Talk:Newport city centre

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge. This merge proposal was not done properly in that the target article was never tagged. However, WP: Merging doesn't seem to proscribe any particular action for improper merge proposals, and given that (1)there is a clear, strong consensus to merge, and (2)the article is low traffic enough that placement of the tag probably wouldn't have drawn many opposing editors anyway, I see no reason to not just go ahead with the merge. NukeofEarl (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

---

I suggest that City Spires (currently proposed for deletion) be merged into this article. This article needs significant expansion in any case. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, plus the Cambrian Centre and Friars Walk, Newport articles. Lived in Newport for some years and I can tell you the Cambrian Centre is far from notable, while the others seem to be stalled redevelopments mainly based on developer spin. Lozleader (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added {{merge}} templates to those articles. Any others? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that all three should be merged in provided that sufficient sourced material can be found. The 'Newport city centre' page badly needs both material and sources. Cambrian Centre, at least, cannot survive as a standalone page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with merge on City Spires, haven't examined the others (came across City Spires as the oldest expired PROD, if not merged it may be deleted soon.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mergers? (April 2015)

We have a number of articles and a number of redirects about metropolitan Newport, such that there's now a risk of the articles outnumbering the shops left open. Do we have too many? Topics that aren't really notable?

• Newport, Wales
• Newport city centre
• Stow Hill, Newport - would seem to stand as an inner suburb, as much as anything
• John Frost Square - definitely notable, given vast debate in recent years
• Friars Walk, Newport - redirect: should this point to the centre, or to John Frost Square?
• Westgate Hotel - Some historical interest, particularly around the Chartists
• Chartist Mural – I'm not looking to delete this, I leave that sort of thing to the council
• Newport Market – it's a listed building. Yet precedent at WP is that listing alone doesn't cut it for WP:N.

The ones I have trouble justifying

• Commercial Street, Newport - it's a long street and about as central as Newport gets. Yet there's not much happening there, is there? What is in there that's distinct from Newport city centre?
• High Street, Newport, Wales – as for Commercial Street, only even more so.
• Kingsway Shopping Centre – !!! Are we going to start listing each Greggs next?
• Newport bus station

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link to the relevant notability guidelines, for people to take into consideration. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what distinguishes list one from list two. It's entirely common to have articles about major streets, thoroughfares and transport interchanges. This isn't based on economic activity or numbers of shops. What is it that distinguishes John Frost Square from Commercial Street or the High Street (which in my view are probably far more notable)?

As for listed buildings, well, it seems well established that any building or district on the US heritage register is notable, so how is the UK (or any other country) different? Sionk (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that John Frost Square and Friars Walk have had a vast amount of discussion recently, locally and in print. The two streets would do well to find any mention, let alone a very minor and rather skanky shopping centre. Newport isn't a major city and it's infamously poor as a shopping destination (falling behind Cwmbran these days, which is remarkable). I really can't see why a very nondescript bus station, with no architectural merit, warrants an article.

The difference with US and UK listed buildings is that UK buildings get deleted at AfD, or merged to broad lists at the least. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems to an extreme 'recentism' argument. Commercial Street pre-existed John Frost Square by 150+ years, was the original project to link the old town with the docks, and is now the main shopping street. High Street pre-existed JFSq by centuries, I'm not sure how the main medieval street of the town fails notability. Sionk (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Commercial St and High St shouldn't have some coverage in an article that covers Newport. However there's not that much to Newport, and there's even less about its distinctly run-down centre. Do we really need all of these articles separately: Newport, Newport city centre, Commercial Street and High Street? Let alone the bus station and Kingsway? How many other minor cities have separate articles for their centre? Of the "notable high street" articles, like Lord Street or Bold Street, I would claim that the ones justifying it have a rather more substantial local identity than for Newport. They should be sections within city centre, no more than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Newport city 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630102312/http://www.newport.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/agenda/cont042922.pdf to http://www.newport.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/agenda/cont042922.pdf

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)