Talk:Country Club Plaza

message: I don't live near KC, and don't currently have any personal photos of the Plaza, even though I've been there. If somebody has public domain photos of the Plaza they could post, it would help the article immensely. More and better verbiage would be nice, too. Thanks. --Brian Rock 01:02, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
* I live about 40 minutes away from the Plaza. I'll take some pictures next time I'm down that way. mobyrock 04:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: request for photographs

message: Priority questions can be complicated to resolve. The Market Square shopping center in Lake Forest, Illinois opened in 1916, was also planned around the automobile , but a case can often be made for being "first" by adding enough qualifying adjectives.  It is best to share the credit in cases that are less than clear-cut.  --Blainster 22:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which was first?

message: "...considered one of the most beautiful boulevards in the United States..." by whom?  The author of that sentence?  Claim needs to be cited or removed.--Isotope23 17:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: The "large homes on Ward Parkway" aren't in the Country Club Plaza.  The Plaza's boundaries end at 51st street (see KC's registered neighborhood map at KCMO.org).  Those homes are in Sunset Hill.  That edit should not have been reversed.  I have changed the article back accordingly. 65.28.2.218 12:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: The article claims that Country Club Plaza was established in 1922, however the source cited claims that "Formal plans for the Country Club Plaza were drawn up in 1922."  No date is given for the year construction began.  No opening date has been given.  The 'date of establishment' in regards to malls should be based on when they first opened.  So, when you verify this dispute, please clarify exactly what happened in 1922 - "plans drawn", "construction began", or "opening date" - to avoid further confusion. -- RedPoptarts 07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this catalog entry at the Kansas City library, the first building in the Plaza development was completed in early 1923. Whyaduck 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See above responses which provides a reference to the Columbia Encyclopedia, as well as citations to scholarly works which establish the Country Club Plaza as the first shopping center.  See also the Plaza's page on its history:  http://www.countryclubplaza.com/plaza.aspx?pgID=893 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.193.148.178 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute: Date of Establishment 

message: Can someone add another photo of the holiday lighting ceremony in the section about the "season of lights"? ('Layout and use') There are some within the article if you don't have one personally. One shows the shops with lights and another with fireworks as well. Unless you have your own (postcard/photo), pics from the Kansas City sites will work. I think it would be nice to have it since it's very popular and scenic. (considered a " world famous living legend" within articles) There are better/newer ones available besides just the one within the "gallery" section. Perhaps creating a section just about the Plaza Lights would be warranted too. Just a thought. Thanks and happy holidays! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Images were recently removed but do not fall under the category of "don'ts" according to Wikipedia (gallery at the end of the article). Many articles, one in particular is Christmas lights, have image galleries whether about events or scenic places. I feel this removal was done in spite based on disagreements below. Regardless, it is not my interest to get my way or keep anything that is not in line with Wikipedia standards, but it's the principal of the matter that it is not productive/constructive nor a clear violation. Anyone else, other than those already involved, who can give their input so a consensus can be obtained? Thank you! P.s. I notice when I mention other articles with similar content, they are not fixed/corrected/removed, only this one is a priority for some reason. What's the real motive? If you follow me only to vandalize my contributions, do not give your input. (hint) 74.62.92.20 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plaza Lights photos 

message: At the suggestion of an IP user, I'm opening discussion on the need and relevance of a long list of celebs who have done the honors and turned on the Plaza lights for the year. Hopefully everyone can come to consensus and avoid edit warring. What say you? Keep the list or delete? Reason(s)? Sector001 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It really isn't a "long list". It's been revised. These such lists also exist throughout Wikipedia articles regarding hosts, presenters, episodes, attendees, etc. etc. I can give examples if you're unaware. It is relevant to the context. It isn't "wrong" nor really hurting anything as a brief summary of notable presenters, many from the area. I don't see that it's a big deal and it has been cited and the section fixed from it's original state. This seems to be a petty issue and isn't responsible to consider reverting. Thanks for your attention to the matter nonetheless. