Talk:Square One Shopping Centre

message: The Mississauga Central Lions Club has managed a large farmers market in the parking lots adjacent to Square One from 1975 through 2013. In 2014 the farmers market relocated to the parking lot at 3 Robert Speck Parkway, just one block east of Hurontario Street and renamed itself as The Mississauga Central Lions Club "Lions Farmers Market". Current details on the Lions Farmers Market may be found at http://LionsFarmersMkt.com. The Market is open from 8am - 4pm on Sundays, between early June and late October annually.  It remains one of the largest farmers markets in Ontario.  Over its history the market has been in five sites around Square One: first by Mississauga's first City Hall (demolished many years ago), then it was at the far north end of the Walmart Supercentre parking lot for many years, in 2006 it moved to the south side of the mall, to the parking lot adjacent to the Mississauga Civic Centre. For the 2007 season, the market was moved again, this time to a larger location at the northwest parking lot of the mall, near what was then the Zellers store which was taken over by Target (in 2013). The market was moved last in 2010 to the parking lot of the Cineplex Cinemas Mississauga (formerly Coliseum Mississauga) at 309 Rathburn Road West.
The IMG tag says screenshot of a webpage, but that implies the entire webpage, not a single photo from the mall's corporate site.  Cuz you're essentially taking the photo from the webpage and it's not necessarily fair use.
Gsingh (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  pasted from article page for future use 

message: I am a member of the AMA and I've been asked to take a look at this page and see if I can't resolve a conflcit invovling pictures.  Let me know if it is not too late or if you need assistance.  I am willing to be an informal mediator (try to help the aprties work out a deal) or an informal arbitrator (here evidence and offer my non-binding opinion).  I'd love to be able to help.  Just let me know.Gator (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to help 

message: Summary
Two users, Mb1000 and Madchester were engaged in a ongoing dispute regarding the proper placement and size of pictures in the Square One Shopping Centre article that had devolved into an edit war.  I was asked by Mb1000 to render a neutral opinion regarding two different page versions: , by Mb1000, versus Madchester's version at .  After  obtaining Manchester's consent I accepted the matter.
Policy/Source of Opinion:
Madchester has cited the Wiki-policy that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files as a source for his belief that the pictures, or the placement of those pictures by Mb1000 was inapprporiate.  He/she also argued that the artcile was too short to have three photos and that his compromsie solution involving a gallery of the excess two photos at the bottom of the article was a fair compromise given the length of the article.  Apart from the policy, I also based my third party neutral opinion off an examination of the two page versions in an attempt to determine whether one version was "cluttered" or whether, asthetically speaking, one version was more pleasing than the other.
Opinion:
It is my unbiased opinion that Mb1000's version of the page at   is superior.  I examined the policy cited by Madchester and believe that neither version of the page violates this policy. Madchester was concerned that the pictures clutter the text, but Mb1000's latest version seems to do no such thing.  In fact, in my opinion, the gallery version of the page seems rather awkward. 
While there are a large number of pictures for such a short article, Mb1000's placement of them as of December 16, 2005 at 03:50 is not, in my opinion, in violation of policy and is more pleasing to the eye.
Thus, the only really relevant criteria to make my determiantion was asthetics.  I understand that Madchester beleives that his/her version is superior, but, as a third party neutral, I was asked to give my neutral opinion as an uninvolved third-party.  In my opinion, Mb1000's version is more asthetically pleasing than the gallery compromise that Madchester has put forth.
Recommendations:
The one thing that struck me about this was that there was virtually no discussion of this issue on the article's talk page.  It was almost completely contained within Mb1000 and Manchester's respective talk pages.  I would recommend that debates concerning articles be kept within the article's talk page as much as possible so as to promote as much outside discussion and bring in as many outside opinions as possible.  I believe the edit war that developed here was largely do to this strategy of negotiation.  Further, I want to compliment Madchester for his compromise gallery proposal, as it helped ease tensions.
Please keep in mind that my opinion is based almost entirely on my personal fact finding and preferences and, as this opinion is in no way binding upon the parties, I can only hope my assistance in this matter helps to persuade the parties to put this behind them and move forward.  Thank you for your AMA request and please think of me if you need anything in the future.Gator (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMA Neutral's Opinion 

