Talk:Crossgates Mall/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I am still kind of new at Wikipedia. Is there anyway I can clean up the article, and still keep a lot of the information that I added to the Crossgates Mall Article? Thanks.72.230.6.138 23:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you mean? TenPoundHammer 12:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

72.230.6.138 I see what you mean about Wikipedia not being a list, but I thought that the trivia and old stores would give people more interesting information about the mall. Is there a way I can keep them in the article, but keep them better organized, or at least in a format appropriate for Wikipedia? Thanks.72.230.6.138 21:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can think of. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; if you want to, maybe, make your own webpage on Angelfire or something, listing former mall tenants, you could do that. TenPoundHammer 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to clean it up a little bit. Please let me know what you think, and thanks so much for assisting me.72.230.6.138 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It may want to be mentioned that:

• The MB-18 curfew policy was started because of the repeated outbreaks of violence caused by teens.

I see your point, and appreciate the idea, but I have heard so many things from so many people that contradict your statement. I feel there were more factors than just that one.72.230.6.138 18:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

In copy-editing the lead section, I have removed 2 pieces of information. First, the fact that the mall is located in the Capital District—just couldn't find a graceful place for it in the paragraph, and it didn't seem all that critical anyway. Second, I removed the part about the movieplex history:

From 1997-2005, Crossgates had a total of 30 movie screens as an older 12-screen cinema operated in the mall in addition to a newer 18-screen cinema. The older cinema was closed in 2005 due to declining popularity.

That's pretty interesting, but I don't feel it belongs in the opening paragraph. If someone wants to get a few more facts together (references would be nice too), this could all be made into a History section. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New Dick's Sporting Goods

The new wing opened this week in the old Lord and Taylor's. I'm not sure what the new square footage would be, since the store was made smaller so that two new restaurants could be brought in. If anyone has any ideas on the numbers, great! Kjscotte34 (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Upscale?

An editor insists on describing this mall as "upscale", and has twice reverted my edit to remove this puffery. This editor stated in an edit summary that "the tenents (sic) indicate this as well". The input of other editors would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk)21:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It is just puffery and the WP:PEACOCK term does not belong, nor is it even sourced from a reliable source. Support removal, and my deletion has been reverted by the editor as well. Bahooka(talk) 21:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Magnolia677 (talk) Bahooka (talk) Hello. I'm not sure I understand all of the fuss here. A majority of the stores located in the center are widely considered upscale or luxury retailers, and the mall website aside from the countless articles announcing new openings clearly indicate this mall as being the premier shopping center for the region. May I ask why you consider this specific term as puffery? EdelweissofNE (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. It looks like puffery to me too. Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, why? EdelweissofNE (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Because I read WP:PEACOCK and it fits. Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself and I don't see how it would fit being it's accurately describing the nature of the retail environment of the mall. Calling it a regional or luxury center would be an exaggeration, but not upscale. EdelweissofNE (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

EdelweissofNE, you actually answered your own question. "I can only speak for myself....". Wikipedia is not a place for you or I or anyone else to express an opinion. Minimally, you would need reliable, completely independent sources that used that term. But the actual content in the article is ruled by concensus, and even with a source, I don't see you getting a concensus for the use of that term. The blue words are links to policies and guidelines that are applicable in this discussion. WP:PEACOCK and WP:PUFFERY both apply here. Thanks. It would behoove you to visit WikiProject Shopping Centers and take a look at the guidelines for mall articles. Thanks and happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon No you answered my question, I merely stated my thoughts as others are doing. Upscale is used to describe and differentiate retail environments from one another, and it's certainly not new to Wikipedia. Each store has hundreds, if not thousands of articles that outline their customer base and the malls they are exclusive to. Last time I checked the content is only ruled by consensus when there is a dispute, not when there are more than enough sources supporting the changes made. EdelweissofNE (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So what are the sources? You keep saying there's numerous sources but we've yet to see one. I am more than happy to look for some sources, but if you're going to keep editing with that term, then you need to be the one to source it. Kjscotte34 (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

kjscottie34 Then you must not have read the article. The new store announcements (in the business review and the times union in particular), the (sourced) updated list of stores, the mall website (which clearly describes every store). Many of the other sources convey this as well. EdelweissofNE (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

