Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shopping Centers/Archive May 2007

message: Has anyone given any thought in expanding the scope of this project?  With the ongoing development of notability guidelines on shopping centers, the idea came up about expanding this project to cover shopping centers in general.  This would involve a name change (WikiProject Shopping Centers), and bringing more articles into the fold.  Thoughts?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally got some interest in the change on Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers), and so here we are.  Hopefully this will be just what we need to kick-start this project again.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand the project? 

message: Yeah. We need to fix that. TenPoundHammer 23:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I just haven't done that yet.  I'll do that later this evening.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "importance" categories are redlinks

message: I've been going through some of the pages and adding ratings to them. We really need to get some of these articles up to GA or A status (maybe even FA); I'm sure many of them are worthy candidates. TenPoundHammer 12:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're doing that, great.  I've been adding headers to talk pages using AWB.  I'm presently stalled on that, though, because I had my userid changed (capitalized the "W"), and have to get reapproved.  But yeah, if we can get a few malls up to GA-class, that would be awesome.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It does, since it's still from the "dead malls" era.  I'm still going about using AWB to add headers at this point.  Perhaps you could try your hand at it?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings

message: I've tagged just about every article falling somewhere under :Category:Shopping malls with the  tag.  If anyone can think of any other articles that belong under the heading of our revamped WikiProject, please do mark them.
Also, should I tag the relevant category talk pages with the template as well?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't hurt. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 00:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging 

message: *1. How far has this got? Many examples worldwide? 2. What does 'anchored' mean near start of text? Not known to this English speaker/editor! - Tony in Devon  22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The project has got quite far, and there are quite a few international examples available. Check out :Category:Shopping centres in Australia for some examples from Australia. As for 'Anchored', you mean anchor in the context of anchor tenants. This is an internationally accepted term referring to the key tenants within each centre. Generally they will occupy a retail footprint within a centre no less than 1,500sqm and would include supermarkets, department or discount stores, or other major outlets including a cinema (if constructed as part of the centre's development). Hope this explains it for you. Thewinchester (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International examples? 

message: Some of the mall pages have entire tenant rosters. Is this appropriate? I would prefer a link to the mall website, as tenants turn over frequently and the main mall websites will provide better information. Plus this keeps the Wiki page more compact and organized. An example is Columbus City Center which I've been editing. akronpow 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that tenant rosters shouldn't be included, unless the mall in question doesn't have an official website. For instance, Rogers Plaza, the first mall in Grand Rapids, lacks a website, and it doesn't have a lot of stores (and thus, doesn't have a lot of turnover either), so I'm considering adding a directory to its page. TenPoundHammer 18:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just making a note - I did add a directory to the Rogers Plaza page. Like I said, there aren't a lot of tenants there, and the mall doesn't have an official website. The page still needs a bit of cleanup (in my opinion), but I think it's workable. TenPoundHammer 01:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that full tenant rosters are appropriate in any case.  By the reasoning applied by TenPoundHammer, Dixie Square Mall should get a full tenant roster because it has no official site.  I personally think that a full tenant roster is just too much.  I will, however, support the inclusion of a list of anchor stores, but I don't see the point to listing everything.  It's excessive.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally tenant rosters are entirely unnecessary. I don't think the first place people look to see what stores a mall has is Wikipedia. The tenant rosters make it seem like too much of an advertisement. By applying random criteria, such as the mall doesn't have a website thus we should list there tenants isn't really a good way to determine that kind of thing. I say it's either all or none, to adhere to neutrality and such. To be fair and neutral anyway. I mean, let's face it, most malls are just repeats of the same old stores, dressed with different names. Everyone knows what to expect at a mall. At dead malls even more so perhaps (nothing, that's why they're dead, people don't go there, if they did it wouldn't be dead). Anyway just my thoughts, not trying to slight anyone's ideas. I just think tenant lists are entriely unnecessary, I have thought that from the first mall related article I read, CherryVale Mall.  A mcmurray 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Having a full list of stores in unnecessary, and since mall stores change constantly, keeping an accurate list is not very likely.  It may be helpful to keep a list of principal stores and anchors.  Major stores usually define the character of a shopping center.--Janus657 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, let's say just anchors.  If you go down the "principal" road, then you get into NPOV issues about what makes a store "principal" and what doesn't.  And I don't want to go down that road.  We already have a nice article about anchor stores that neutrally lays out what that is, so it becomes a far better choice.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I see where you're going, and I like what I see.  I personally have no problems removing the lists of anchor stores for reasons of WP:NOT.  If any particular tenant becomes notable in the context of the particular shopping center, then great.  We discuss it.  If not, though, it stays out.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree about tenant lists, especially when the companies are linked, because more extensive linkspam cannot be imagined. But for many shopping centers, the main contents of the article is the coming and going of anchors.  If a store isn't notable for staying there, how does it become notable for leaving? DGG 05:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  But I would suggest that any article that consists mainly of the comings and goings of various retail banners is not a good article, as it likely hasn't established the notability of the shopping centre. It's essentially a tenant list in prose form.  Skeezix1000 19:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are.  Comings and goings of stores alone does not notability make.  I think that if that was all the article was about, I'd AFD it myself.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenant listing? 