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance of flipping the switch of Christmas lighting is absolutely zero. It is a nice marketing moment for the plaza but for an encyclopaedia it is meaningless. The Banner talk 20:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your response is only/simply your opinion and not based on an actual Wikipedia guidelines (coatrack does not apply here nor is a "rule"), therefore you should not be reverting multiple times. Cherry-picking just to omit something which is not "showboating" or an actual violation, is also not allowed. It seems you're not familiar with the topic that well. Before you make the final decision based on your preference, allow time for a proper resolution and consensus. Please refrain from reverting good faith contributions (by the original editor as well as my "fixes" to it). It's not like all 84+ are mentioned for each year and "flipping the switch" is as much a part of the ceremony. If a box format is required, then that can be created for each year. Other articles mention contributions, films, guests, etc. with years as well (for example, see The Arsenio Hall Show and Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade articles or game show articles that list winners/years). Intros of articles that list albums or movies with years in a "listed" sentence are allowed, as this should be as well since the guests pertain to the topic/event and is brief. Your reverts are not constructive. It's an event like a show or film where guests or participants are mentioned. Here are just some examples, including the parade which does the same thing (not to mention many articles that list "in pop culture" or "in media" with a sentence or list of individuals and years):       74.62.92.20 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not, I repeat, do not change anything on my edits. That is totally unconstructive and can easily lead to blocks. The Banner talk 22:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you even talking about? The highlighted sentence? That was in error, and it was about my response regarding your opinion. Please do not threaten me over something you are clearly trying to get your way about. Your message on my talk page was not warranted either, nothing has been done wrong. You are improperly reverting and i'd encourage you to just drop this matter before it gets worse. Thanks! 74.62.92.20 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What you did was deliberately editing my text. That is a plain nono. End of story. The Banner talk 23:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And a nice try to hide that warning. Won't work in the long run, though. The Banner talk 23:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give it a rest already. I am not hiding anything. I removed your nonsense on my talk page since it did not apply. If I highlighted a sentence you typed that was an opinion, then I apologize. It's not a big deal. Stop making it something it isn't. This is extremely juvenile. You did not leave me a "warning". It's a standard message that was not necessary. The bold has been removed. I did not change/alter your actual message. You are beating a dead horse here. This is about you reverting a good faith edit twice and not properly handling disputes, reverts and consensus. Putting a ! after 'thanks' or 'best of luck' does not mean I have a bad tone. I'm being nice (neutral) just like my edits are. You are the one blaming me for what you've been guilty of. Just stop already, we both gave our input and defended our actions, now let others participate if they want (either for or against it being included which I think it should be since it's not a violation and is common in many articles). 74.62.92.20 (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Nice that you throw around so many policies and fail to see that what you are doing is plain promotion and advertising by creating a coat rack. A complete unencyclopaedic event is used to name as many celebrities as people can hire, to promote the plaza. And second: every article is judged on its own merits. Please, stop your marketing push. The Banner talk 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are attacking me as an editor and not giving the benefit of the doubt. I am not promoting anything, that is absurd. I did not make the original contribution, I am only enforcing its inclusion. If what you are accusing me of is true, then all articles listing participants, years, projects, pop culture, media, etc. are doing the same thing. That is a weak argument. If I was promoting something, it would be regarding advertisements or websites, companies, etc. I am not promoting those people, I am not attached to any of them. I am being neutral. I simply fixed the original editor's contribution (linked to related articles and summarized the content instead of listing it). Your personal opinions about me and my edits are not appreciated and I resent you assuming i'm promoting the plaza. I don't live there nor was I attending it. You are clearly in violation and need to just end it. I will not participate in an argument with you about this, and you can not continue to take it upon yourself to revert edits based on what you want. It is not even a "coat rack" violation, even though that's not an official rule. Knock it off already... If you knew about my edits, you'd know i'm far from biased. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, great. Please, stop your marketing push. The Banner talk 23:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, your opinion. I'm not pushing anything. For you to accuse me of that and think that makes me wonder about your motives. How about you please stop being disruptive? Best of luck! 74.62.92.20 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ow, your overly aggressive tone is not very helpful in a discussion. The Banner talk 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My tone? You mean defending myself? I'm the one who wanted a discussion, you are the one who burned that bridge with your reverts and assumptions/accusations. If anything, it is your tone that has prevented us from having a healthy talk. I've compromised, edited the contribution (adjusting it to better suit the topic), and you've only reverted and "pointed your finger". It is a lie that i'm promoting/marketing. Why would I want to continue discussing it with you? Let others give input. We know where you stand and you know my view on it, there is nothing more you and I need to talk about. The original editor and myself feel it's okay to leave. You do not. Until others contribute responsibly and maturely, there is no reason to continue with one another about the matter. I've tried to nicely communicate with you even though you have your mind made up that I have ill motives for including it, which is not the case. It has been you who has been "aggressive" in tone and action. I simply am not participating in any further discussions with you specifically since we disagree. Have a good day/night! 74.62.92.20 (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Switch Flippers" 

message: *This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
*A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.  (December 2013) 
*This article appears to be written like an advertisement.  (December 2013) 
*This article may require copy editing for coat rack of celebrities "flipping the switch".  (December 2013) 
*This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2012)
Like any article someone spends time on, they may or may not have close ties to the topic nor have contributed to the majority of it. That shouldn't matter or be an issue. They may have just come across an article in need of assistance. That shouldn't discredit the fact what is included is appropriate and not an actual violation of Wikipedia. It simply means some of us spend the time to correct problems instead of cause more. It means checking around a bit for supportive cites and linking names/places/events to related articles. Not being lazy and just removing it or claiming it's "coat racking". Many articles include guests and years activities occurred (listed or in a paragraph), and with them being sourced and related to the article, I personally feel the notices/warnings at the beginning of this article were done in spite and revenge per the previous discussion. I could care less who is listed, I am simply playing devil's advocate for an editor who made the good faith contribution, by fixing the problems and trying to work with others to resolve a dispute, which is more than I can say for others who are causing conflict and being passive-aggressive. There is no reason it needs to be removed nor attention drawn to it. The article does not read like an advertisement. There were no problems with it until a specific editor was upset his/her reverts were not justified. It is a neutral "black-and-white" contribution that seems to be upsetting someone unrelated/unfamiliar with the topic, now bent on harassment. Instead of improving the content, the editor has simply removed it and been disruptive. I do not feel the templates are necessary/warranted, yet it does not change the fact that just because those who "flipped the switch" are mostly celebrities (note: some are civil service workers and military or were disadvantaged children in the past), doesn't mean someone is promoting them. It's a completely false accusation, and would mean all other articles that mention Obama (Stevie Wonder and Andy Griffith articles for example) or another celebrity in another article that corresponds with the topic, should also be removed. This is a petty issue that is being taken out of control and context (it's common for added information to be challenged but it is relevant in this case). As an encyclopedia, listing participants is a part of history about the event/ceremony and relative since some of those listed are from the community. The people mentioned pertain to the topic and does not deviate from it. Please give your mature, verifiable, unbiased/neutral input based on facts and actual proof. You can expand the list in fact, so that it's a complete table/list such as other articles with notable content. I encourage you not accuse, threaten or assume something untrue about good faith edits, nor revert without proper dispute/consensus resolution. Thank you very much! :) 74.62.92.20 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Promotion and advertising is a violation of Wikipedia policies. The Banner talk 01:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well that is not what is being done in this case. FYI: You need to treat IP users with respect and not assume they don't know as much as you. Maybe you just thought you could revert it and nothing would be done, but when someone actually stands by their work and challenges you then you get all upset and make personal attacks. You are just bent on having it removed and being right. You are not part of the solution, you are being a part of the problem. The names are listed, they are not "glorified", "advertised" or "promoted". They are simply individuals who were in attendance. If you care about your stand on specific policies, you'd go fix all the ones that are a violation on other articles instead of wasting out time here. For some reason you are only concerned with this