EdelweissofNE, you want to use that term and others don't. That makes it disputed. Content is always ruled by concensus, with a very few narrow exceptions (mostly legal). A strong enough concensus even trumps policy. See WP:IAR. This IS a content dispute and as of now you have no support for your position. What could change that is a solid argument based in strong sources (which you must provide specifically) and rooted in policy and guidelines. You need to convince those that oppose you. If this were a legal dispute, you would be the plaintiff. The burden is on you. John from Idegon (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon I'm sorry but explaining my edit to users who clearly do not understand the purpose behind it hardly makes this a dispute. It appears you are not familiar with policy yourself. EdelweissofNE (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Other editors are disagreeing with that edit, so yes it is a dispute and is subject to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy. Bahooka (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Bahooka They're not speaking up or making it known if that's true. EdelweissofNE (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not clear on your response, EdelweissofNE. Who is not speaking up and making what known if what is true? The pronouns are throwing me. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Bahooka I'm unaware of anyone who disagrees with me at the moment. EdelweissofNE (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I disagree with the addition of the peacock and unsourced term "upscale" to the article. I see nothing in this talk page thread that indicates Magnolia677, Toddst1 or John from Idegon have changed their minds about thinking the term is inappropriate in this article. Bahooka (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Bahooka I see nothing that tells me they still disagree with me or why you still disagree with me. EdelweissofNE (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No other editor has indicated they have changed their position, so their statements on this page stand. In case there is any doubt, I still disagree with you and consensus remains that your position should not be included in the article. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1 My responses still stand as well and no one has disagreed with them. If you disagree with me, I have no idea why. EdelweissofNE (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This 2015 source was listed in the article, and is entitled Albany Area Shopping Malls Go Upscale Or Bust. That is the only reference to "upscale" in the source. The source goes on to describe how Crossgate Mall and others in the Albany area which "cater to a higher income crowd are surviving; those that appeal to shoppers with lesser incomes are struggling and disappearing". However, this source from two weeks ago describes how an "upscale" retailer in the Crossgate Mall is shutting down. And this 2015 article describes how an "Upscale bowling alley" pulled out of Crossgate just before opening. While describing this mall as "upscale" is just puffery, I'm not sure I would even say that it "serves a wealthy demographic", or something like that, unless other sources can show convincingly that it does. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Edelweiss, 4 5 editors have commented on this page that they don't believe that the word "upscale" should be in the article. If you don't understand why, that's ok - you don't have to. You do have to understand that you do not have consensus to include "upscale." At this point, WP:IDHT applies. I think we're done here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Magnolia677 That isn't unheard of and has nothing to do with affluence as brick and mortar stores are closing in every mall. You're also failing to mention that the majority of the stores in the mall cater to upscale shoppers only. You're also ignoring the significance of what you just said. A retail center that caters specifically in part or in whole to a higher income crowd is upscale. Not luxury, not average. EdelweissofNE (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1 No, I have to understand if I want you to understand. You still have done nothing to explain why you disagree with me. You can think you're done but you don't have consensus to tell me I am. EdelweissofNE (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

EdelweissofNE. Since as another editor has pointed out, you seem to be having trouble hearing what we are saying, let me be blunt: You have no consensus. No one agrees with you. This conversation is done. You need to move on to something else. WP:STICK applies. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon If I have no consensus then why do you think it's necessary to tell me the conversation is over? You can move on to something else, I don't have a problem with this discussion. EdelweissofNE (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that no one seems to be disputing the consensus I came to with Magnolia, I am adding the term back in. Thank you all for your contributions. EdelweissofNE (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to add that back in. Nobody - including @Magnolia677: is agreeing with you. WP:AN3 report filed. Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The article from the business review clearly states that's Crossgates is one of the successful malls that managed to go upscale. This is clearly supported, contrary to any of these arguments that seemed to have been agreed upon. MarketMartha (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

I hadn't been keeping up with this article in a long time up until the dispute above. This article has shrunk considerably. Did the group decide to remove the section on anchors/square footage, eateries, etc? It used to be an article, now it's more of a blurb. I'm just curious -- there's a lot gone. Kjscotte34 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The list of stores was removed to address the tags on the article and also in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers/Anchors and tenants and WP:NOT. Toddst1 (upscale talk) 15:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Upscale

The mall has become increasingly more affluent over the last five years as "upscale" or "luxury" stores with clear identities defined by Forbes, WWD, etc have taken over... my question is based off of the tenants alone, why would anyone not describe this mall as upscale? MarketMartha (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have independent Reliable Sources that describe it as such? Please wait until consensus is actually established on the talk page before re-adding the disputed content. meamemg (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes the Albany Times Union and other local papers clearly support this description as well as numerous non bias and industry journals that specialize on the topic. MarketMartha (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

ATU source is also already included on the page... The mall website and local business journals also have directories that include descriptions of the nature of the tenants that make up the mall. This can also be proven by simply googling the brands, as there are numerous articles that also support this. MarketMartha (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The ATU article doesn't really describe it as upscale. At best, it says that is is "going upscale", which implies that it isn't there yet. Googling the tenants and making your own determination constitutes Original Research, which isn't allowed. Please provide sources for the "numerous articles" and "other local papers" that you are referencing. meamemg (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does, the article clearly explains the successful malls in the region have moved upscale and identifies crossgates as a such. You're only reading the headline if that's your implication. MarketMartha (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC) The descriptions of the tenants are clear, there are obviously too many websites to reference that way. MarketMartha (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Terms like "upscale" and "affluent" are editorializing, and are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Scr★pIron^IV 20:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know that what you're saying is false, both words can indicate a specific environment when used properly and have been used in encyclopedias since the dawn of time. MarketMartha (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It is occasionally a point of contention; however, standard application is to use such descriptors only when used in a direct quote. The helps prevent Wikipedia from promoting specific businesses, and keeps a neutral point of view. Scr★pIron^IV 20:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

