Wikipedia

Talk:Meadowhall (shopping centre)

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Infobox

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Meadowhall logo.png

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Meadowhall logo.png

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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)Reply

Off to a crap start...

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Meadowhall is an indoor shopping centre in the Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England. "

Above is the opening sentence as I found it. Sheffield is not 'the Sheffield'. I've sorted this. DanTheShrew (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is probably due to this edit. ~~ [Jam][talk] 15:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Strange piece of art / attraction

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I vaguely recall having watched a documentary some years ago about a weird piece of art / an attraction that was commissioned for the Meadowhall and either never appeared there or did so but not for long. Anyone who might know what I'm thinking of is welcome to drop a line to my talk page! --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Public Art in Sheffield website is the best bet for this kind of query. Of the pieces listed for Meadowhall, only one has been removed: Red River. Could this be the one? Warofdreams talk 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Nice, try. But I think this is it. It was a massive automaton display, named the Ride of life. It was never actually installed. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Proposed move?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was wondering if this ought to be renamed to Meadowhall Centre? I realise that it has only fairly recently been moved to Meadowhall Shopping Centre (at my request) but I believe following a little digging that this is the official name for it (per this guide, which has Meadowhall Centre as the copyright) and was suggested at the last move. However, everywhere in the prose it is refered to simply as Meadowhall, as it is on the [British Land website. Should we name the article by it's official name, or that which will be more familiar to wiki readers?

Nobody has countered in a week, so off it goes! L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 12:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

PR Edits

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article would appear to be subject to edits which seek to remove, negative comments about the center that have references and add large chunks of PR Blur Updates to facts and figures with sources are OK if referenced by reliable external sources (not PR). Wikipedia policies on conflict of interest WP:COI may be applicable, The Environmental section reads as if straight from a PR publication so may be WP:Copyvio or be classed as WP:Advert.

Comment from other editors requested or is it a revert (as other edits made since by other editors) - --BulldozerD11 (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Meadowhalls size position.

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the article it states that it is the sixth largest. When you follow the link it is the 5th largest. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.225.217 (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Meadowhall Centre. 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 04:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Meadowhall (shopping centre)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Investigate red-links to see if articles exist under other title / capitalisation
  2. Switch references to use {{Cite}} templates with more detail on access date etc completed
  3. Requires copy-edit for WP:MOS

Keith D (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

== WP Sheffield ==

rated as a C class as;

  1. has info box
  2. has photos
  3. has plan
  4. has some inline citations
  5. but some copy edit required to eviromental section and wiki linking
  6. is a bit POV / advert like in places
BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 23:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2017

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Meadowhall (shopping centre). Jenks24 (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply


Meadowhall Centre → Meadowhall – The shopping centre is commonly known simply as "Meadowhall", as per its own website and logo, and indeed the lead sentence of the article. It is clearly the primary topic for the name. The existing dab page does not need to be retained as - other than the shopping centre - it mentions only the surrounding area of Sheffield (which has no article of its own) and various transport connections, which are covered on the separately existing Meadowhall station dab page anyway. Jellyman (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meadowhall (shopping centre). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 05:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Meadowhall (shopping centre). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 04:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meadowhall_(shopping_centre)&oldid=1208945879"