one. Why is that? (rhetorical question) You are not giving constructive input about fixing it or making suggestions in an effort to compromise. Coat racking is not a violation and is not what is happening in this article. Get over it. Do some research and find other people you'd rather list (less significant if you wish). Those added are only some who participated. I guess the armed forces and other non-celebrities mentioned are being "marketed" too? I didn't even make the initial contribution, but keep it up and I may just make an entire article/section of all those who were at the Plaza Lighting Ceremony over the entire 84 years (provided I can find them all online or via a book). As long as it's verifiable and relevant to the topic, it's allowed. No one is being "showboated" nor is there any "peacocking". The content was there uncontested until I linked it to related articles and made other fixes. I think it's safe to say we can move on from here, as it's encyclopedia-worthy/notable, and you and I disagree. I'm not sure what your beef is, but anyone who contributes to a topic they are familiar with must be in violation according to you, huh? ;) P.s. If I typed: "Obama and Reagan both liked the Plaza Lights. The mayor of New York is jealous that the Plaza Ceremony is better than the Rockefeller celebration. Kansas City is such a cool place because it has fun stuff to do and lots of celebrities are from the city and/or visit the city." then that would not be appropriate. That would be coat racking'ish. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with Banner that is indeed a list that does very little to enhance the article. I can also tell Banner that 74/99 is not a conflict of interest editor for this subject. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious how you got involved in this topic? Are you "stalking" me perhaps? And you shouldn't have reverted my edit AGAIN, as that is a violation. The discussion is for resolving the dispute. Just because you agree, is not a consensus. So far two agree to keep and two do not. Even if three do, that is not an overwhelming consensus. You are doing what Banner did. Please replace it until it is resolved or "reduce" the list somewhat. You edit summary reason is not legit. Thanks! 74.62.92.20 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I think that calling it a coatrack may have been off base although I also believe it looks spammy, but it takes two to edit war so even then just open a request for comment you should be ok. When I removed it I didn't see sources, I may have missed them. I just think that the article is trying to piggyback notability because celebrities may have been there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I was hoping I could "respect" your input but find out you (like most others) didn't even check sources. Before I got involved, it was a list of people along with who they were. I removed the "actors" and "ball player" stuff. I added sources of nearly all those listed. They are from CBS, KC Plaza site and KC.com, etc. All reliable. They are not people mentioned because they are from the city or visited, they were a part of the ceremony. You both seem to just see it as something insignificant, but if you see the big picture and take the time to research, you'll see that these presenters were as much a part of the ceremony as the lights/fireworks/concerts/switch. And to remove the pictures now (although I could care less again but will play devil's advocate) after being on the article for years, means you should remove them on others such as:  even though the "don'ts" doesn't mention not having galleries at the end of the text. Not sure why this is a problem all the sudden, but your arguments are not applicable. "It looks spammy" and "I may have missed them" and "may have been there" tells me you both really aren't sure of what you're doing here and not really concerned with reliability/verifiability, just having it not included or looking a certain way. I did not cause an edit war. I reverted it once to give Banner a chance to discuss first. After his second revert and ignoring the discussion/resolution/consensus process, I included it with revisions/edits (not reverted). Now that i'm following procedures, editors bandwagon? Ugh, I wish people did some work besides just going around slopping up people's hard work on here incorrectly. The content needs to be replaced, that is the policy. You leave it first, then come to a resolution before removing it. You both know better, i'm not some stupid newbie IP user. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: As to your question of stalking, no I am not stalking you but I do have several pages you have edited under my watchlist, and I am observing those to verify problematic editing such as personal attacks and other behaviors didn't continue. I have chosen not to engage you because your edits have not been problematic in a while. I don't see these edits as problematic either, I just think that the coi, coatrack was not correct but the idea behind the edit was. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have no idea what you're talking about, I've never had any problems. Anything in the past was not my fault, I've only provided constructive edits. Issues like this cause issues, not good faith editors like myself. Just because you watch pages that had personal attacks, doesn't mean i'm causing trouble. I will also keep you in mind though when checking articles. Thanks for the heads up. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have no problems with that at all, we're all entitled to our opinions. Like I told you before on previous IP's you've used the only interest I have is the behaviors so I plan on leaving you alone as much as possible because it makes both of our lives easier. Contrary to what you believe I have no interest in undoing your edits or stopping your contributions, I merely edited here because I agree with Banners edit, but not the COI/Coatrack part. Now if you would be so kind as explain why you think that a note of "Flip Switchers" are notable to include I would be interested in hearing that, for me that's like saying this McDonalds is notable because JAYZ and these people go there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: OK, have happy holidays. Hell in a Bucket 14.0.143.85 (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, not sure why you're using more than one account/ip but it's to be expected I guess. Please see:  74.62.92.20 (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding article banner/templates: 

message: The following should be replaced (three reverts) until the discussion/dispute is resolved. Removing it until is a violation and is disruptive or vandalism. A concensus has not been reached and according to the talk page, it is reliable/verifiable. If this is "wrong" then the presenters at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade should also be removed as an example. Be consistent, you are not supposed to be "right" or get your way. This is not a violation, the reasons given for not keeping it do not hold water and are self-serving. I will take this to a discussion board if necessary, as a matter of principle. When someone comes along and challenges editors to contribute/assit and not just revert, users/editors should not be bullied into giving up. People can get their feelings/egos hurt and remove content based on "power-tripping", but that is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Follow policy, have some integrity and be cooperative. Thanks! 74.62.92.20 (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Examples of spam is not having credible sources (publications and news sources are used) or stating "Emmy Award winner..." or "Grammy winner" or "Three time all-star", etc. (which some of the cites mention but I did not). I didn't even call them entertainers which is what many of them did at the event, I simply called them presenters/guests/hosts, etc. Seems to be a motive to sabotage/suppress this acceptable information for some reason (either I take it personal or it is replaced since there is no clear violation, some editor's personal preferences aside).74.62.92.20 (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again reverted this as it does not explain why this is significant and appears to be a random listing of visitors and rather spammy. You are on the 3rd revert on this but if you can write something other then a list of why this is significant please revert and reference this section correctly, I personally will not consider that an edit war or violation of 3rr as it will likely be better explained. I will review in a few hours. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter as I was only fixing a problem that existed, and in the process two other editors made it worse. I'm not so proud that I have to get my way. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to help you remember your edits so there is no confusion about why I said you were at 3 reverts. 
#[] Undid revision 584694496 by The Banner (talk) updated; counterproductive: this is common in many Wikipedia articles and certainly relevant in context; discuss on talk page 1st before reverting
#[] replaced good faith contribution with editing and responded on the talk pages for the prior editor to properly handle dispute resolutions and avoid three reverts)
#[]replaced content; still in dispute/discussion and the reason for removing is not accurate; info is sourced and allowed on other related articles
Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace content in article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Country Club Plaza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101127163338/http://www.kansascity.com:80/2010/11/23/2465546/lights-fireworks-and-music-kc.html to http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/23/2465546/lights-fireworks-and-music-kc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101202070540/http://www.kansascity.com:80/2010/11/25/2471885/thousands-on-the-plaza-for-annual.html to http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/25/2471885/thousands-on-the-plaza-for-annual.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Country Club Plaza. 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/20101003122229/http://www.kctv5.com/news/21585817/detail.html to http://www.kctv5.com/news/21585817/detail.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Country Club Plaza. 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/20120213111708/http://retailtrafficmag.com/mag/retail_nichols_folly/ to http://retailtrafficmag.com/mag/retail_nichols_folly/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310002807/http://www.kcpl.com/community/commun_plazalights.html to http://www.kcpl.com/community/commun_plazalights.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: St. John is no longer on the plaza also TIVOL (a family owned and operated 110 year old business) should definitely be included on this list of current high-end tenants. 4.53.38.34 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KRtau16 (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020