Talk:Atria Watford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Improving the Page[edit]

Does anybody have any more photos or information they can add to the page to help improve it to above 'Start Class'. Thanks very much. George5210 (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says that there are over 17 million visitors to The Harlequin, Watford each year, but surely this is not corract as this would equate to roughly 46,000 people per day visiting the shopping centre (on average). It seems to me as though this information needs revising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.16.5.254 (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of maintenance tag, without addressing problem[edit]

The tag that says "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." has been in use for years in the Project. It is not unclear. It is totally acceptable. There is no requirement for multiple tags within the article -- just reference each non-RS-referenced statement. As was previously explained. Despite this explanation, and editor has now twice removed it. Continued removal of the maintenance templates, as here, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing and lead to blocks. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another editor has said that the tag is unclear.  Therefore there is no consensus that it is clear.  You have started a discussion here, which would be good except that you have also restored your preferred version of the Article.  Are you willing to self-revert to show your willingness to discuss?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A third party has restored a stable version of the article, so we can begin to discuss.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No other editor said the tag was unclear. That's untrue. Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An editor told you that the tag was not clear.  The point remains.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor did not say the tag was not clear. Only you did. And why you think this tag -- used in 10,000 other articles -- is unclear, escapes me. But, still, I communicated to you in multiple edit summaries and talk page posts what was meant -- it refers to all text not supported by RS refs. Despite explanation, you continued deleting. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said that the tag was unclear.  The fact that I referred to myself in the third person does not change the point, which is that you knew that an editor had said that the tag was unclear.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute about the section title[edit]

  • You have now also created a dispute about what is a neutral title for this section.  You seem to think as per the template on my talk page marked "Final warning" that you are the owner of this talk page section title.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characterizing this case as a removal is a mischaracterization.  There has never been consensus at this article to emplace a banner refimprove tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title you have picked is not neutral for a second reason, which is the claim that the problem has not been addressed.  The first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem.  It should go without saying that problems that have not been identified cannot be addressed.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TPG states, "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., ...less one-sided..."  Unscintillating (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title I placed, "Maintenance tag(s)" is a neutral title, as per WP:TPG.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue I am raising is the removal of the tags, repeatedly. If you want to raise a different issue, go ahead. In a post of your own. Please stop refactoring my talkpage comment, however. In light of the above, and the background and discussion here, this seems quite tendentious of you. Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a new subsection discussion about something that was sufficiently important to you that you templated my talk page.  I have quoted to you from WP:TPG, but you are holding on to what I believe to be non-neutral language; and claiming ownership of a section title, calling the section header "my talkpage comment".  Unscintillating (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a third opinion.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Harlequin Shopping Centre and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. @Unscintillating: below, you state: "WP:V requires verifiability, not references." However, WP:V also states, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." (my emphasis)

Pretty obviously, the article contains several facts not supported by citations, both in the earlier part of the History section, and in the lead section, which is not yet a summary of the contents of the rest of the article, but contains material not found elsewhere in the article. Thus the need to provide more citations exists in both sections. There is no requirement to forego the use of {{ref improve}} in favour of {{refimprove section}} or inline {{cn}} tags. The meaning of refimprove is perfectly clear. It asks editors to add citations for uncited statements in the article. IMO it fits the present case very well.

Thanks to the two editors who have been working on cleaning up the article today. More is still needed, though. The list of retailers can easily be sourced from the intu.co.uk web site, which has a page with a complete list, and this should urgently be done because listing a few without linking to the full list could be said to be invidious, if encyclopedic at all. (Note also that it is liable to become outdated). I haven't seen anything about the older history, but that obviously needs citations too. Stfg (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out to me that the 3O request related to the title of the main section, not to the question of the use of Refimprove, and that the latter question is already being discussed elsewhere, therefore is not a candidate for 3O. That is correct. As I am now somewhat involved, I have restored the request at WP:3O and asked that another volunteer respond to it. --Stfg (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More on an uninvolved third party's view on this can be found in the discussion here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: I understand Unscintillating's point about neutrality. However, I think the section heading as it stands is a fair reflection of the issue under discussion. A maintenance tag was removed; no other edit to the article was performed by the editor removing the tag; it is acknowledged by both parties (I think) that there was a lack of citations in the article. Therefore the tag was removed without addressing the problem. There is now a separate section below for discussion of the relative merits of "citation needed" and "refimprove" tags, so there is only one topic of discussion in this one. There is nothing inherently wrong with the alternative section heading: had I been in Epeefleche's place, I would not have reverted the change. But he reverted it, and in my opinion the original (and current) heading ought to stand. Scolaire (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

Discussion about adding Template:ref improve in preference to inline cn tags[edit]

An editor has proposed adding a banner Template:ref improve tag, in preference to inline Template:Citation needed (Template:cn) tags.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A key property of maintenance tags is that they be actionable.  If they are not actionable, they should be promptly removed before any claim can be made that their presence on the article has consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear in this case what action a ref-improve banner tag would elicit.  Is there material that is not referenced?  What is the material that is not referenced?  Is there material that is subject to being removed?  What is the material that is subject to being removed?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the concept of general references, which when used do not have inline citations.  It is not clear whether the references already in the article suffice as general references.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V requires verifiability, not references.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MINREF identifies four types of material that require references.  WP:MINREF states, "Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references." FYI, there was a recent RfC at AfC regarding MINREF at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 2#RFC on the application of WP:MINREF to Articles for creation.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, inline cn tags are actionable.  People have a reasonable idea that on a one-to-one basis, a cn tag can be replaced with an inline citation.  People have a reasonable idea what material to remove if enough time has passed that WP:BURDEN applies.  Inline cn tags are explicitly mentioned at WP:MINREF.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also a ref improve tag for sections, Template:Refimprove section.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unscintillating -- you've now twice removed an appropriate tag, without any appropriate reason. And a fellow editor has tag-teamed the deletion -- again without any appropriate reason. The tag that says "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." has been in use for years in the Project. It is not unclear. It is totally acceptable. There is no requirement for multiple tags within the article. You can just reference each non-RS-referenced statement, and then remove the tag. As was previously explained. Three times. Despite this explanation, you have now twice removed it. Continued removal of the maintenance templates, as here, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing and lead to blocks. Epeefleche (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were told that your tag was not clear.  You perhaps felt that it was clear, but since an editor had said that it was not clear, that was when you should have stopped acting as if it remained clear.  You continue to ignore the fact that no one is or has been stopping you from adding Template:CN and refimprovesection tags.  With the several references already present in the article, there was never a single case you identified that needed additional references.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Broadmarsh which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name?[edit]

Anyone know why it's called this? Blythwood (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harlequin Shopping Centre. 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: 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) 07:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atria_Watford&oldid=1199163356"