Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shopping Centers/Archive Apr 2007
List of distressed shopping malls
editList of distressed shopping malls has no criteria. Apparently any mall that isn't dead qualifies. Without a clear definition the list should be deleted. -Will Beback 00:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was the byproduct of an earlier AfD, back when that list was called "List of dead and distressed shopping malls". We separated out the defunct from the "distressed", leaving this "distressed" list ready for what have you. If the list can be given some objective criteria, then great. But otherwise, I agree with you that the list doesn't mean much. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- An objective criteria might be established, like "majority of anchor stores vacant", but it'd be so hard to maintain and verify as to be unencyclopedic. Tenants come and go. A "dead mall" is closed outright, but a "distressed mall" may recover. I suggest that we delete the list outright. Maybe someone can check if any have become "dead" since the last revision. Overall, it is not the job of Wikipedia to record up-to-the minute commercial information. We should be slow to call any enterprise "distressed" or "dead". -Will Beback 09:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Even "majority of anchor stores vacant" doesn't necessarily make for a good "distressed" criteria, as some have all their anchors or are only missing one anchor but have very little in between those anchors. I also agree with you that Wikipedia's not the place for "breaking news" on commercial ventures, and also very careful about calling a mall "distressed". I think an AfD may be appropriate now that we've filtered out the defunct from the distressed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- An objective criteria might be established, like "majority of anchor stores vacant", but it'd be so hard to maintain and verify as to be unencyclopedic. Tenants come and go. A "dead mall" is closed outright, but a "distressed mall" may recover. I suggest that we delete the list outright. Maybe someone can check if any have become "dead" since the last revision. Overall, it is not the job of Wikipedia to record up-to-the minute commercial information. We should be slow to call any enterprise "distressed" or "dead". -Will Beback 09:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a great project
editI came across this by accident, but I have to say that I'm very impressed. This is exactly the sort of thing I love seeing on Wikipedia: fascinating niche topics that simply wouldn't be examined by any other mainstream reference. I don't know anything about the topic, but if there's any sort of non-specialty stuff that needs to be done- copy-editing or such- please let me know. Stilgar135 22:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- We really do need to come up with a to-do list for the project, so that way we can give some more guidance to participants. Also, thank you for your kind words. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Project Directory
editHello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
- User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
- User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
- User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
- User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Article Updates
editThis is a great project, and I'm glad it's here. I saw that the article on Regency Mall (Augusta, GA) needed some TLC...but what started out as a little rework turned into a significant overhaul with a good bit of new information. I've had access to the Augusta newspaper archives the last few weeks, and have been doing some research as I've had time. I hope it'll be a worthy contribution. I do research and editing as part of my work, so I'll be happy to help the project as needed. Thanks! Ea757grrl 18:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
New proposed project
editOn the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page there now is a new proposed project dealing with Malls in general. Would the members of this group be interested in merging with such a project, or possibly changing their name to expand to all malls in general? There probably aren't enough editors to be able to effectively have two separate projects going relating to the same general field, so some sort of sub-project arrangement or merger might be best. Badbilltucker 15:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you that two projects could become problematic. And that goes beyond just user counts for two separate projects. It could also be problematic in maintaining a distinction. For instance, if a mall were to close, does it jump projects? In the interest of keeping things simple, I'd just expand the scope of this project to cover shopping centers in general, dead or otherwise. We could rename it to WikiProject Shopping Centers, and really run it like a big-time WikiProject. So basically, no need for a new project - just drastically expand and revise this one to make it into a project about malls in general. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Day Awards
editHello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afriad) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 15:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Western Hills Mall removed
editI've removed Western Hills Mall in Fairfield, Alabama (suburban Birmingham) from the DeadMalls WikiProject, since the mall has been effectively resurrected — it was never really dead, and was only marginally distressed — since the opening of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter and the coming opening of a Burlington Coat Factory. Is there a project for resurrected malls? :-) Realkyhick 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Deletionism
editShopping malls are the subject of deletionism, often under the assertion of "non-notability". I have restored a few I thought were wrongly deleted. Clearly, the assertions in the articles need sources and should establish notability, however, someone should be watching the mall articles and helping to fight the deletionists. I believe any significantly sized mall is inherently notable, and will also meet the criterial of WP:CORP in that they will have articles about them in regional newspapers, but this needs to be documented. dml 10:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- This comment clears up for me the motivation behind the restoration of MacDade Mall. Unless you are aware of some policy that I am not, it seems highly inappropriate to restore material deleted pursuant to AfD and DRV processes without review. It's a pity you see Wikipedia as fertile territory for a "fight" and not collaboration. I invite you to discuss this matter with me and with the admins I will now be contacting for guidance to determine what should happen now that you have taken this unilateral action. Erechtheus 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- MacDade Mall is now at WP:DRV. If you think an AfD was in error, bring it up at deletion review. If you can't abide by our processes, give up your admin bit. You're admin on behalf of Wikipedia, not on behalf of a Wikiproject or a Wikiphilosophy. ~ trialsanderrors 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Process is fine, though it changes, so keeping up with new processes that are at heart essentially destructive (deletion) isn't obvious if you don't subscribe to the underlying part about deleting perfectly good topics for non-policy fundamentally aesthetic reasons (e.g. I don't like articles on shopping malls or high schools or whatever) and focus your attentions on creation. Deletion review used to be about undeleting articles from deletion-mad wikipedians, not redeleting them. And of course wikipedia is designed for unilateral action, any edit is inherently unilateral, the judgment of an individual, Be Bold and all that. dml 22:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Other than this makes no sense, you're clearly a year behind the development of policies. Lack of sourced claim of notability is behind 80% of the deletions at AfD. If you have a problem with it, hand in your admin bit and act as normal editor. As long as you're acting as an admin, stick to procedures. Nothing worse than admins who think they can use their admin privileges to push their own agenda. ~ trialsanderrors 00:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was also behind on the trend of increasing WP:RS standards at AFD/DRV, but I'm back up to speed now. In general I think it's a good trend. As for these malls of borderline notability (defunct or otherwise), I think most of them can be merged to the parent locality (per WP:LOCAL) to avoid deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:57Z
- Other than this makes no sense, you're clearly a year behind the development of policies. Lack of sourced claim of notability is behind 80% of the deletions at AfD. If you have a problem with it, hand in your admin bit and act as normal editor. As long as you're acting as an admin, stick to procedures. Nothing worse than admins who think they can use their admin privileges to push their own agenda. ~ trialsanderrors 00:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Process is fine, though it changes, so keeping up with new processes that are at heart essentially destructive (deletion) isn't obvious if you don't subscribe to the underlying part about deleting perfectly good topics for non-policy fundamentally aesthetic reasons (e.g. I don't like articles on shopping malls or high schools or whatever) and focus your attentions on creation. Deletion review used to be about undeleting articles from deletion-mad wikipedians, not redeleting them. And of course wikipedia is designed for unilateral action, any edit is inherently unilateral, the judgment of an individual, Be Bold and all that. dml 22:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've started a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/Listings of former locations concerning articles about defunct and existing retail chains, and how store listings should appear on Wikipedia. I believe an MOS needs to be established for such listings, because there is no standard currently, and MediaWiki has been improved greatly since these listings were initially made (especially with 1.9). I am posting this here (instead of spamming everyone) because I've noticed many Wikipedians who maintain these lists are members of WikiProject Dead Malls. In addition, many of these lists I'm referring to exist on articles about defunct department store mall anchors. Thanks in advance :-) Regards, Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)