Talk:Drake Circus Shopping Centre

"It is blatant spam and used to promote a commercial interest."

it is known as DrakeCircus shopping centre because it is next to the Drake Circus area. Maybe i should publish an article titled "Plymouth is Silverstall" or "London is Spud-u-like". lol

DrakeCircus shopping mall is no more notable than any other shop or shopping mall. It is blatant spam and used to promote a commercial interest. If you wish to state publicly that Drake Circus is purely a shopping mall and not an area or address of the university, museum and various other organizations, then you should be put on notice that they will institute legal proceedings against you for the considerable damage you are causing. For example every degree, be it Masters, Bachelor or Doctorate etc issued by the University refers on it to the registered address 'drake circus' If attempts to misrepresent that address by implying or expressing that it is purely a shopping centre then expect a class lawsuit against you and the editors and owners of Wikipedia in particular but not limited to, the lowering of the reputation of the University and the devaluation of the issued degrees. Moreover the businesses within that district have been associated with the name Drake Circus for over 160 years and to suggest otherwise is a blatant libel. You have been warned. Yiwentang 14:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)yiwenTang

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Drake_Circus"

I assume you will also be threatening the BBC, Plymouth City Council, ciaou.co.uk, Shopping-centre.co.uk, etc? Please read WP:LEGAL and follow the guidance there. --Smalljim 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike previous versions of this article at no stage have the BBC or the plymouth city council etc ever stated that Drake Circus was 'solely and exclusively' a shopping mall. Moreover all of them have acknowledged the existance of the shops that have been located in Drake Circus for the past 160 years. To suggest that Drake Circus is purely a shopping mall is both misleading and wholly inaccurate. To include a page on a group of shops whilst randomly excluding other shops or interests in that area is a violation of the Competition Acts. Moreover as the BBC own the Armada Shopping Centre they are only too well aware of the need to take action against those who continue to falsify facts for the commercial advantage of the Drakecircus shopping mall. There is no justification whatsoever in keeping a page on a specific shopping mall other than to promote the commercial interests of that shopping mall. May i suggest this matter is resolved by the deletion of both this page and the Drake Circus shopping centre page otherwise its inclusion (leaving all legal issues to one side) will permit any shop, retailer or other commercial interest to continue to spam this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.100.115 (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You may be right that the shopping mall is not notable. The correct procedure to follow if you think this is the case is at Wikipedia:Notability. Pending you doing this, I am reinstating the article. Further deletions of the content will probably be considered by others to constitute vandalism. --Smalljim 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We are all right behind you Yiwen. This is a blatant example of how spammers can infiltrate the Wickopedia network by becoming administrators or editors. Doubtless the article will be amended and replaced with the continued propaganda for a dying shopping mall at the expense of its more prosperous and academic neighbors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.157.81 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A few points:

1. Who are "we", IP?
2. Actually it's "Wikipedia".
3. It's not that easy for a spammer or anyone else to become an administrator, but you're welcome to give it a try. Meanwhile, spammers do indeed become editors. Indeed, all sorts of people do: the educated, the intelligent, the tired and emotional, the grossly immature, the deranged. (What else is new?)
4. In its present state, the article about this dreary-sounding mall hardly seems like "propaganda" for the mall.

If the article starts to sound propagandistic, you are as welcome as anybody else to question what it says and to make changes. While you are prevented from editing it, you can make suggestions in this talk page. If you believe that it is not notable and doesn't merit an article at all, you're free to argue this. If you further believe that mere size does not make shopping malls (even large and successful ones) notable, and that WP has a systematic bias towards big and/or bland retailers and/or buildings at the expense of aggregates of small and/or individual retailers and/or buildings (a point of view with which I have some sympathy), then you're free to argue that point as well. But mere bluster will get you nowhere. -- Hoary 02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

To suggest "drake circus is a shopping mall" is equivalent to saying "Seattle is a tower". Its absurd and neglects the 24,000 students, residents, shopkeepers, bar, night clubs etc that all live work and play in Drake Circus. It not only insults the culture of drake circus but Wikipedia itself for allowing such nonsense to be published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.168.157 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, and remember that putting them in bold makes the writer come off like a hectoring bore. -- Hoary 02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

" When that firm ceased trading in the UK the complex gradually became derelict."

err i am sure the silverstall would have something to say about this as i seem to remember that Drake Circus boomed once C&A moved out because they were replaced by a huge pound shop and Next clearance. picture of their shop in the old drake circus

"Drake Circus is a Shopping Centre" ROTFLOAM - it is known as DrakeCircus shopping centre because it is next to the Drake Circus area. Maybe i should publish an article titled "Plymouth is Silverstall" or "London is Spud-u-like". In any event why is there an article on Drake circus shopping centre in the first place? why not have an article on very single shop in the UK - it seems ridiculous to include. 86.146.137.148 11:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)resident of Drake Circus

Perhaps the raised blood pressure has prevented you from seeing that there are two articles. This one is specifically named Drake Circus Shopping Centre which refers directly to the shopping centre and another one Drake Circus which refers directly to the area. To me that differentiates one from the other. I fail to see what the argument is. ---- WebHamster 11:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"I fail to see what the argument is" so you think to call our university campus a shopping centre is accurate? The semantics are crucial as this artcile in its present form is equivalent to an artcile being titled "Stanford University is superdrug". I could not care less that you want to spam the encyclopedia with banal references to the shops you are so eager to publicise all i ask is that you do so without linking it to the University or Arts Centre area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.137.148 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are taking exception to use of "Drake Circus" in relation to the shopping centre? Perhaps you should be using your time to lobby the council and the local commerce bureau rather than attempting to disrupt WP. Are you saying that the Uni takes up all of "Drake Circus" or are you exaggerating to make a point? I still fail to see how an article on Wikipedia is going to make a difference one way or the other. Like it or not the shopping centre has ended up with the name, by design or evolution isn't important. You're stuck with it. I suggest you learn to live with it. The chances are it'll still be there when you've left Uni and gone on to bigger and better things. meanwhile I suggest you concentrate on things that are far more important, like avoiding being a graduate working at the Spud-U-Like you despise so much. ---- WebHamster 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Drake Circusis the only fully covered shopping centre in the South West. It creates and provides jobs for local people which generates income tax to support the students and their studies. Perhaps you should not bite the hand that feeds and remember that unlike the students we actually provide a service to the community. Our name was taken from the old shopping mall and it is what we are known by to the many thousands of happy returning customers. If you feel strongly about this issue then i suggest the university changes it campus name to something more appropiate such as 'Tax-drain' or 'loser-ville' Paulatdccom 12:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Paul Rich----

"drake circus is the only fully covered shopping centre in the south west"

mmm so the Armada Shopping Centre is really only a mirage and that large complex housing sainsburys et all is in fact a hologram?

