This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shopping Centers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of enclosed
shopping malls, outdoor shopping centers, and
dead malls on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Shopping CentersWikipedia:WikiProject Shopping CentersTemplate:WikiProject Shopping CentersShopping center articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
I will see if I can get us any third-party expertise to bear on the restoration of tenants in conflict with
WP:TENANTS -- which reflects the consensus of the relevant wikiproject. --
Epeefleche (
talk)
01:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)reply
We strive for uniformity in certain respects at the Project. And to not include cruft. Cruft is not as notable as notable material in the article, and distracts from the notable material, and uses up resources needlessly to reflect the non-notable material. The "what harm does it do" argument is as non-weighty here as it is with non-notable malls that are deleted. Even though they exist, and the articles are informative (albeit, about a non-notable mall). The general view is such information, though (if cited to an RS) is true, it may not be sufficiently notable to reflect in an article. You will note, looking at mall articles in general, that they do not usually reflect all tenants (though in some cases there might be hundreds of tenants), but rather just anchors. Which accords with the consensus of the wikiproject, which you edited against. --
Epeefleche (
talk)
04:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)reply
It seems to me that what you did was ask someone already knowing what the response would be. I've never known WikiProjects to act like policy dictators and it remains good sense to take pages case-by-case.
With that in mind, I don't find the sentences distracting and think the "uses up resources" argument is a non-starter in the context of a short stub like this. However, a list of seven for a small centre is perhaps crufty. Can we reduce it to three? FreshCo counts as an anchor and I find it useful to point out that that the McD's outparcel is a tenant, as people in the neighbourhood stopping by the page might not know that. Finally the Dollarama replacing the sports bar is in part the subject of one of the sources.
I have just modified one external link on
Galleria Shopping Centre (Toronto). 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.