message: Welcome to all my fellow shopping centre buffs. Only became aware of this project after someone placed the project infobox on a number of mall articles i've created or updated. I have updated the templates list for this project to include :Template:infobox shopping mall as there was no project base infobox listed, and this one should already contain the majority of the information needed for associated articles. The template talk page has also been tagged to link it back to the project. Thewinchester (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this template - Does anyone think that "anchors" would be better than just number of anchors? That way, there's a set place to list the actual anchors. TenPoundHammer 03:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Timing is everything TPH. I just made a post to the talk page regarding an idea I've been using sometime on a base structure for articles. Infoboxes are designed to be short, sharp, and simple pieces of information about the article subject. If you start listing the names of the anchor tenants there, it will just encourage truckloads of editing to the information - particularly since most people who are editing the articles don't follow a standard definition of what an anchor tenant is. I've spent countless hours correcting some of the shopping centre articles in my part of the world with people who can't understand the meaning of major retailers inside the shopping centre sample, let alone persisting in adding information which is not even confirmed to articles of centres under development (see prev. sample). I think it's best to just list the anchor tenants in the main article and save mucking around any further with what is essentially a good infobox. Thewinchester (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. I usually list "anchors" and "former anchors" at the bottom. I prefer to clearly delineate the former anchors, because it might be helpful for some people -- if they just casually glance through the article, they may not catch that such-and-such store used to be an anchor store there; but if they see it on the list, they can clearly tell... "Oh, Warren Mall used to have a JCPenney!". TenPoundHammer 04:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Former anchors is not something I've thought about much - suggestions perhaps to improve my suggested article template? Thewinchester (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, "precincts" seems a little unencyclopedic; I might remove the "transport" section, especially for more rural malls (e. g. Alpena Mall in my area). Otherwise, not bad. TenPoundHammer 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:infobox shopping mall]] 

message: I noticed there was a bit of a mention of article structure on the main page. For those who may be interested, I have a base article structure I've been using for Australian-based shopping centres for quite some time which is available at User:Thewinchester/Shopping centre base. An example of an article using this structure is available at Garden City, Booragoon. Would appreciate any comments as to how this might be improved. Thewinchester (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Major precincts" seems a little unencyclopedic. Otherwise, not a bad idea. TenPoundHammer 04:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unencyclopedic  in this case, because there's perhaps a little too much details; there are some where it might be notable. But I'm not sure it's a term we'd use in the US. DGG 04:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic article structure 

