in one paragraph and "circus" in another. It's synthesis to come to the conclusion that DC is actually being referred. On those grounds I think it should go. Citations should not link to raw search results, they should link to specific articles that are pertinent to the text that is being referenced.  WebHamste r  00:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Yes, I know the large photo is an anomaly, but it seemed to nicely illustrate the text directly above. Regarding the archives citation, I don't think that's in the rewrite, is it? It certainly shouldn't be, for the reaasons you state. Anyway the article's future isn't looking good, with two deletes in the last hour. Smalljim 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)