message: Upon review of Wikipedia:Images - Image choice and placement, it suggests that articles with more than one photo require a variety of text as a compliment.  Unless the article is substantially expanded, comme Toronto Eaton Centre, Mall of America, there really isn't a justification to crowd the article with so many photos. --Madchester 18:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed one image, as per Wikipedia:Images. Please provide a copyright source for the other image within the next seven days or else it will be tagged for deletion. Thank you. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again I have removed the image. As the article has not been expanded to the length where it can support more than two images, its presence is unnecessary. Perhaps it could be restored after significant improvement has been inflicted upon the article. Also, please provide copyright rationale for the first image, or it will be tagged for deletion in approximately one week. Thank you again. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright rationale confuses me; who created the actual image of the shopping centre? If someone does this, it does not grant them permission to sell or lease the image whatever way they want; the same with the images placed at Cool (song). Although they were uploaded by someone who took screen captions of them, they are not entitled to distribute them as pleased. Therefore, your images must contain fair use rationale. See the images at Cool (song) for an example. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I will be addressing this situation with User:Carnildo as your intolerance is becoming rather bothersome. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Then do not persist in placing the third image in the article. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Images]]

message: *How is the information in the article on the blackout relevant to Square One?  Thousands of malls had to be evacuated and were closed until the power supply was restored and reliable -- Square One is not unique whatsoever in this respect.  This section should really be deleted. Skeezix1000 14:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Mb1000 added those details to inflate the word count, and thus justify his decision to cram the page with 3 photos.  B/c at the moment, the page doesn't really follow Wikipedia:Images' guidelines. --Madchester 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with both User:Madchester and User:Skeezix1000. The information is certainly irrelevant, and was added to expand the article for the sake of the third image. I'm actually going to request for User:Carnildo to try and sort out this mess. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yet it isn't us who have materialised the mess. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Then beg. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blackout

message: Please see this page from Square One Shopping Centre's official website and it clearly states that Square One is the second largest mall in Canada. 
The following independent sources also agree:
*Mississauga welcome page from the Credit Valley Hospital
*Press release from menswear retailer Harry Rosen
--Mb1000 05:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Square One is the 2nd largest mall in Canada, not the third. 

message: There seem to be a number of different Wal-Marts that are claimed to be the biggest in the world.  A newspaper story about the one in Honolulu says it is 317,000  square feet, nearly 100,000 square feet bigger than the Square One location's reported size. Perhaps it was the largest in the world when it opened, but it no longer seems to hold that title. --Timminspress 19:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this claim refers to regular, non-Supercenter Wal-Mart's. --Mb1000 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A Wal-Mart by any other name... Brown168 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In retrospect, I agree with Mb1000 on this one. I was simply taking someone else's assertion that the Honolulu store was larger at face value. Upon quickly researching the store in question, yes, it does appear to be two separate entities in the same complex, one being a Sam's Club. Still, I find it hard to believe that with all the Wal-Mart stores built since, the Square One location is still the largest. Hopefully, you get a response from Wal-Mart head office. Brown168 02:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World's largest Wal-Mart? 

message: I have repeatedly removed the "See also" section and the internal link contained within it for the reason that the list to which it links is quite confusing and defective. As I mention on it's talk page, it does not set criteria properly. For example, the Toronto Eaton Centre is slightly larger than Square One by square footage, but has, at the least, 30 less retailers. It is only larger by square footage, not by number of stores. The list therefore should mention that it is a list of the largest Canadian malls by square footage. Therefore I will continue to revert these internal link additions to the Square One article until these issues have been addressed. In order to speed this process as much as possible, I will try to work on the list to make it compatable with reasonable quality standards. --Mb1000 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. One would almost think that Mb1000 works for Oxford or something. Brown168 10:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" section 

message: I have edited the article to remove the claim that Square One is the largest mall in Ontario. I feel this is justified, based on the points raised above about there being no one agreed upon measure of mall largeness. Square One may be largest in terms of number of stores (which, again, I don't feel is a measure of size) but it only second biggest when measured in terms of gross leasable area. If the claim was meant to be based on the fact that Square One has the largest total area (i.e. including corridors, food court space etc.) then this should be supported by some sort of sourced data.
Also, saying Square One is one of the largest malls in North America may be a bit of an overstatement, considering that it wouldn't even rank on this list of the 18 largest malls in America. One of the largest malls in Canada would be a more reasonable claim to make, but whatever. 
Plus, as long as I'm being pedantic about claims made in this article, an estimate of 20 minutes to drive from Square One to downtown Toronto strikes me a tad optimistic. Maybe if you hit nothing but green lights and there wasn't much traffic on the highway, but there are times when the mall is so busy that it can take five or ten minutes just to get out of the parking lot. Considering how widely driving times can vary, perhaps distance (28 km in this case) would be a better stat. Timminspress 06:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the largest in Ontario 