message: I was thinking that we should establish a guideline as to what constitutes an anchor and what doesn't. On Oakland Mall, one user keeps insisting that Steve & Barry's and Borders don't qualify as anchors; I say they do. Also, I've seen many mall pages list stores like Gap, Abercrombie & Fitch, Rainforest Café, etc. as anchors -- those are clearly non-anchors. What sort of criteria should we establish for anchor vs. non-anchor? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment is proof that we should skirt the "anchor" debate altogether and not list anchor stores in the articles at all.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Schumin.  As I said above, the only people who can list anchors with any reliability are persons who are privy to the sales figures and/or leasing strategies of the mall owners.  Unless the mall identifies its anchors publicly, it's all just speculation. Skeezix1000 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And speculation introduces problems with WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and I don't particularly want to go down that road...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's so wrong about listing anchors. Lots of malls identify them publicly. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 19:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a mall publishes a list of its anchors, and the list is fairly recent, then an article can make mention of the anchors because arguably the list can be properly sourced.  Otherwise, the list is just something someone made up.Skeezix1000 20:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I could see a problem there. Say that there are two malls that both have Barnes & Noble in them, but one says that their Barnes & Noble is an anchor, while the other one doesn't count that store as an anchor. A discrepancy could then arise as to whether or not B & N is a valid anchor at any mall. Maybe we could at least find a way to define what stores are not anchors? (For instance, stores such as Abercrombie & Fitch, Victoria's Secret, etc. aren't anchors by any definition.) Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in your example, we're in the clear.  We are citing it exactly as the mall gives it to us.  If Mall A says B&N is an anchor, we cite it as such, referencing the source.  If Mall B has a B&N but doesn't list it as an anchor (and lists other stores as anchors), then we list the anchors they've named, and cite it.  This follows WP:V (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, and keeps us out of trouble, because we're citing it exactly as the source says it.  Therefore, we're not personally giving any store preference over another, and dodging the question entirely about what makes a store an "anchor".  By this method, an anchor is whatever the particular mall considers an anchor, and we just defer to them.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, that if Mall A and Mall B both have B&N, but only Mall A calls it an anchor... then in Mall B's case, more than one source could be used to denote anchors (i. e. one source may say that Mall B is anchored by B&N, even though Mall B's webpage doesn't call that store an anchor). Or just decide that all big-box bookstores (B&N, Borders, Books-a-Million) are anchors by default... which brings me to my next discussion below. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 01:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I've said before, I see this as going down a road that I don't think we want to go down, because our determinations are not going to be backed by any sources.  For instance, there's a Books-A-Million at Potomac Mills.  It's your typical BAM store.  By your definition, it's an anchor.  But the Potomac Mills location is not in an anchor-type location (it's in the middle of Neighborhood 4, if not mistaken), and it has no outside entrance.  Does that constitute an anchor?  Like I said, it's a road that I don't think we want to go down.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Macy's stores at all four of the "Land" malls in Detroit (Northland, Southland, Eastland, Westland) are all in the middle of the mall instead of at the end of a hallway, and yet all four Macy's are considered anchors. Anchors don't have to be at the end of a concourse (another case in point: Boulevard Mall, where the JCPenney and Macy's Men's Store are on the side of a hallway). Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are proving my point time and again that this is not a road we want to go down...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally think that this is making things way more complicated than it needs to be.  Like I said, if the place notes what their anchors are, cite it, and source it.  If the place doesn't mention anchors, skip it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In practice, when you're actually at a mall, or looking at plans for one, how do you tell: you tell by location and layout. It's visible immediate from both the outside and the inside.  For a large mall, even a Borders can be in a relatively obscure place, or an Old Navy; a few by their nature must be anchors because they need the space, like Ikea.  it's not always exact.  DGG 10:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one way to properly identify an anchor store in compliance with Wikipedia policies -- because it is identified as such in a reliable source.  It is not up to us to come up with criteria; doing so violates WP:OR.  Although the criteria suggested above is thoughtful and obviously some time went into coming up with it, it is not our role as encyclopedia editors to "come up with a rubric" as to what constitutes an anchor or not.  It is really inappropriate for us to be making such determinations.  If the mall identifies a store as one of its anchors, then identify it as an anchor in the article.  If another reliable source identifies a store as one of a mall's anchors, and there is consensus that the source is in fact reliable, then identify the store as an anchor in the article.  Otherwise, we cannot identify that store as an anchor in the article, because it is mere speculation on our part. Skeezix1000 12:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, one thing that I think should be delineated (sp?) with anchors is: If it's an outparcel, it's not an anchor store, regardless. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That goes back to the original argument: That's making a determination that sounds like original research (a no-no).  Again, we need to defer to a source for anchors, though this whole discussion is really starting to make a strong case for why we should have no anchor list at all.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Makes sense.  Skeezix1000 12:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was able to find a good source for citing the anchors at Cincy Mills. Apparently, the only store they don't count as an anchor is Fashion Shops. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that when I was checking out the articles that SchuminWeb had cited.  Your source raises a good point -- up until now, we've been assuming that the most likely location of a reliable source for an anchor list would be the mall website, but in fact, the property profile on the corporate site of the mall owner is just as likely to contain an anchor list. Skeezix1000 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists (including lists of the largest tenants) in shopping centre articles (except in the circumstances described below).  It is appropriate, however, to include a link to the store directory on the centre’s website (if one exists) under the “External links” heading, where readers can refer to the store directory.  The text of the article should also refrain from mentioning specific tenants (current or former), unless such tenants are noteworthy in the context of that particular shopping centre, and the tenant references assist in establishing the notability of the centre.  For example, some references to tenants are encyclopaedic in nature and arguably merit inclusion in an article (e.g. “The ABC Centre contains the second largest IKEA store in the country” or  “H&M opened its first store in Western Canada in the XYZ Galleria”), whereas others are not (e.g. “A new Radio Shack store opened recently in the south part of the mall”).  Given their prominence within the shopping centre and the role they play in drawing customers, it is usually appropriate to mention or list the anchor stores in an article, as long as such stores are identified as anchors in a reliable source and the source is appropriately referenced. 
I'm not wed to this language, and all suggestions/comments would be appreciated.  Skeezix1000 13:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why link to the directory specifically on the EL section?  I'd say a link to the mall's official site is plenty, since many of them will rearrange their site at the drop of a hat, therefore breaking a link to an inside page.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Made the change.  Skeezix1000 11:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anchor stores has been used rather loosely, and some of the above discussion suggests that listing them may not be appropriate--what it really does is provide spam links for major merchandisers. Personally, I am undecided. DGG 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that the term anchor is used rather loosely and arbitrarily is the reason we are trying to come up with some sort of consensus.  The discussion above, to my mind, did not so much suggest that listing them may not be appropriate, but rather that listing them absent a reliable source was inappropriate.  If you disagree, I am very interested in your thoughts because absent us reaching a consensus, editors will continue to edit shopping centre articles to add listcruft tenant lists and anchor lists that they made up themselves.  Skeezix1000 11:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anchors and Tenant Lists

