Talk:Meadowhall (shopping centre)

Infobox

I put an infobox in. This was subsequently immediately deleted. I think these infoboxes provide a useful standardised summary of centres.

Firstly it provided new infromation that a number of other centres have and Meadowhall didnt. Secondly it provides a quick reference point for all centres. This makes it easy to see, for example, accurately which centre is the biggest. Hopefully the end effect would be that the whole encyclopedia will be more accurate. It strikes me that there are a number of errors regarding shopping centre size. For example this article claimed the Trafford Centre was bigger it is not. There also appear to be a number of articles that claim to be the biggest shopping centre in the UK. Using a standardised box, using retail floor area it is easier for uzsers themselves to judge which centre is the biggest.

What do others think?

Idf 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox are more of an eyesore than anything useful or pleasing. I deleted your infobox as I think it makes the article rather nasty and deters attention to the article. If you wish to add an Infobox, migrate the whole article in it. If not, delete it, as it's ugly. Standardising is just an excuse for inserting fancy Infoboxes, which really add nothing to most articles. If you are incapable of actually typing an article you should think why an Infobox would be more suited. I left your data regarding Trafford's claiming of being a bigger shopping centre. If you feel the need to compare, create an article with a listing of all shopping centres with tables and diagrams. This was until recently a pleasing article to read. Regards, Captain scarlet 18:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you object to it I'll leave it. IMHO an infobox is a useful place to present standard data that people can quickly glance at if they are not prepared to read the whole article. IMHO its a lot about how people read text on the web/screen: People arent looking to read a long essay. In terms of standardisation I think a point still stands.

Regards Idf 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

the main problem is that 1/ infoboxes aren't nice. 2/ This article is that short that there is not much put in it. 3/ infoboxes shoudl only be used when they don't shadow the article. You shouldn't add infoboxes if you're replacing the article, it would negate the point of the article itself and a warrant its deletion.

This article would look a lot nicer with photos, perhaps a chart or something, it looked really not nice just then, sorry. I wouldn't be making a fuss if i didn't honneslty think so. I acknowledge your respect of my decision, cheers, Captain scarlet 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to reinstate the infobox if I can find it. Captain scarlet seems to be imposing his own personal aesthetic views on infoboxes here. They are present for most other articles on big shopping malls/centres. They are very useful in providing an at-a-glance summary for someone who doesn't want to actually read the whole article. Exile 13:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At that's not imposing your views. Not everyone thinks an online encyclopedia goes with infoboxland. Many articles are much more readable without. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Meadowhall logo.png

Image:Meadowhall logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Meadowhall logo.png

Image:Meadowhall logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)