"Perhaps you should not bite the hand"

Methinks with 27,000 students that is exactly what you have done. The socio-economic impact of plymouth university on the local economy is enormous. Every organization in every sector can benefit from tapping into the vast pool of knowledge and skills we have established here

Tax-drain

This derisory comment, like the article, is barely worthy of comment - suffice to say that with 4000 overseas students each generating an average fee income of £7,000 amounting to an estimated £28,000,000 per annum I think you will find it generates a little more than a few shops in your mall selling tacky Chinese imports, particulary when you factor in the remaining 23,000 students who it is estimated generate a further £115,000,000 into the local economy.

The Drake Circus area has deep historical and cultural links to the heritage of Plymouth and to state or imply that it is nothing more than a shopping mall emphasizes the ridicule previously directed at this mis-informed article.Plymouth City Museum & Art Gallery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.128.63 (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

--Spudulike--

Before i leave i could not help but observe the content on above the stub reads

"Spudulike is a British fast food franchise operation, begun in Edinburgh in 1974.It provides fresh and healthy food at a price which satisifes every budget and taste. The Plymouth store can be found at the DrakeCircus Shopping Centre, Charlotte Street, Plymouth, PL1 1EA Its product is baked potatoes (potatoes being known as 'spuds' in colloquial British English), with a wide range of fillings. Today it has a nationwide presence."

I see previous attempts to edit out the above content were blocked or removed by the same administrators who exercise their powers over this article. Out of interest could you enlighten others as to how this content improves or adds to their academic furtherance aside from stating the correct geographical location of the mall i.e Charlotte Street, (Bretonside). ... added by Special:Contributions/86.158.128.63

1. Please sign your comments (by hitting the "~" key four times in a row, and try to make them coherent. Before you save them, Show preview.
2. On this edit: No, this is not a blog. WP article talk pages work according to their own rules (amply explained elsewhere in this site), not according to blog conventions. -- Hoary 14:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment and apologies - my first time using this and i did say 'i'm not sure'. I think my point is made and i will leave it to the students union to address any further "pro-shopping centre -v- anti university" comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.128.63 (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the apologies. But get a grip, man. I had no idea what you were banging on about with the "Spudulike" stuff. This appears to be a junk food chain, and it has its own article. The article was indeed crap. I edited it accordingly. In principle, you could have done exactly what I did. But because you're new here, you probably don't know this "{{fact}}" stuff. Well then, you could have asked about what to do about that article on its own talk page.

You say i will leave it to the students union to address any further "pro-shopping centre -v- anti university" comments. That's not very clear but I think I get the general drift. If you make gratuitously rude comments about a shopping mall in your town and identify yourself as a student, it's hardly surprising that somebody identifying himself as related to that shopping mall will make gratuitously rude comments right back. Running off to the SU strikes me as pathetic ("I'll get my big brother to beat you up!"): the SU is probably got their hands full with regular SU concerns (like putting a happy, healthy PR face on selling lots of booze to students). More seriously, there is no reason to believe anyone's claims to speak for the SU (or for the shopping mall, or for any other organization), and a anything looking like a serious attempt to represent the SU (or the any other organization) is very likely to run afoul of various rules here about usernames and so forth. So all in all you'd be wasting your time.

Back to this shopping centre. If you think it doesn't merit an article, you can nominate the article for deletion. (You'll have to prepare meticulously and argue your case, but university students should relish the intellectual opportunity. See WP:AFD on how to go about it.) If you think the article needs revision, you have two options. Either you can get a username, wait a few days, and use it to do the job directly; or you can explain cogently on this page what it is that you want edited, and how you want it edited. Either way, you're going to have to be persuasive and scrupulous. These are, of course, skills that university students will have in abundance.

If on the other hand you merely want to blow raspberries at a shopping mall you don't like, or at its proprietors, staff or customers, please do this somewhere else, for example on your own website. This site is an attempt at an encyclopedia; it's not a soapbox.

Ditto for anyone aligned with the shopping centre. If you want to be rude about the university or its students, fine, go ahead and speak your mind -- but not on this website. -- Hoary 14:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoary|Hoary is speaking on behalf of Wikipedia and has stated "the SU is probably got their hands full with regular SU concerns (like putting a happy, healthy PR face on selling lots of booze to students)" Wikipedia has also gone on to state "This site is an attempt at an encyclopedia". Do you have the feintest notion of what the word 'encyclopedia' actaully means? The last time i checked it did not include a portal through which to direct insults at a students union.

"large C&A store. When that firm ceased trading in the UK the complex gradually became derelict."

LOL you mean when C&A went bust the popularity of the mall increased

"Drake Circus is a shopping centre in the centre of Plymouth"

Offensive and a blatant lie proved throughout countless references.

"If you think it doesn't merit an article, you can nominate the article for deletion"

From reading the history many people have tried however a certain few administrators keep removing the deletion tags and have now blocked the ability for anyone adversely affected by this offensive article from doing so.

"please do this somewhere else, for example on your own website. This site is an attempt at an encyclopedia; it's not a soapbox."