message: So for anchors, let's see if we can get a rough consensus.  Let's say that if and only if the mall itself lists the anchor tenants explicitly as anchor tenants, and if it is properly cited in the article, we will include it.  If it fails any one of these criteria, we don't include it.  Can I get a support or an oppose?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see a problem there. Say that there are two malls that both have Barnes & Noble in them, but one says that their Barnes & Noble is an anchor, while the other one doesn't count that store as an anchor. A discrepancy could then arise as to whether or not B & N is a valid anchor at any mall. Maybe we could at least find a way to define what stores are not anchors? (For instance, stores such as Abercrombie & Fitch, Victoria's Secret, etc. aren't anchors by any definition.) Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in your example, we're in the clear.  We are citing it exactly as the mall gives it to us.  If Mall A says B&N is an anchor, we cite it as such, referencing the source.  If Mall B has a B&N but doesn't list it as an anchor (and lists other stores as anchors), then we list the anchors they've named, and cite it.  This follows WP:V (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, and keeps us out of trouble, because we're citing it exactly as the source says it.  Therefore, we're not personally giving any store preference over another, and dodging the question entirely about what makes a store an "anchor".  By this method, an anchor is whatever the particular mall considers an anchor, and we just defer to them.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, that if Mall A and Mall B both have B&N, but only Mall A calls it an anchor... then in Mall B's case, more than one source could be used to denote anchors (i. e. one source may say that Mall B is anchored by B&N, even though Mall B's webpage doesn't call that store an anchor). Or just decide that all big-box bookstores (B&N, Borders, Books-a-Million) are anchors by default... which brings me to my next discussion below. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 01:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I've said before, I see this as going down a road that I don't think we want to go down, because our determinations are not going to be backed by any sources.  For instance, there's a Books-A-Million at Potomac Mills.  It's your typical BAM store.  By your definition, it's an anchor.  But the Potomac Mills location is not in an anchor-type location (it's in the middle of Neighborhood 4, if not mistaken), and it has no outside entrance.  Does that constitute an anchor?  Like I said, it's a road that I don't think we want to go down.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Macy's stores at all four of the "Land" malls in Detroit (Northland, Southland, Eastland, Westland) are all in the middle of the mall instead of at the end of a hallway, and yet all four Macy's are considered anchors. Anchors don't have to be at the end of a concourse (another case in point: Boulevard Mall, where the JCPenney and Macy's Men's Store are on the side of a hallway). Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are proving my point time and again that this is not a road we want to go down...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus? 

