Talk:Drake Circus (traffic junction)

message: This article was 10 minutes old when somebody applied a speedy deletion tag. The historical references to the Drake Circus area including over 3000 historical references from local government archives had been vandalsied on an article that was similar and previosuly deleted.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 12:48, 12 November 2007
:It would help if you could explain how this version differs from the one that was already decided to be deleted as per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus. DoubleBlue (Talk) 12:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment above referred to a previous version of the article, which was deleted or moved. doncram (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether to delete 

message: ===New article about the place===
I opened a new article about the place, to be separate from the article about the mall, in response to a posting at wp:ANI.  Immediately it was expanded considerably by an IP editor.  Probably that is fine, but I hope that this article won't be site of a new edit war.  I think there is room for an article about the place.  Please, this article and talk page should not be the place for discussion of the wikipedia-notability of the shopping mall, which is a different subject. doncram (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is somehow so contentious that someone over-rode my "hangon" request and deleted the material, again redirecting to the article about the shopping center.  I asked that the overrider comment here to explain their action, and hope that they will.  I'll begin drafting my suggested replacement article at Drake Circus/Temp.  Discussion to continue here, including suggestions for this draft replacement. doncram (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per previous AfD. I don't think anything has changed since then. If you can prove to me otherwise with reliable sources specificaly about Drake Circus then fine. Jolly Ω Janner 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Plymouth City Council website is an excellent source of information. Jolly Ω Janner 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: February 8, 2008 article and its speedy deletion

message: I opened a new article about the place, to be separate from the article about the mall, in response to a posting at wp:ANI.  Immediately it was expanded considerably by an IP editor.  Probably that is fine, but I hope that this article won't be site of a new edit war.  I think there is room for an article about the place.  Please, this article and talk page should not be the place for discussion of the wikipedia-notability of the shopping mall, which is a different subject. doncram (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New article about the place

message: The new article was tagged for speedy deletion and then it was reverted to being a redirect, seconds after i put in a "hangon" tag, with my reason: "I didn't know what i was getting into when I responded to request at wp:ANI, but i think it is appropriate to have an article about the place, separate from the article about the shopping mall. I have now seen the past AfD and other material. What was immediately added to the stub has problems / is substantially the same as before, but please allow me a day or two to try to create a more appropriate article."  I undid the reversion to redirect, and do ask for some time to fix this article.  I have read the past AfD and see both the legitimacy of deleting it then, and the way forward that several editors there would have allowed, for a different article.  I can't create the new article immediately, due to Wikipedia servers being weird now and my having to go do other stuff.
But, could everyone please stop for a day or two and let me try to form an acceptable article about the place.  Especially, to the IP editor and others who want there to be an article about the place, please stop editing this and allow me to try.  Your pasting in old text will just cause this article to be deleted, because it will appear to be substantially the same article as was covered in a legitimate AfD article that led to deletion.  Or at least it will complicate matters, and also lead to deletion.  I am going to put an "underconstruction" tag in the article and will indicate that i am done when i remove that tag. doncram (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is somehow so contentious that someone over-rode my "hangon" request and deleted the material, again redirecting to the article about the shopping center.  I asked that the overrider comment here to explain their action, and hope that they will.  I'll begin drafting my suggested replacement article at Drake Circus/Temp.  Discussion to continue here, including suggestions for this draft replacement. doncram (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per previous AfD. I don't think anything has changed since then. If you can prove to me otherwise with reliable sources specificaly about Drake Circus then fine. Jolly Ω Janner 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Plymouth City Council website is an excellent source of information. Jolly Ω Janner 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request hold on speedy deletion, and please stand down