If you deleted the offensive and poisonous bile in this article then trust me none of us would be wasting our time here.

"Drake Circus was an Edwardian group of traditional shops"

LOL LOL - made me laugh as I looked out of the window of my Edwardian shop window this afternoon thinking how strange that I can see the drake circus medical school when this font of all knowledge states firstly it ‘was’ i.e. past tense blitzed in the war and secondly evidently it is a shopping centre and nothing else.

For the record I am one of the many small retailers in Drake Circus and I am not leaving either my name or my business name here because having witnessed what it has done to the malls reputation I do not want my goodwill also irreparably damaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.35.110 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoary|Hoary is speaking on behalf of Wikipedia / I hadn't realized this. I don't think that this is true. ¶ and has stated "the SU is probably got their hands full with regular SU concerns (like putting a happy, healthy PR face on selling lots of booze to students)" Wikipedia has also gone on to state "This site is an attempt at an encyclopedia". / No, it was me, and not Wikipedia, that stated the latter. ¶ Do you have the feintest notion of what the word 'encyclopedia' actaully means? / "Faintest"? Yes I do, actually. ¶ The last time i checked it did not include a portal through which to direct insults at a students union. / That is indeed true. Or to direct insults at a shopping mall. ¶ "Drake Circus is a shopping centre in the centre of Plymouth" Offensive and a blatant lie proved throughout countless references. / Hyperbole and bluster again. If something in an article is untrue, say so and give one or two credible references. ¶ "If you think it doesn't merit an article, you can nominate the article for deletion" / From reading the history many people have tried however a certain few administrators keep removing the deletion tags and have now blocked the ability for anyone adversely affected by this offensive article from doing so. / You clearly haven't taken the trouble to familiarize yourself with "WP:AFD". This is the only channel open for nominating this article for deletion, and as long as this link is red we know it has never been taken. Following it requires a lot more than applying a deletion template. Rise to the challenge, or at least stop moaning about your imagined impotence. (NB you'll have to read and think before nominating, if you want to succeed. "I don't like it", or variations thereof, will be laughed off.) Meanwhile, administrators have not blocked anyone's ability to edit this article. Anyone can get a username and wait a few days for it to mature. ¶ "please do this somewhere else, for example on your own website. This site is an attempt at an encyclopedia; it's not a soapbox." / If you deleted the offensive and poisonous bile in this article then trust me none of us would be wasting our time here. Explain concisely, coherently and persuasively just what is "offensive and poisonous bile", and it will be removed. ¶ I looked out of the window of my Edwardian shop window this afternoon thinking how strange that I can see the drake circus medical school when this font of all knowledge states firstly it ‘was’ i.e. past tense blitzed in the war and secondly evidently it is a shopping centre and nothing else. / It's very possible that what you're saying is true. However, anybody here can claim to be anybody and to see anything from anywhere: such claims aren't worth the electrons they're printed on. Provide a link to a page that backs up what you're saying. Alternatively, provide photographic evidence. ¶ For the record I am one of the many small retailers in Drake Circus and I am not leaving either my name or my business name here because having witnessed what it has done to the malls reputation I do not want my goodwill also irreparably damaged. / Nobody has asked you for your name or your business name. A quick look will show you that the huge majority of contributors to this site choose a username more or less arbitrarily and obtain a degree of credibility here not via the claims they make for themselves or their authority but via the solidity of their contributions. Incidentally, I'm amazed to read that an article here has done anything to affect a mall's reputation (or revenues). -- Hoary 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"The chances are it'll still be there when you've left Uni and gone on to bigger and better things. meanwhile I suggest you concentrate on things that are far more important, like avoiding being a graduate working at the Spud-U-Like you despise so much. ---- WebHamster 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)" Yet more invaluable and constructive advice from Wickipedia People here have no issue with the local authority over this matter as their street signs, records, rating assessements etc all clearly seperate drake circus from drakecircus shopping centre. The only place that misprepresents the truth is here and indeed somebody from the local authority has attempted many times to correct this gross misrepresentation but thanks to sad old failed band members such as yourself those edits are constantly vandalised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.35.110 (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• • let's get something straight from the off. I don't work for the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't work for Wikipedia and I don't represent Wikipedia. I only represent myself. My comments are from me, no-one else. I'd be grateful if you'd stop referring to anything I state as "coming from Wikipedia" because that is incorrect. Now, as I've said before your grudge has nothing to do with Wikipedia. All it does is state what editors have written and backed up with citations. If you can do better then do so as Hoary has advised. The fact that you can't currently edit the article directly is due to the childish behaviour of someone who is presumably a member of the SU (attempting to pass as a legal professional). As Hoary has gone to great lengths to explain, anyone can edit any article so long as they can back up what they are writing with references from reliable sources. So as Hoary says, quit whinging, get a grip and start editing responsibly. Incidentally, I'm not a musicican, I never have been. Likewise I've never been in a band, failed or otherwise. If this is evidence of your research methods expect to get a lot of what you write deleted. ---- WebHamster 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet more invaluable and constructive advice from Wickipedia / No, from User:WebHamster. And the name's "Wikipedia", actually. ¶ . . . misprepresents the truth . . . gross misrepresentation . . . constantly vandalised / While you're moaning away here, somebody else is adding to the article, and providing references. I have no idea if User:Dilapidated is a "sad old failed band member" -- What prompted that bizarre remark, anyway? -- but I have no reason to think that he or she has any particular resemblance to User:WebHamster. ¶ Suggestion: Cut the moaning, get usernames, use them, and revise and improve this article so that it represents the facts, of course providing evidence to prove it. (See this.) -- Hoary 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I too would be interested to hear the silverstalls views on this subject particularly as they were the last shop to leave the old drake circus and one of the current shops in Drake circus. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=jewellery+plymouth&btnG=Search&meta= The google local search result shows an entry @silverstall 12 Drake circus plymouth. Results in google local are only indexed once the address has been verified i.e. by the premises physically returning a card. http://www.silverstall.com/contact-the-silverstall.html confirms they have a shop in Drake circus and yet they are not in the shopping mall. Countless previous references and citations all of which have been deleted by a few corrupt and self-serving administrators show that beyond all doubt Drake Circus is an area that is unique and distinct from the shopping mall yet they insist on publishing a bold and inaccurate statement that Drake Circus is a shopping centre purely for their own gain - be it a financial interest in promoting the shops therein or a peverse pleasure in warping the truth to create controversy to satisfy their own sad and empty lives. What is intresting is the only site i could find that supports its statements with real and up to date images is http://www.plymouth-england.com/drake-circus.html ( a site which shows up on page 1 of google for 'drake circus' ) yet reference to it is constantly deleted by the administraotrs in favour of sites such as spud-u-like which itself shows the real and true address of the shopping mall CATHERINE STREET Bretonside. As a Plymouthian i would say that when you mention Drake Circus some people do assume you mean the shopping centre whilst some better inormed people assume you mean the University area. Many assume that when you say Big Ben you are referring to the clock tower - when in fact it is the Bell - while the informed will know it is St.Stephens tower. Professional encyclopedia editors are responsible enough to publish St.Stephens Tower and not follow the populist and incorrect misconception. Likewise they would for the same reason publish Drake Circus the area and not some tacky mall - that is of course unless they had a corrupt reason for doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.171.40 (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It must be really depressing to make a point only to find out that the analogy being used is totally erroneous. As I like to educate and inform I feel it necessary to correct people's misunderstandings. Big Ben, the bell, is not in St Stephen's tower and never has been. But then we "encyclopedia editors are responsible enough" (none of whom are "professional") to NOT do you as say. I do hope that this is not indicative of the sort of thing being taught in today's educational establishments. I do hope that you now feel the cosy warmth of knowing something you didn't previously know. You see, Wikipedia can be a positive influence after all! ---- WebHamster 13:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked to the core of my being to read of Countless previous references and citations all of which have been deleted by a few corrupt and self-serving administrators. I'm sure you can easily count to a hundred, and infer that these evil people have deleted over one hundred. It's as plain as day that for administrators to delete Countless previous references and citations is absolutely intolerable. Of course you shouldn't stand for this appalling behavior, but should instead report it, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (Minor point: You will have to provide clear evidence.) -- Hoary 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/42587 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.171.40 (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Troll 1 = "the bell, is not in St Stephen's tower and never has been. But then we encyclopedia editors are responsible"

st stephens tower

• Sorry to disappoint, yet again, but the website you linked to is incorrect. It's correct name is The Clock Tower. St Stephen's Tower is towards the middle of the Houses of Parliament hence the reason for its alternate title - Central Tower. I do hope that if you wish to contribute further to Wikipedia that the quality of your research improves. ---- WebHamster 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Troll 2 = Since when (aside from this joke of an encyclopedia) has the word "countless" meant 100?

DRAKE CIRCUS IS NOT JUST A SHOPPING CENTRE

• Yes, you are quite correct, which is why there is a Drake Circus article too. You did know that didn't you? Or have your research skills failed you yet again? ---- WebHamster 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

jesus there is no limit of ignorance with this troll - how do you think i found this page !!!!!!!!! it was through the link to it from the other page. I will repeat the points you are so desperate to hijack:- 1. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=jewellery+plymouth&btnG=Search&meta= The google local search result shows an entry @silverstall 12 Drake circus plymouth. Results in google local are only indexed once the address has been verified i.e. by the premises physically returning a card. http://www.silverstall.com/contact-the-silverstall.html confirms they have a shop in Drake circus and yet they are not in the shopping mall. 2.http://www.plymouth-england.com/drake-circus.html ( a site which shows up on page 1 of google for 'drake circus' ) yet reference to it is constantly deleted by the administraotrs in favour of sites such as spud-u-like which itself shows the real and true address of the shopping mall CATHERINE STREET Bretonside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.171.40 (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like your complaint should be with Google not Wikipedia. WP does not control what Google indexes or how it is indexed. Google indexes are not verified by anyone and there is no requirement to do so as it its virtually totally automated. Rather than commit any more faux pas I suggest you click on Drake Circus then click on Drake Circus Shopping Centre and then report back on your findings. Meanwhile it may be prudent to reflect on the fact that Wikipedia is not spelt G-O-O-G-L-E. Likewise you should also understand that you seem to be confusing "administrators" with "editors". Anyone can delete material from articles as well as add it, it does not require administrator privileges. Additionally you should think about the fact that you are more likely to be taken seriously if you didn't commit puerile, childish and misspelled vandalism on other editor's user pages. ---- WebHamster 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Google indexes are not verified by anyone" https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?continue=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Flocal%2Fadd%2FbusinessCenter%3Fgl%3DUS%26hl%3Den-US&service=lbc&hl=en-US&gl=US you register the business - they send you a card - you return it - it is manually verified as indeed are re-inclusion requests, spam reports,maps, API's, checkout disputes etc etc. Your problem is you have educated yourself using this encyclopedia which for most of the time is wildly inaccurate and is treated as a joke among academics, colleges and universities. ... added in this pair of edits by our friend 86.151.171.40

As you are spending a lot of time on this, IP, I infer that you don't treat it as a joke. Do you have any evidence for the claim that for most of the time [it] is wildly inaccurate? Of course all thinking people know that it's inaccurate much of the time, but most of the time -- that's new to me. ¶ Still having trouble signing your contributions? It's quite easy: you hit "~" four times in a row. -- Hoary 15:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, 86.151.171.40 writes: Troll 2 = Since when (aside from this joke of an encyclopedia) has the word "countless" meant 100? Never, as far as I know. But the same IP wrote earlier of Countless previous references and citations all of which have been deleted by a few corrupt and self-serving administrators. "Countless" doesn't mean a hundred, and it doesn't mean fewer. It means more than a hundred. So where are they? This atrocious misbehavior should be reported immediately, so that those responsible receive a stiff reprimand if not a block. ¶ Unless, of course, the IP has just made it all up. Minds can wander. (Plymouth isn't far from cider country, is it?) Of course if he's made it all up, then his credibility sinks below where this edit of his took it. -- Hoary 15:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

---

"Countless" doesn't mean a hundred, and it doesn't mean fewer. It means more than a hundred."Hoary

LOL - having read through this lame discussion this statement to me more than most exposes the ignorance and low IQ of Webhamster.