message: It can't truthfully be claimed that Square One (with 360 store) is the largest mall in Ontario based on number of stores, because the Pacific Mall in Markham has 400 stores.  Yet Pacific Mall has less than a fifth of Square One's gross leasable area.  I think that is a pretty clear example of why it makes no sense to measure the largeness of a mall based on the number of stores. It seems a bit crazy to say that a 270,000 square foot mall with a lot of very small stores and no major anchors is the largest mall in Ontario, but using the measure of most stores=biggest that's exactly what you would be saying. Timminspress 19:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Ontario mall with more stores 

message: I have removed the copyvio photos, as tagged by Carnildo.  There should be fair use alternatives available.  There are public domain photos of Yorkdale Shopping Centre and that is also owned and operated by Oxford Properties.  Similar situation for Scarborough Town Centre. --Madchester 19:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio photos

message: It seems like a bit of a stretch to say Square One is one of the biggest malls in North America. If you look at the list of the biggest malls in the U.S., there are at least 20 malls that are bigger, and the smallest of those is 1.8 million square feet, so there are probably a few more between that size and Square One. Not to mention the three malls in Canada that are bigger. 
So in short, its probably safe to say that Square One is probably somewhere in the top forty largest malls in North America, out of several thousand, which is impressive, but I don't know if it justifies say it's one of the largest. You might as well say that it's one of the largest in the world.
It's probably more accurate to say that it's one of the largest in Canada.
Timminspress 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hyperbole 

message: Free advertising?  None of these places are a part of Square One and the section should be removed. Coolbrook76 11:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entertainment / Restaurants (located on Rathburn Rd) 

message: The list of anchors does not appear to be referenced.  What reliable source(s) do we have showing these stores are anchor stores, as required by WP:V?  Otherwise it seems that the list is inappropriate WP:OR.  As for majors, what is a "major"?  Who determined the threshold between the so-called majors and "minors"?   This also seems like a lot of original research.  Absent some reliable sources, these lists should be deleted, in keeping with WP:ANCHORS (which itself simply refers back to WP:V and WP:OR).  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With some of them, at least, they're names that appear on the mall map itself, as opposed to only appearing in the mall unit listing, printed under the map.  --  Zanimum (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be as much a factor of size of the space as anything else.  That would be an exercise in WP:OR, making conclusions about the status of a store based on the manner in which its name is labelled on a map.  At best, it's a highly dubious source for the proposition that they are anchors and/or "majors".  Obviously, it would be fine if the map actually identified anchors and/or majors.  But absent that, or some other source, these lists ought to be deleted.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Four months later and it is still not properly referenced.  As per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:ANC, I'll remove the material, without prejudice to anyone who wants to reinsert it after properly referencing it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User:BouncyGlow has restored the listings, without any explanation other than a bizarre template on my talk page.  I have left BouncyGlow a message on her/his talk page noting her/his questionable use of the  template, and asking that (s)he provide some explanation as to how we can get around this WP:OR/WP:V problem (obviously, I would be delighted if BouncyGlow can provide the necessary sources, which would be great).  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: BouncyGlow left a kind note on my talk page sometime ago apologizing for his actions here.  As no one else has particpated for over a month, I will once again delete, without prejudice to anyone who wants to reinsert it after properly referencing it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Sigh.  BouncyGlow has added the tenant lists again, except that now (s)he has revised it to identify something which (s)he calls "major anchors".  Except for some bizarre edits summaries, he has not addressed any of the policy or consensus problems outlined above that I have been trying to deal with since August last year.  In the meantime, I will tag the problematic section and if (s)he wants to maintain the listings, I would ask that (s)he provide some solutions to the issues.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this, clearly labelled with anchor stores but soon to be outdated regarding Zellers/Target. I've updated the page. Mindmatrix 21:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic.  Thanks for that. It still leaves the problem of the food court list, though. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No response, so I have tagged the section in question as unencyclopedic, and I ask that someone address the issues I raised above.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections or comments, so I have deleted the food court directory.  I've left a couple of messages for Bouncy Glow over the past few months, asking him to comment if he has concerns, and he has not done so so he presumably concurs.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anchors and majors 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Square One 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mississauga.com/squareone/upperlevel.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified