Talk:260 Collins

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

A fact from 260 Collins appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 September 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the St Collins Lane luxury shopping centre replaced a building considered one of Melbourne's worst?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St Collins Lane.

Wikipedia

Australia: Melbourne Low‑importance

	Australia portal 260 Collins is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Shopping Centers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shopping Centers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of enclosed shopping malls, outdoor shopping centers, and dead malls on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Shopping CentersWikipedia:WikiProject Shopping CentersTemplate:WikiProject Shopping CentersShopping center articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Giantoct (talk · contribs) has been paid by Efront on behalf of St. Collins Lane. [1]

Request edit on 21 November 2018

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi all, if anyone has some time can they please review the page for any outstanding COI content and check all language is in a neutral point of view? If all is acceptable can we please remove the COI banner? In future all edits will be suggested only and there will be no further direct editing - this has been addressed on my talk page. Giantoct (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 26-NOV-2018

Please consult assigning editor

It is recommended that, as a courtesy, you first try asking the editor who assigned the template — in this case Longhair — in order to find out if it can be removed. Since they placed the template, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected. You may contact them by placing a new message on their talk page. In the unlikely event that you do not hear back from them after a reasonable amount of time, please reopen this request by altering the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!
Regards, Spintendo 07:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the template. The article is not full of promostuff and the editor concerned understands the issues that led to the placement of such. -- Longhair\^talk 07:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title change request

Hi, could we please amend the title of the page to 260 Collins per the new ownership and name change of the centre? Kaipara24 (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaipara24, I did it per the official website rebranding. If someone disagrees they are welcome to comment here. Commander Keane (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaipara24, I probably jumped the gun on that. I didn't realise that you removed a heap of references, particularly if they were critical, from the article. Also promotional material was added. I have reversed those edits. You are welcome to improve the article but please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you have a conflict of interest then you should only make suggestions, here on the talk page. I will keep the new title for now. Commander Keane (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have blocked Kaipara24 for username violation. I didn't make the connection to Kaipara Property Group until after the title move.

You can see Kaipara24's modifications here. There are possibly some good updates from the changes that could be cherry picked and re-added to the article.

Regarding the move, I still think it is ok given Wikipedia:Article titles, but if there is any doubt I am happy to revert back to the title "St. Collins Lane".

Sorry about the mess. Commander Keane (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing Reversal of Previous Edits

{{connected contributor}} Could we please review the changes previously made and reversed - I'd like to think these were not promotional and factual developments of the centre, updating the current dated information of current ownership, tenancy mix and history of the centre. For example the current centre and tenants subsections are no longer relevant to 260 Collins and therefore needs removing / updating per the changes I had initially processed. Fkay08 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above a review of the edits is warranted, to quote myself: "There are possibly some good updates from the changes that could be cherry picked and re-added to the article."

I doubt the revert I made will get reversed itself outright, but discussion is welcome. If anyone is interested: here is a link to the updates that I reverted.

Wikpedia articles tend to prefer an historical perspective, not just report the current situation. Just copying the current tenants from the official website is promotional, not encyclopaedic. Removing historical tennants that are referenced is problematic.

I hope someone sees this request and updates the article. Admittedly I could do a full rewrite but I am not motivated to do so. I may take a quick look and make some changes soon.

@Fkay08, you may be the most motivated to improve the article but you need to learn the policies, guidelines and standard practices of Wikipedia first. If you have time to burn I suppose you could work on an update in your personal sandbox, there are no guarantees that someone will merge the changes into the article though. Commander Keane (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated this in my personal sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fkay08). If you were please able to review this and incorporate these changes into this page, providing you're happy with the changes? Fkay08 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fkay08. I meant something else, but it is not important. Wikipedia:Sandbox has instructions on personal sandboxes, you have used your user page.

Nevermind, I can see your proposed changes (I created a diff for easy comparison to be used by me and anyone else following along).

If you are going to suggest small changes like this I think you should not worry about using a sandbox (sorry if I led you up the wrong path there, I assumed you wanted to make huge changes) and just create a new talk page section for each request putting {{Edit COI}} at the top. This is done by Michael Dell's people (example) and seems to work well.

Using the Financial Review as a source looks promising. I also found an interesting article from Realestate Source. Commander Keane (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]