"Plymouth isn't far from cider country, is it?)"

As a Plymouthian who has just entered this discussion I find this remark offensive and an example of the bigotry to which users are exposed by a few mindless and mis-informed administrators.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole thing has to be one of the lamest 'discussions' I've seen on here in ages. Smalljim seems to be the only one who's actually done anything to sort out this mess here - Alison ^❤ 16:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop!

Before this degenerates into all-out war, please stop and look at the article. I've edited it to include some of User:Yiwentang's concerns. If it's not accurate, someone will correct it. This is what you should have done before you got blocked - Wikipedia is about cooperation, not shouting. Smalljim 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully these images of Drake Circus will settle this issue once and for all - although no doubt any links to it will, as shown throughout the history of both pages, be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.171.40 (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

---

"When that firm ceased trading in the UK the complex gradually became derelict"

I would love to see a citation for this statement in the article because it is simply untrue. From how i remember it the centre got busier when C&A left particulary as a huge Next Clearance shop moved in. Maybe the article should feature the impact the shopping centre has had on the local economy in particular the devasting impact on the local pannier market.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.180.191 (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can provide an authoritative source for this description of its impact. Then this information could certainly be included. -- Hoary 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the article on drake circushas yet again been vandalised by 'webhamster' who has removed the list of the larger occupiers of Drake Circus on the basis that 'WP is not a phone book'. By all means remove the telephone numbers but to remove all the shop names in that article yet keep them in on this artcile proves an intent to promote an agenda for commercial gain. In any event why is there even an article on these few shops anyway? why not allow any and every shop an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.171.203 (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A bit of critical thinking please, IP. Even if what you're saying is true, Webhamster's pattern edits would be compatible with such an intent; it wouldn't "prove" it. If you have an intelligible complaint, let's hear it. -- Hoary 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

actually there were no phone numbers published in the first place which makes Webhamsters deletion look even more like an act of vandalism - as revenge to those who attempt to block his perpetual spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You believe that Webhamster is guilty of "perpetual spamming"? Then lay out your evidence on the appropriate page and have him investigated. You may get him blocked. (On the other hand if you don't really believe this, stop moaning.) -- Hoary 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

why is anyone even having this discussion when the entire article is Blatant advertising. It exclusively promotes the mall and to suggest its encyclopedic is beyond a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You believe that it's blatant advertising and is exclusively for promotion? Then have it deleted. (On the other hand if you don't really believe this, stop moaning.) -- Hoary 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, please stop. Or if you must continue, at least express yourself (or yourselves, if there really are more than one of you) calmly and lucidly. And sign your messages: hitting "~" four times in a row is easy; particularly so if you belong to the academic elite of far-western Europe. (It only needs a single finger.) -- Hoary 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What justification is there for adverstising the selling of spuds over a reference to a library and university? If you feel unable to answer this with anything other than "particularly so if you belong to the academic elite of far-western Europe." then i suggest you go away and troll elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the list you deleted it referred to the Art Gallery, Musuem, Library, University, solicitors etc. The list of the shops in the shopping mall page specifically targets a few shops with promo-stubs leading from them - hardly 'encyclopedic' is it? One of those stubs is a company logo for spud-u-like with 3 lines of text including "It provides fresh and healthy food at a price which satisifes every budget and taste" . So this kind of commercial advertising meets your quality threshold whereas a paragraph that informs users of a university and musuem does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's horse manure, IP, as you know very well. The article on Spudulike (previously vandalized by our chum "Yiwentang") is indeed poor, and I have so marked it. Yes indeed it makes the claim you quote -- immediately followed by a demand for evidence. If no evidence is forthcoming soon, it may well be put forward for deletion. But there's no particular reason to wait: you're welcome to put it forward today, if you want. (You do it at WP:AFD. This would, however, require a certain lucidity and persuasiveness.) Meanwhile, I have deleted no list. Now, what's all this stuff about a "musuem", etc.? Specify the precise edit in which I deleted it. -- Hoary 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"That's horse manure" sorry what part of the qeustion do you not understand? Maybe i will rephrase it why is commercial advertising permissable whereas a paragraph that informs users of a university and musuem not? As for deleting it this will of course be met with an accusation/block from Webhamster or yourself that it is 'vandalism' 'bad faith' or whatever other term you wish to use to justify self-promotion of matters clearly outside the remit of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "qeustion" is based on fictional premises, Mr IP. -- Hoary 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoary or should I use your puppet webhamster, you clearly have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on the subject of Drake Circus. You do not live here, you do not work here, you are not academically qualified in any way to discuss the subject matter of this article so why don't you just sod off and focus on rebuilding any credibility you once had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.220.163 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to live there, I don't claim to work there; I am disinterested in the issues raised. But I have a moderately good horse manure detector. Incidentally, it is most refreshing to read the good old phrase "sod off", which I'd thought was extinct. -- Hoary 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Its a good point - what makes them qualified to speak on our area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The ability to read and evaluate credible sources. By contrast, what WP calls "original research" counts for nothing hereabouts. -- Hoary 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