message: Regarding all the above, I'm trying to come up with a rubric that delineates what are and are not anchors for malls/strip malls. Keep in mind that this is far from complete; I'm just tossing around some ideas for now. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 01:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think that this is making things way more complicated than it needs to be.  Like I said, if the place notes what their anchors are, cite it, and source it.  If the place doesn't mention anchors, skip it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In practice, when you're actually at a mall, or looking at plans for one, how do you tell: you tell by location and layout. It's visible immediate from both the outside and the inside.  For a large mall, even a Borders can be in a relatively obscure place, or an Old Navy; a few by their nature must be anchors because they need the space, like Ikea.  it's not always exact.  DGG 10:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one way to properly identify an anchor store in compliance with Wikipedia policies -- because it is identified as such in a reliable source.  It is not up to us to come up with criteria; doing so violates WP:OR.  Although the criteria suggested above is thoughtful and obviously some time went into coming up with it, it is not our role as encyclopedia editors to "come up with a rubric" as to what constitutes an anchor or not.  It is really inappropriate for us to be making such determinations.  If the mall identifies a store as one of its anchors, then identify it as an anchor in the article.  If another reliable source identifies a store as one of a mall's anchors, and there is consensus that the source is in fact reliable, then identify the store as an anchor in the article.  Otherwise, we cannot identify that store as an anchor in the article, because it is mere speculation on our part. Skeezix1000 12:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, one thing that I think should be delineated (sp?) with anchors is: If it's an outparcel, it's not an anchor store, regardless. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That goes back to the original argument: That's making a determination that sounds like original research (a no-no).  Again, we need to defer to a source for anchors, though this whole discussion is really starting to make a strong case for why we should have no anchor list at all.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anchor or not?

message: I have implemented my suggestions into two articles in order to give us a real-life example of what I mean, so we can see what people think:
* Cincinnati Mills: The mall's Web site makes no indication of what constitutes an anchor store at their facility.  Therefore, the description of anchor stores was removed completely.
* Valley View Mall (Roanoke, Virginia): The mall's Web site specifically lists anchors as "major stores".  This list with that wording was replicated in the article, and cited using the  template.  One change from the previous list is that the mall considers Old Navy as an anchor store, while we previously did not.
Thoughts?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense.  Skeezix1000 12:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was able to find a good source for citing the anchors at Cincy Mills. Apparently, the only store they don't count as an anchor is Fashion Shops. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that when I was checking out the articles that SchuminWeb had cited.  Your source raises a good point -- up until now, we've been assuming that the most likely location of a reliable source for an anchor list would be the mall website, but in fact, the property profile on the corporate site of the mall owner is just as likely to contain an anchor list. Skeezix1000 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two testbed articles 

message: Based on the above discussion, as well as the earlier discussion on tenant lists, my thought is that we should draft a statement representing the consensus we hope to achieve.  I just took a crack at it, and came up with:
::Wikipedia is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists (including lists of the largest tenants) in shopping centre articles (except in the circumstances described below).  It is appropriate, however, to include a link to the store directory on the centre’s website (if one exists) under the “External links” heading, where readers can refer to the store directory.  The text of the article should also refrain from mentioning specific tenants (current or former), unless such tenants are noteworthy in the context of that particular shopping centre, and the tenant references assist in establishing the notability of the centre.  For example, some references to tenants are encyclopaedic in nature and arguably merit inclusion in an article (e.g. “The ABC Centre contains the second largest IKEA store in the country” or  “H&M opened its first store in Western Canada in the XYZ Galleria”), whereas others are not (e.g. “A new Radio Shack store opened recently in the south part of the mall”).  Given their prominence within the shopping centre and the role they play in drawing customers, it is usually appropriate to mention or list the anchor stores in an article, as long as such stores are identified as anchors in a reliable source and the source is appropriately referenced. 
I'm not wed to this language, and all suggestions/comments would be appreciated.  Skeezix1000 13:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why link to the directory specifically on the EL section?  I'd say a link to the mall's official site is plenty, since many of them will rearrange their site at the drop of a hat, therefore breaking a link to an inside page.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Made the change.  Skeezix1000 11:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anchor stores has been used rather loosely, and some of the above discussion suggests that listing them may not be appropriate--what it really does is provide spam links for major merchandisers. Personally, I am undecided. DGG 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that the term anchor is used rather loosely and arbitrarily is the reason we are trying to come up with some sort of consensus.  The discussion above, to my mind, did not so much suggest that listing them may not be appropriate, but rather that listing them absent a reliable source was inappropriate.  If you disagree, I am very interested in your thoughts because absent us reaching a consensus, editors will continue to edit shopping centre articles to add listcruft tenant lists and anchor lists that they made up themselves.  Skeezix1000 11:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft

message: I just created a new article on Wonderland Village, formerly known as Wonderland Mall, in Livonia, Michigan. I'd like to know what y'all think of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New mall article created 

message: Hi, as a keen watcher of Westfield Group articles, I was wondering how important Shopping Centre project people think the two list articles (Australia vs the world) are?
I was thinking low importance as they are only lists...?Garrie 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of lists