message: *I tried drafting a UK place infobox, but I am not sure it adds significantly, and maybe it should not be added to the article.  Especially if it is regarded as an infobox only for populated settlements, which could not easily be defined for this location, as i am proposing the article.  Also i am having trouble getting the photo and caption to display. doncram (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the photo. The rest depends on deciding the above issue, I think. Infobox:Settlement might be an alternative.  —SMALLJIM  23:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I further reduced the text showing in the infobox, i think to the least it will allow, now.  As such, it just shows a link to UK list of places, and i guess that is okay.  Basically, i think the infobox doesn't add anything helpful though, beyond what just having a photo with a caption provides.  The location is not a "settlement", by my informal understanding of what that would be, by the way. doncram (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  says it can be used for "any subdivision below the level of a country". It has so many options that something is bound to fit!  —SMALLJIM  17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Given that the mall is in Plymouth and both considered meanings of "Drake Circus" are near to each other and in Plymouth and there are apparent official buildings and other entities that claim DC as their address but aren't in the mall, should the redirect point to the Plymouth page instead of the mall page? Maybe even have a section about his part of town, discussing the historical vs recent revival projects. That means we don't need to establish total stand-alone notability for the location, which appears to be primarily as a container for other notable things (buildings, historical events, etc) but can put a few sentences about them in their historical, geographical, political context in that article. DMacks (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds more and more reasonable to me.  "Drake Circus" could be a disambiguation page, pointing to the section in the Plymouth article as well as pointing to the article about the mall, and perhaps to the song of the same name. doncram (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Blah blah blah. Read the Wikipedia policies. One, WP:SPAM. two, WP:OWN. If the area was called Drake Circus before you built your mall, then you don't own the name 'Drake Circus', you named the mall after the place. ThuranX (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely put, ThuranX. And to expand on the trademark comment, given that the proposed article on Drake Circus has nothing whatsoever to do with shopping, it can hardly be argued that a new article will infringe on trademark. —C.Fred (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors should note that there is a history of attempted Joe jobbing of the mall staff on this article. See the blacklist archives. - MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i doubt the Znette comment is real one, it smells like a fake posed to attempt to drum up controversy, to me.  Anyhow this new discussion about the mall is irrelevant here, it may be relevant to the separate article Drake Circus Shopping Centre, not to this page. doncram (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - what's been going on here, then?! The above "blah" is based on this ciao review with added ranting. Probably violates Ciao's copyright, but our vandal doesn't bother about things like that—yes, of course it's the same person who's appeared under many guises since User:Yiwentang. Just look at some of those early contribs (this and this, for instance) and apply the duck test. I'd say there's strong evidence that points to a distinct COI issue that has been missed up to now, as well.  —SMALLJIM  21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative idea 

message: -If the disruptive students want their little piece of history that’s fine with us so long as it is confined to the name of whatever is the subject matter of that history – so with the bomb shelter it could be indexed under bomb shelter – Plymouth – there is no need to mention Drake Circus which in any event is our trademark name. 
For those who are bombastic and arrogant to banter our name around they would do well to remember that we have not consented to the use of our trademark outside the context of promoting our mall. 
I hope this clarifies the position and puts an end to the ridiculous campaign to remove or vandalize our article.Znette (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Blah blah blah. Read the Wikipedia policies. One, WP:SPAM. two, WP:OWN. If the area was called Drake Circus before you built your mall, then you don't own the name 'Drake Circus', you named the mall after the place. ThuranX (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely put, ThuranX. And to expand on the trademark comment, given that the proposed article on Drake Circus has nothing whatsoever to do with shopping, it can hardly be argued that a new article will infringe on trademark. —C.Fred (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors should note that there is a history of attempted Joe jobbing of the mall staff on this article. See the blacklist archives. - MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i doubt the Znette comment is real one, it smells like a fake posed to attempt to drum up controversy, to me.  Anyhow this new discussion about the mall is irrelevant here, it may be relevant to the separate article Drake Circus Shopping Centre, not to this page. doncram (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - what's been going on here, then?! The above "blah" is based on this ciao review with added ranting. Probably violates Ciao's copyright, but our vandal doesn't bother about things like that—yes, of course it's the same person who's appeared under many guises since User:Yiwentang. Just look at some of those early contribs (this and this, for instance) and apply the duck test. I'd say there's strong evidence that points to a distinct COI issue that has been missed up to now, as well.  —SMALLJIM  21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: Just to let you know that Drake circus (without a capital c) redirects to the article on the shopping centre. Jolly Ω Janner 16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Offhand, Drake circus should redirect to Drake Circus.  Unless Drake Circus redirects to the shopping centre, in which case Drake circus should also (avoiding a double redirect).  This is a side issue, though, whose resolution will be obvious once something gets settled on an article for the Drake Circus location. doncram (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drake circus 

message: I think the silence that has descended here shows this has been satisfactorily resolved. Drake Circus is now a disambiguation page directing readers to Drake (ward) and Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Drake (ward) includes, and expands on, the information that was in the disputed Drake Circus article, most recently worked on by doncram at Drake Circus/Temp. I asked doncram what he wanted to do with this piece of work, but had no reply.
So to tidy up I'll delete Drake Circus/Temp in the next day or so (under WP:CSD G6), unless anyone can provide good reasons why I shouldn't. Thanks are due to doncram for taking the initiative to resolve this issue.  —SMALLJIM  16:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry i didn't get back to you sooner.  I'm okay with that Temp page being deleted now.  I saved a copy, anyhow, in my user space.  I just revised the disambiguation page in a small way, too, to provide mention of Drake Circus the former traffic circle, hope that is okay though it may need tidying.  Thanks. doncram (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. It's gone.  —SMALLJIM  11:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to tidy up 

message: I was browsing Google Earth today and viewed its historical satellite photos. There is a satellite photo from 31 December 2001 and an enhanced version of that photpgraph dated 31 December 2002. It shows the old Drake Circus Shopping Centre and the grotesque car park. The Drake Circus junction itself is acutally a round-a-bout with a wide more proper road (Cornwall Street) connecting to it. Might be interesting to view it. Jolly Ω Janner 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite imagery