don't you just love that new corporate advert in the box - wow its so notable because its everything a scholar would want to know -logo- malls web-site - i think its so cool the way they can remove content out of drake circus and put new ads into this - funny the ad is identical to one on their official site - don't you just love duplicate content - i know google does;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybevan (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL LOL you have supplied wrong details of the CURRENT developer/owner of the mall. Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybevan (talk • contribs) 01:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a reference, now where's yours, see WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"? Put up or shut up. The info in the infobox came from the horse's mouth, I wonder which end of the horse yours is coming from? ---- WebHamster 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey dickhead its not the logo thats out of date its your attribution thats 1 year out of date LOL LOL - H.M.Land registry or Companies House records - but hey they are both closed over the weekend and you will have to pay for their results. We know where to get it for free but we'd rather you continued to make yourself an even bigger laughing stock than you already are - as well as maybe having your ass sued off for trademark infringement. Bye Bye Moron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.138.94 (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, as I said above, as far as Wikipedia is concerned verifiability takes precedence over truth. The DCSC itself gives those details, it doesn't matter if they're current as they're verifiable right now. The current owners only have themselves to blame if they are giving out out-of-date info. Doing searches at Companies House and the Land Registry is not necessary for a Wikipedia article, though it's nice to know that you think Wikipedia is so important as to require it. As for trademark infringement, I responded to your faux pas on the talk page of the logo. ---- WebHamster 02:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Back to the article, if we may. It's now titled "Drake Circus Shopping Centre", whose capitalization implies that this is a name. Yet we read that the outfit running it calls it "drakecircus".

I have my own, strong opinions on Wikipedia's obligations to respect a trademark owner's idiosyncratic use of case, but I'll spare you them, at least for now. I'll just point out that a change to any of the following would present no technical obstacle:

• drakecircus
• DrakeCircus
• Drakecircus
• Drake Circus shopping centre
• Drake Circus (shopping centre)

And there may be other alternatives besides.

Or is there some reason that I've missed for retaining the current title?

Lucid, persuasive, signed responses, please. -- Hoary 03:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's of any help I did create a new page Drakecircus Shopping Centre which is a redirect to this one.

There seems to be too much weight being given to the graphic design element of the logo. If you look at the very front page of their website it refers to itself - "Spend the day with Drake Circus", and all other (non-graphic design centric) mentions on the website use "Drake Circus". So if it's good enough for them then it should be good enough for us I reckon. So my vote is to leave the article title as is. ---- WebHamster 03:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But by your own account the proprietor doesn't call it "Drake Circus Shopping Centre". Shouldn't it therefore be "Drake Circus shopping centre" or (and probably better) "Drake Circus (shopping centre)"? -- Hoary 03:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is exclusively called "Drake Circus", then I'd support the latter. However, if "shopping centre" is used as a proper title, the current article title would seem the more appropriate. After all, style aside, it is generally prudent to capitalize all words in a company name to distinguish it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But the corollary is that if "Shopping Centre" isn't part of the proper name, it should be lowercase. And it appears that it isn't part of the proper name, though I could be wrong. -- Hoary 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And like I said, if "shopping center" isn't part of the name, then it should be written as a disambig term, though Hamster's point has merit, too. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it is that the name is Drake Circus and the description is shopping centre. Frankly I don't think the capitalisation really matters one way or the other. It's a shopping centre in Drake Circus so it's a reasonable way of delineating it from anything else. An example of something similar is Merry Hill Shopping Centre even though it's official title is Merry Hill. Given that search terms aren't case sensitive for the 2nd word and greater, or so I'm led to believe, it won't make any difference to that. I suppose it all comes down to whatever is the most likely search term. ---- WebHamster 03:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'd agree that the difference between "Drake Hill shopping centre" and "Drake Hill (shopping centre)" is unexciting. But at this point "XYZ shoppng centre" seems mildly (unexcitingly) preferable to "XYZ Shopping Centre", whether XYZ is "Merry Hill" or "Drake Circus". -- Hoary 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD would be so much simpler! <g> I only mention Merry Hill as a precedence, I couldn't be arsed looking for more examples. But yes I suppose you're right lower case shopping centre would be more grammatically correct given that it isn't the actual official name. You'd also be correct with the parentheses as a WP standard e.g. "Band Name (band)" So here in lies the problem, do two rights make a errr, errr, right? ---- WebHamster 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Consent for the use of a trademark

"No part of this web site may be reproduced in any material form (including storing it in any medium by electronic means) without the written permission of the copyright owner save that material may be downloaded or copied for personal use. No alterations or additions may be made to the material on this web site. The Company Secretary Drake Circus GP LLC, 10 Upper Bank Street , London E14 5JJ" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.155.198 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC) this is a quote from the the drake circus website. I thought by putting it here, reasonably intelligent people could see its relevance to the matters being discussed. Is it not obvious enough to show that you have all cited the wrong owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.155.198 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not get the consent from the current assignees of Leonora Estates (Plymouth) Limiteds' trademark first before you start publishing or discussing itdrakecircus any other responsible publisher would do that first.

____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.102.112 (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is what you don't seem to get. Point us at a reliable and verifiable source and we'll change it. Meanwhile, as Hoary has said, we don't need permission from the old owners or the new for inclusion of the logo. Please see WP:FUR for details. By the way, can you please make up your mind. We either don't know anything about the place or we have a commercial interest, which is it? Surely if we had a commercial interest we'd actually know basic info like that? ---- WebHamster 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's quite the most bizarre rhetorical question that I've read in days. What evidence do you have for any idea that consent is needed, or that "any responsible publisher" would get permission before publishing or discussing a trademark? -- Hoary 12:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use only applies in the context of an informative or educational article. It does not apply when used in the context of an advert or promo banner which many could argue this artcile is. Still keep it in - i really do not care - the main point went straight over your head which is that P&O are no longer the current developers/owners and neither are Morgan Stanley however since you are an expert on Drake Circus i assume you would have already known that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.102.112 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to say that the article isn't informative or educational? You are being far too parochial. Two days ago I'd never heard of the place, now I've been educated on how disruptive some of the locals can be. I've been informed that the official website is a year out of date. Just because you already know the details does not mean that someone else does. You are saying a lot but yet no pointers to verifiable sources. WP does not take peoples' words for it, not yours, not mine. So back up your statements with available sources that meet WP:RS and we'll make the changes. It can't be put any simpler than that. We most certainly aren't experts on DCSC, but we do know how WP works and what is expected. Likewise from the WP standpoint you aren't an expert either, you are just some anonymous IP address, you have no verifiable credentials of your expertise. You may be a local but that's not the same thing. This being the case anything you tell us here comes under the banner of original research which is why we need verifiable sources. ---- WebHamster 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Who are you to say that the article isn't informative or educational?" Are you actually capable of reading english? i said "which many could argue"

