Talk:Natick Mall/Archive 1

Archive 1

Naming

The original Natick Mall page was moved to the new Natick Collection because of a name change of the shopping center.See the location's website:http://www.natickmall.com and also :http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/02/21/mall_reborn_as_natick_collection/

Fair use rationale for Image:Natickcollection.jpg

Image:Natickcollection.jpg 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 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoever added all the info in the "History" section please cite where you got your information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyman1 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

I recently assessed this article for the two projects that is a member of. I rated it as a stub article as it does not have enough content and is rather sparse in the history area. I gave it a high importance rating because it is the anchor for one of the largest retail districts in the Northeastern United States, the second largest in the New England region and as such is a major financial generator for the region.

-Jeremy (Jerem43 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

No article required in title.

Hello, recently there has been many changes regarding the title of the shopping center.

The name of the mall is now "Natick Collection" and GGP does not have the article "the" in the title. Thus, it should be referred to as "Natick Collection". (Ex: I am going to Natick Collection this weekend).

All the signs at the mall say "Welcome to Natick Collection". Even on the website they do not use an article:

"Natick Collection boasts breathtaking architecture..." or "Need directions to Natick Collection? No problem."

(http://www.natickcollection.com/)

Notice they do NOT say "Need directions to THE Natick Collection?".

So please stop editing it and adding an article, General Growth Properties want's it to be referred to as "Natick Collection" and just that.

If you still think that an article should be used visit the mall and look at all the informational plaques or refer to the web-site and see that they do not once use an article.

Would you put an article in front of another store's name? Would you say "The Sears is an American mid-range chain of international department stores, founded ..." ? No, you would just refer to it as Sears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.159.190.201 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your position is wrong, Do you go to the mall or to mall? The mall is the Natick Collection and yes you would go to the Sears store, the Macy's store etc at the Natick Collection. No matter what the owners wish, proper grammar still applies.

You could easily say Burlington Mall is in Burlington, MA but American grammar rules require you to say the Burlington Mall is in Burlington, MA. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, you go to the mall, but mall is a genralized noun and not a specific company / building. Like how you would say "I go to the high school" but when your talking specificly about which high school you drop the article, like "I am going to Westmont High School" see, it would sound weird if you say "I am going to the Westmont High School". It is proper grammer to add an article when it is a genralized noun but not a specific place. Also you added two things when it comes to the last sentence. You said "go to the Sears store", in that case when you add the word "store", yes, you would use an article because "the" connects to the genralized noun "store", you just proved my point. When you are just referring to the store then you would simply say "go to Sears" not "go to the Sears".

You are so incorrect, English grammar rules do not require one to say "the" before any specific place, if you refer to Burlington Malls website (http://www.simon.com/mall/default.aspx?ID=146), it also does not use an article. You shouldn't say "The Burlington Mall". Do you really think two high end corporate companies, GGP and Simon, would use incorrect grammar on there websites and in there malls?

Please don't let your ignorance take over and refresh yourself on the English language. You are correct when you say that an article is needed, but it is only needed when there is a noun and not when there is a specific company, building, mall, store etcetera. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.159.190.201 (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In the case I have listed the noun is still mall, in this case the term Burlington is being used as an adjective that modifies the noun mall; So in this case the definitive article the is required. The same applies to the Collection, Natick in this usage is no longer a noun, as it would be in the Town of Natick, but is being used an adjective modifying Collection. This is standard general English grammar usage, and occurs with great frequency in the language.

Other examples would include:

Green is a color and is a noun;
in the green car, green is an adjective that modifies the noun car.

Baxter is a name and is a proper noun;
in the Baxter Building it is an adjective that modifies the noun building.

And yes companies ignore proper grammar all the time in adspeak, and it is a violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) by altering article to solely use the companies naming structure. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing this article per the warning placed on your talk page. No other mall-related article employs the formatting you wish to impose on this article. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

If this helps: I live in Natick and always hear people refer to it as Natick Collection without "the". Even the mall does, "Promenade at Natick Collection" "Fine Dining at Natick Collection" etc... So I would think it'd be better to go by the proper name and not change it for the sake of "proper English". Like the above wrote, no one writes or speaks by strict English rules anymore. So I say leave out the article. Just my $00.02 though. - J. Andrew (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have lived in the area my entire life and work in the triangle; I have never heard of anyone not using the article. The basis of my argument against the change is the WP:Naming policy, specifically the trademarks section. Basically, no matter what the company believes how something should be in it advertising, the general rules of language apply and overrule the company's wishes. This is a policy of Wikipedia and you do not change the article to match the promotional material - this is a violation of WP:Not. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you also use terms like "the triangle" which I have never heard in the 30 years I have lived in Natick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JA7957 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The area is known as the Golden Triangle, as defined the area bordered by Speen St, Cochituate Rd. (rte 30) and Worcester Rd. (rte 9). The name was coined by the Metrowest Daily News about 40 years ago. Google --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying that locals do not use that terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.159.190.201 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The opposite is what I am seeing. Almost all blogs, local newspapers (including the Globe, Tab and News), as well as most people I know and speak with on a daily basis use the article. The only time I see the article not used is in published press releases from General Growth Properties, articles concerning GDP/Collection sponsored events that include quotes from GDP employees (such as the recent Queer Eye for the Straight Guy visit) or ads from tenants located at or inside the mall. If you do a Google search on the term you will see that almost all reliable sources use the article when presenting a neutral article on the subject. The three examples I listed are all primary sources which makes them less reliable than a good secondary source.

By changing the structure of the article to support advertising and promotional views held by the company, you violate the tenants of WP:Not - specifically that is WP is not a advertising medium. As well, the changes conflict with the the manual of style over the subject of trademarks, specifically that we use the common, grammatically proper version of the name of products and services as opposed to the owners adspeak. Imagine if we went around and changed all the articles about Donald Trump's properties to support his company's view on the naming of his properties, that would be a massive violation of NPOV.

We can mention that the company uses a certain form of the name in its advertising but not use the aforementioned ad-speak regularly in articles. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of original research going on in this page. Use what the sources say, then refer to MOS. Discussion of what people actually say is not relevant because i:it's not reliable verifiable source and ii:people say different things. also iii:you're mixing up your examples, "I'm going to Natick Collection" is fine, "I'm going to Natick collection in $town" is odd, "I'm going to the Natick Collection in $town" is fine. Note how the the in last example is not part of the name, but used to identify which Natick Collection.(NOT A SOCK OF ANYONE ON THIS PAGE) 82.33.48.96 (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

completion?

"The third phase, the construction of the condominiums, which originally had a projected completion of Summer 2008, is underway with a now estimated completion time frame of Winter 2008–2009. " and was it? 64.129.127.5 (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Crate & Barrel

The new store is not two stories, despite it having a two-story facade. In fact, it's a very claustrophobic single-story store, much like the one at South Shore Plaza. If I remember correctly, the Disney store relocated into the space above Crate & Barrel. I have edited the article by deleting the part about it being two stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.179.211 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a two story location. The addition is two stories while the original store has been divided into the store's entrance from the mall and a new hallway that serves as the relocated Mall entrance. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)