Talk:Broadmarsh

Merge Zumo here...

Uhm, I'm not sure whether Zumo is deservant of it's own section here. Seems a bit superfluous for a juice bar, which is hardly the star of the centre anyway! WillPS 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Westfield Group logo.svg

The image Image:The Westfield Group logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 15:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

---

• Broadmarsh → Intu Broadmarsh
• The Glades (Bromley) → Intu Bromley
• Chapelfield → Intu Chapelfield
• Eldon Square Shopping Centre → Intu Eldon Square
• Merry Hill Shopping Centre → Intu Merry Hill
• MetroCentre (shopping centre) → Intu Metrocentre
• Potteries Shopping Centre → Intu Potteries
• The Chimes, Uxbridge → Intu Uxbridge
• Victoria Centre, Nottingham → Intu Victoria Centre
• Harlequin Shopping Centre → Intu Watford

– The centres have all been renamed under the Intu brand since 2013, and currently we have a bit of a patchwork in terms of identification for readers. We use the original names for each centre, except for Intu Derby which was acquired most recently by Intu and its article renamed accordingly, but use the new Intu logos and refer to the centres by their new names. With the exception of Lakeside and the Trafford Centre, I have listed the remaining articles as they should now be renamed to fit with their new name and branding, which is fast approaching being two years old now. Midsummer Place is a different story as it refers to two separately run but connected centres and Braehead covers a larger site. I think now is the time to simplify our coverage of the Intu group of centres. Cloudbound (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for all of them as per WP:COMMONNAME. Example Intu MetroCentre shows 162,000 hits, MetroCentre shows 550,000 hits. I daresay we will have to change them all over at some stage but for all of them Google is showing that stage is not just yet.--5 albert square (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per 5 albert square and for all of them. A pox on this corporate branding.Charles (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. For example, the Rose Bowl is at its common name and not the Ageas Bowl. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment "MetroCentre" is a very bad example to hang your hat on, since there are many different MetroCenter/MetroCentre-s in the world, if you're trying to determine usage. Indeed, we have many MetroCentre articles on Wikipedia already. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I was using the MetroCentre as an example because it's the one page I watch. Even if you take the MetroCentre out of the equasion, the rest of them are all getting more hits on Google without the Intu. To use another example then Victoria Centre, Nottingham gets 1,520,000, Intu Victoria Centre gets 126,000--5 albert square (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - and didn't Broadmarsh exist before The Broadmarsh Centre was built there? Likewise why is Chapelfield Shopping Centre in Norwich sitting over a dab with Chapelfield in Radcliffe, Greater Manchester? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Since there's been so much crap with this whole naming issue I applaud the nom for seeking a wider audience, I agree with everyone above tho that for the moment the names are far more known than the Intu names so thus per COMMONNAME shouldn't be moved. –Davey2010^Talk 02:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would be a blatant move to WP:OFFICIALNAME over WP:COMMONNAME. Zarcadia (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Westfield Derby which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broadmarsh. 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/20080813093435/http://westfield.com:80/broadmarsh/ourstores/ to http://www.westfield.com/broadmarsh/ourstores
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.shoppinginnottingham.co.uk/Broadmarsh

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Broadmarsh. 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/20120115234438/http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Westfield-sell-Broadmarsh-Centre/story-13808055-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Westfield-sell-Broadmarsh-Centre/story-13808055-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150718151616/http://www.nottinghampost.com/Caves-leisure-new-look-Broadmarsh/story-26292069-detail/story.html to http://www.nottinghampost.com/Caves-leisure-new-look-Broadmarsh/story-26292069-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversial bus lane

I have written a new sub-section with references from Nottingham Post and BBC News arranged chronologically from April 2021/October 2021/December 2021/March 2022. The BBC website article was written by the TV presenter, with the news feature appearing on regional BBC TV news in March 2022. Another ref I chose to omit was Daily Express, picked up from, and with acknowledgement to, Nottingham Post.

Recently, an American editor has deleted references I added from an English stately home article, shouting WP:OVERCITE; the refs were from Derbyshire Times, Derby Telegraph and BBC News, arranged chronologically from January 2021 to March 2022. Three from five were deleted, which I have reverted as vandalism and mis-application of WP:OVERCITE, which is an essay, not Policy or Guideline, intended for relation to mediocre refs. The stately home feature has also been covered in BBC local TV News, including an interview with the owner.

Arranging references chronologically to show ongoing concern and importance (similar to notability) is something I strive for. If anyone has a problem with any content, it can be raised here, firstly, or at my Talk page. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)