Are you, or do you not understand what "arguing" means? ---- WebHamster 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this notion of "fair use" of a trademark. (That the user is, I think, appending "™" and not "®" to it makes the notion even odder.) What makes you think I'm an expert on Drake Circus? I know very little indeed about Drake Circus, and don't think I have ever suggested otherwise. It's not a matter of what you claim you know, it's a matter of what evidence you can produce for any claim that you make. -- Hoary 13:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

it is not me who has published an article claiming Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund (MSREF) are the owners. What evidence is there to support that claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.102.112 (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the horse's mouth for details. ---- WebHamster 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

its out of date - the same URL also states "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006." If you check more accurate government sources you will find it is owned by a consortium in Saudi Arabia - however it is intresting that they have left this out on their offical site - a ploy perhaps to trap the copyright unwary or as is more likely to keep the current owners out of public knowledge. Either way it tells you something about the way the people behind the mall operate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.102.112 (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists of the world unite eh? Why is it your obsession with copyright makes me think you are the blocked user Yiwentang? Same IP block too hmmm. ---- WebHamster 13:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, just for accuracy sake, it isn't owned by a Saudi Arabian consortium, it's owned by a French mining company (gold and antimony if you're interested) dating from pre-WW2 that diversified into property in 2001. The fact that I know who the owners are is immaterial as I can't point a reliable source at the information. So from a WP standpoint we have to use whatever is verifiable. If I were to put that information in there then I would be guilty of WP:SYNTH.---- WebHamster 01:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article states 'Owner Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund (MSREF)' - how is this verified - surely not the 'horses mouth' web-site which others have discredited by pointing out it is 1. not 'official' 2. its home page contains the lie 'the only covered shopping mall in the southwest' 3. If i may quote the terms and conditions of that same site 'You may not create a hyperlink to this web site without the prior written consent of The Company Secretary of Drake Circus GP LLC.' (out of interest do you have their written consent?).81.155.65.71 12:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

When a primary source gives objective facts about itself (e.g. staff names, personnel numbers etc) then that is accepted as reliable. As for the hyperlink, well just because they say it's a condition doesn't mean they have a right to implement it. And no, there is no written consent. It would be interesting to see how they would demand one and under what statute they could justifiably make that demand. ---- WebHamster 12:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

presumably the same statute used by most other Uk companises i.e s.17 Copyright,Designs and patents Act 1988 but i do not think here is the place to discuss legal issues - of more relevance is the fact it implies the owners are Drake Circus GP LLC and not Morgan Stanley. Either way it highlights the fact the source is far from reliable as it seemingly contradicts itself regarding ownership. If i may further quote your 'reliable' source "When is the new Marks & Spencer store expected to be complete?"

"Work on the new store should be completed by September 2006." or "When will Drake Circus open? The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006." so if these are 'objective facts about itself' why do they contradict the facts in the article?Nicole 50dc 13:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably you haven't read the statute you quote as it doesn't cover the intricacies of web linking, regardless a link to a site has nothing to do with copyright. Their condition is unenforceable at law. Once again we have a SPA account with a fascination for copyright. Very similar to a certain other blocked user. Hmmm! The rest of your comment is merely trolling so doesn't deserve any further time spent answering. ---- WebHamster 13:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"as it doesn't cover the intricacies of web linking, regardless a link to a site has nothing to do with copyright." - and your authority for saying that is ....? "Once again we have a SPA account with a fascination for copyright." anyone reading this will see the response was made to "... doesn't mean they have a right to implement it. "...and no, there is no written consent. It would be interesting to see how they would demand one and under what statute they could justifiably make that demand" you keep making these legal assertions and when anyone tries to contradict them with verified sources you call them a troll! Stop trying to hijack this discussion with legal issues. The fact remains the 'horses mouth' as you put it still says "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006." how can you rely on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.65.71 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorists of the world unite eh?" I have no idea who or what Yiwentang is and you seem to have certainly united with the conspiracy theorists. The 'horses mouth' or official site that you source the basis of your article, logo and trademark, is out of date. It was created by the previous owners leonora estates and the new owners have not published a site (as maybe the original one was used to promote the opening.)

That's not Wikipedia's problem. A whois query is not regarded as a reliable source in this instance as the registered domain owner is not necessarily the same as the actual owner. ---- WebHamster 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Same IP block too hmmm." I am trying to inject coherent and lucid points in a discussion on a subject in which i clearly have personal and factual knowledge corroborated with up to date references in exchange for which i am exposed to this sort of comment. Few, if any, internet sources of reliable material can be found on DrakeCircus shopping centre because most of its records have never been uploaded onto the internet as it is such a trivial and none notable subject that it has never been worth doing so. If you seriously wish to publish accurate material on the subject then i am suprised you have not cited official sources such as rating assessements/records or as another user suggested land registry records/maps instead of relying on out of date and unofficial sources.

No you haven't supplied any verifiable or reliable sources, as such anything you state here is original research and is therefore not allowable under Wikipedia guidelines. I don't know how many times it needs saying, but accuracy is not paramount, verifiability is. So far we only have your word that the website is out of date. The link further up the page is to a letter submitted to a local newspaper by a reader and is therefore not a reliable source. The official website of the shopping centre is so far the most reliable source (per WP guidelines) we have therefore that's the one that gets used. It makes no difference whether it's out of date or not, it's verifiable right at this moment in time. As I said earlier today, supply a source that meets WP:RS and the article will be changed, until then it stays as is regardless of what you say. This may be frustrating for you but that is how Wikipedia works. Verifiability always takes precedence over truth, how many times must this be repeated before you get it? ---- WebHamster 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I supplied a WhoIS domain record - you could always try [1] They shows the website is owned by - Leonaro Esates (this article states the owners are Morgan Stanley !). Therefore how can it possibly be 'official' when it is not even the mall owners web-site.

