Jump to content

Talk:Central Park (shopping complex)

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

Citation needed for "largest shopping center"

[edit]

Because of Wikipedia's no original research policy, we need to have an independent citation for the identification of Central Park as the largest power shopping center in the United States and/or the East Coast (which is it, by the way?). The problem is that "largest shopping center" is a bit like "tallest building" — it depends on how you're counting. Square footage of retail space? Acreage of property dedicated to the shopping complex? Number of businesses? Some combination of these? Do you include parking or not?

Because of this, it would be best if someone could cite a reliable source — preferably not literature from the Silver Cos., for the sake of maintaining a neutral point of view — identifying Central Park as the largest shopping center in the U.S. (or the East Coast, if there's a bigger one elsewhere), and identifying what criteria were used to measure "largest". Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the people who own all the businesses in Fredericksburg, the person who operates a monopoly of the media and press nicknamed 'the free slant star' hereby edits at will and questions the neutrality and reliability of the claims of a shopping center size? Where's the circulation numbers for the Washington Post in the region listed? It's higher than your paper I'll wager. Also, the only reference you use to claim that traffic is a mess is your own newspapers editorial, hardly an unbiased source. Please cite your traffic study to support your claims of traffic woes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.43.150 (talk • contribs) 17:02, August 18, 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the publisher of the Free Lance—Star, but a relative. I actually don't live in Fredericksburg. I'm not sure what the Washington Post's circulation figures have to do with this article. (Incidentally, you contradict yourself by claiming on the one hand that the Free Lance—Star has a media monopoly in the Fredericksburg area, and simultaneously suggesting that the Washington Post has higher circulation — is the Free Lance—Star a monopoly or an insignificant voice? It can hardly be both.)
The Richard Amrhine column (which, as an opinion piece, reflects the author's opinions, not the newspaper's) supports the claim that residents are, or have been, frustrated by Route 3 traffic near Central Park. I don't know what source would be more reliable than the local newspaper as a reflection of local opinion, but for what it's worth I wasn't the editor who first added the information about traffic on Route 3; that was MamaGeek (talk · contribs), who I don't know. Her version was slightly less neutrally worded, and was removed by Silver Cos. (talk · contribs). I reinstated it in more neutral language, and provided a citation. I'm sure that a better citation for actual traffic patterns on Route 3 could be found, but I'm frankly not that interested in traffic and wouldn't know where to start looking.
The neutral point of view policy says that differing views should be presented, with citation of who holds them. I think that the traffic paragraph fulfills this requirement. However, if any other editors think that the traffic problems are inadequately sourced, I'll abide by the consensus.
For the record, I've been an active Wikipedian for over a year, and most of my edits have nothing to do with the Fredericksburg area or anything else concerning my family's business or interests. I made the comment above in my capacity as a Wikipedian and an administrator explaining Wikipedia policies. I don't appreciate drive-by insults from anonymous contributors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The namesake error was unintentional and I apologize, but you clearly are related. The Post comment was directed as a left out media link on the page, and as they don't cover local news at all, so your family still has a practical media monopoly. The Free Lance-Star Cos. operate the newspaper, 3 of the 4 radio stations with transmitters strong enough to reach the region, and recently started the Star phone book (as if Verizon needed a twin). I'm certainly not faulting the business acumen, I would trade checkbooks in a heartbeat, only that your (relative's) businesses proactively control and/or supress the information available on a regional level, and thus the comment. This media powerhouse also wields its power every single election in the 'news' section versus only the opinion which I find unsettling, unfair, unbiased and arrogant. As for traffic on Route 3. It is bad at times, but to say it is caused by or belongs as part of a shopping center listing is silly. I doubt Disney's page complains about the traffic woes. Nothing personal against you, junior (or cousin). If you don't like comments you can't control, perhaps you should work for the family newspaper as they are renowned experts on the matter. Until then, long live the Internet and the way it was intented, and long live free speech. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.43.150 (talk • contribs) 12:12, August 21, 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see what the Free Lance—Star's businesses have to do with the article on Central Park, aside from the fairly tenuous connection that the Silver and Rowe families both own successful family businesses in the Fredericksburg area. If there's a specific Washington Post article about Central Park that should be cited here, please add it. If you've got a concern about the Wikipedia coverage of media in the Fredericksburg area, you can take it up at Talk:Fredericksburg, Virginia. I have no interest in "controlling" your comments — but I'd like to draw your attention to this guideline about talk pages on Wikipedia:
Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match. See also: Wikiquette
Most of the conversation above is completely irrelevant to the Wikipedia page on Central Park. The only pertinent question is whether the paragraph on traffic belongs in the article or not. I happen to think that the two citations from Virginia Business Magazine and the Free Lance—Star are sufficient to justify what the article says: the traffic on Route 3 is awful, and many residents associate it with Central Park. If you disagree, perhaps we should get a third opinion or find some other form of dispute resolution. Let's focus on matters that are relevant to Wikipedia, shall we? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It's a good idea to sign your posts, which you can do by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~. That'll put an automatic signature and timestamp on your comments. There's even a shortcut right under the editing window to insert the four tildes with one click. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question: what I was trying to explain is that without an independent reliable source to confirm the status of Central Park as the largest power shopping center on the East Coast (or in North America, as the article once said) all we can do is quote the developers' claim. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we don't present it as a fact. Please note: my point is not to question whether Central Park is the largest power shopping center on the East Coast, but to enforce Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. All we need is an independent source like this one, which unfortunately is out of date. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listings of stores and restaurants

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of stores at Central Park. With what appears to be 50+ of the 255 businesses in Central Park listed, I have a concern that the coverage is excessive. I think this goes more for the restaurants than for the retail stores, but it also probably goes for them as well seeing as how 25+ of the items listed are stores. I'm thinking it may be best to just cut all of that out. Does anybody have an idea as to how other articles on very large retail? I can offer that the Mall of America article lists around 7 stores and a few other unique attractions. That's an even bigger complex with fewer businesses listed. Erechtheus (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Central Park (shopping complex). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Central Park (shopping complex). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Central Park (shopping complex). 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Park_(shopping_complex)&oldid=1200340085"