When you say that there are too many websites to use as a source, that is a pretty clear sign that you are doing original research, rather than relying on secondary sources, as Wikipedia requires. Also, please see WP:THREAD for a discussion about how to properly reply to comments on a talk page. meamemg (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There are over 250 stores in the mall, as I've said there's too many sources needed to list that way. I only have been referring to secondary sources, that is clear. MarketMartha (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As you can see "upscale" is directly quoted here when explaining the nature of the mall, I think it should be included in the article as many other similar malls also use those words as key indicators. MarketMartha (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This issue was discussed a month ago, with a clear consensus not to include the term. You now have three experienced editors in this new discussion who disagree with the inclusion of the term. It is time to read this article. Scr★pIron^IV 20:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of this "issue" until my edits were reverted and I also agree with the editor who first started this discussion... so the consensus is obviously not clear and there also arn't three experienced editors who currently disagree with me. If anything it's now clear to me that a fair consensus has been brushed under the rug this entire time. MarketMartha (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm an experienced editor who also disagrees with you now. The consensus to leave it out remains. Bahooka (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is a group effort, you've explained your reasoning to no one and you just jumped in out of no where. That doesn't change the false statements Scrapiron made, that embarrassingly unfair outdated consensus does not remain. MarketMartha (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the earlier section on this same topic. You will see my views there. This section should not have been created, rather anything new should have been added to the earlier section where the consensus to remove the peacock language was reached. 21:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

My question and reasoning were unrelated, there for so is your view from back then... it has also already been made clear by me this is not peacock language. MarketMartha (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

MarketMartha, that is your opinion. Consensus on what to include in the article is against you. You need to drop the stick. Consensus rules on article content; that is the most basic tenet of Wikipedia. BTW, are you in any way being compensated for your edits on this article or are you employed by or contracted to either the mall management or any of the mall tenants? John from Idegon (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No and I'm not sure why you feel like you have to ask me. Consensus is only reached when facts are presented and explained as to why or why not. So far the only presented are mostly by myself and the original editor. MarketMartha (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You started editing Wikipedia today. Between the editors that have spoken to you today here and the ones that have spoken to you on my talk page, there is over 25 years experience in editing Wikipedia. Who would be in a better position to know and understand the policies and procedures here; you? Doubtful. Drop it. And frankly I do not believe your denial, Market(ing)Martha. John from Idegon (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In order to add information that other editors disagree with, there must be consensus on the talk page to do so. There has not been consensus reached to add this phrase. As has been explained to you multiple times, Wikipedia policy requires that reliable secondary sources be provided for the claim that the mall is "upscale". The only source that you have provided does not clearly do so. You reference the existence of other sources but have refused to provide them. If you want them to be considered as support for your position, you must do so. meamemg (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The majority of the anchors alone Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Zara, Pottery Barn are considered "luxury" or "upscale". Travel and leisure highlighted the upscale tenants years ago before many of the stores now considered opening up. Look for any mall with the same stores and you will find they're described as upscale. MarketMartha (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I made this edit to this talk page a month ago--with sources--which suggested that "upscale" would be a poor description for this mall. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I noticed, you're reasoning leads me to believe you're not aware of what an upscale mall is. MarketMartha (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What is "upscale" or "luxury" supposed to mean, anyway? That the mall's stores carry more expensive items? (Which isn't even true of a store like Zara.) That the landscaping and architecture were designed to look like, say, a Newport, Rhode Island mansion and gardens? That the mall markets itself to potential tenants as having a customer base from a higher socioeconomic bracket than other local shopping centers are able to claim? It may be possible, with references, to assert that "The mall's developers intended to target the mall's store offerings and advertising to higher-income consumers," which if true might be a verifiable, objective statement of historic fact. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The developers don't have to target the malls offerings for it to become upscale, many times demographics can decide this. Upscale retail is a specific market for luxury and high end goods, and yes there is greater meaning to the words in this context. In this case the mall has a majority of upscale or luxury stores, many of which have opened just in the last 5 years, which to me is noteworthy. Yes, Zara IS a high end store and there are many sources to prove it. MarketMartha (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Albany Times Union also describes the customer base of the mall and how it does reflect a much higher socioeconomic bracket from other malls in the area. That is and has been verifiable. MarketMartha (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

And if you're not being compensated, why are you the second person who is so concerned with adding this particular word to this particular article? Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Every other similar mall in America is described this way on Wikipedia, I can't speak for the first editor. MarketMartha (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)