"So far we only have your word that the website is out of date."

I repeat the website reads "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006."

And I shall repeat, a whois query is not a reliable source. All it shows is who registered a domain (most times it isn't even the person who paid for the domain) not who owns the website let alone who owns the shopping centre. Your assumption based on the whois query is what is called WP:SYNTH and again is something that is frowned on in WP.

The quote you repeat from the website only shows that that quote/ possibly page is out of date, not the ownership details. You really have a problem understanding verification don't you? Please take the time to read WP:RS as you obviously haven't done so in spite of the number of times you've been pointed at it.

If you are going to continually add comments on here can you at least make some small effort to comply with WP conventions and sign your comments. All you have to do is hit the tilde key (~) 4 times, or click the sig button (halfway across the edit toolbar). This page is enough of a mess already without you adding to it. ---- WebHamster 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"All it shows is who registered a domain (most times it isn't even the person who paid for the domain) not who owns the website let alone who owns the shopping centre." That is the very point I am making as you have repeated too many users that you got your information 'straight from the horses mouth" the web-site - when in fact you had no idea who owned the mall. In any event rather suspiciously that site has been amended (for the first time in a year) within the past few hours. It has removed the 'we are opening on.." page. It has also removed any details of the ownership of the mall. I find it extremely odd that a commercial site of this nature should be working late on Saturday evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.102.112 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you don't understand about the difference between information on an official website and a DNS entry? It's not unusual at all for webmasters to work on Saturdays, I frequently do it. But to alleviate your suspicions, no I'm not the webmaster of the DCSC site. As regards the ownership of the mall, well that info's still there on the centre background page. ---- WebHamster 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"No merit in having any article about the shopping centre"

I see no merit in having any article about the shopping centre as it really is old news. There has been nearly a billion pounds worth of construction and development that has taken place in or around the Drake Circus area yet i see any artciles or references to the new dental college, the penisula medical school, the new european arts centre, new 5 star jurys inn hotel, new government buidlings etc have been systematically removed. Whatever your agenda is I use to work for Zurich Insurance that was based for 10 years on the 9th floor of the old drake circus. We shared the same floor as Curtis the solicitors. With that in mind why is this old, boring and wholly inaccurate article ('two levels' 'the plymouth war memorial' 'p&O properties' etc all wrong)pushed down everyones throats - to me it smacks of a publicity hike for a mall that really is yesterdays news. You even have referenced a link to an old site in which the guy has an image of the 13 floors and admits in it he cannot or does not remember what it was used for - what a joke !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.102.112 (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The person with the tilde-less keyboard opines: I see no merit in having any article about the shopping centre as it really is old news. Newsworthiness isn't an issue as Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. But if you want it deleted, here's where to go. Meanwhile, the article would seem to have some redeeming quality, for you write: what a joke !! (Are you "laughing out loud"?) -- Hoary 12:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If i may quote one of your admins response to the arguement over newsworthiness "an encyclopedia, which is supposed to contain information that is a bit less sensitive to the passage of time than that. A hundred years from now, no one will care that such and such a book shop was there from 2005 through 2007, unless it was a truly exceptionally notable book shop in its own right. They will care if Charles Babbage or Joshua Reynolds did something important there, because those were truly exceptionally notable people. If you have information (hopefully with references) about those, please do say. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)" so are you saying he is wrong and that old trivial news of no importance should merit an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.102.112 (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, IP, you are making some sense here. I don't care either way about the existence of an article on this shopping mall. If you believe it will have no historical significance, either (a) propose its deletion or (b) quit whingeing. (Do note that the former option will require lucid argument.) -- Hoary 12:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry but i am new to all this - that link refers to placing tags on the articles page which i cannot do because it is blocked. It then suggests adding the page to a list but gives no where for you to add 'lucid' arguement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.102.112 (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You can either wait for the block to time out, or you can create a new user account and wait four days. You can then read up on WP:AFD which gives step by step instructions, including where to place any 'lucid' arguments. But to give you a heads up, the AFD takes 5 days to run and its deletion merits will be discussed by any/all editors so please don't think that it will be a slam dunk just because you ask. Personally I'd vote delete but others may not. ---- WebHamster 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition of bbc references

When it first opened it made the local news but that was over a year ago. It no longer makes any news headlines because it is simply not 'notable'. I'm sure every shop in Plymouth has at some stage hit the headlines but does that make every shop worthy of inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This was explained to you in the AfD. Notability is NOT time sensitive. Notability does not time out. If it did do you think there'd be an article on the Battle of Hastings? If you aren't trolling and you do actually wish to learn about how WP works then I suggest you read up on WP:Notability before making any more comments like this. Incidentally the BBC references weren't just added, they were just reformatted per citation guidelines using templates.

As previously stated by AnonEMouse (squeak) "an encyclopedia, which is supposed to contain information that is a bit less sensitive to the passage of time than that." A hundred years from now, no one will care that such and such a shopping mall was opened in 2006, but they will care about the Battle of hastings because that was a truly exceptional notable event.Nicole 50dc 16:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Trolling duly noted and ignored. ---- WebHamster 17:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could elaborate why a perfectly lucid counterpoint is 'trolling'81.155.65.71 19:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I've spent far too much time feeding the trolls already. ---- WebHamster 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest pic

That looks great, well done for finding it Smalljim. I can understand the controversy now. That derelict church really spoils the view of a cool looking building. ---- WebHamster 20:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

that 'derelict' church is dedicated to the many civilian lives lost during the second world warCharles_Church,_Plymouth,_Devon it has no connection to the shopping mall whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.170.3 (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)