Talk:Quayside

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 June 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy closed.

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England 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.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

NewcastleGateshead Quayside

The NewcastleGateshead Quayside is NOT the only Quayside and is therefore not a true and acurate description of the term and meaning Quayside Of course the article is open to debate and discussion, but I think it should be decided in a discussion and not a editing war as such. //Melonite (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unless you have any other articles with Quayside in the title, then Quayside is valid as its common name, and no disambiguation is required. MickMacNee (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as Quayside_Tower maybe? 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)//Melonite (talk)

If Quayside and Quayside Tower are the only articles with Quayside in the title, then no, a DB page is not required. See WP:DISAMBIG. MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. Per WP:BRD, your bold change was reverted by me, further reverts by you are disruptive. If you want you preferred version, you need to seek dispute resolution. MickMacNee (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above section was moved from my talk page MickMacNee (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be its common name on Tyneside, but not a common name globally, and since Wikipedia is a global service it needs to reflect the global common meaning. //Melonite (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, read the disambiguation guideline. If you have no other articles to disambiguate, then you cannot just dump an unsourced POV piece as a general article, to redress whatever bias you think that Newcastle being here serves. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then with your argument that would mean, those in St. Peters Head or Stockholm or New York that the common meaning Quayside covers those also, and not just Tyneside. //Melonite (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME applies to article names for articles that already exist. There are no articles for the New York Quayside or Stockholm Quayside, (if that is their common or official name). You cannot displace this article just because you think that is unfair. And you are wrong to assume Quayside is a local common name, it is recognised throughout the UK as the name of the area. NewcastleGateshead is a marketing neologism, that didn't even exist ten years ago. NewcastleGateshead Quayside is not the name of this area, either commonly or officially. MickMacNee (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find it is commonly called the NewcastleGateshead Quayside, by both Newcastle City Council & Gatehead MBC, including Gateshead Council tax bills are addressed as NewcastleGateshead Quayside so therefore it is the official name, People from outside the North East of England do not refer to the NewcastleGateshead Quayside as merely Quayside it is occasionally refered to as The Newcastle Quayside Those who reside in other parts of the country or the globe for that fact would also call the local quayside simply The Quayside. The page Quayside does not at all refer to the Newcastle Quayside anyway shape or form, it is very misleading to indicate that Quayside is a place in the North East when it is clearly not. //Melonite (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(id)The council? What do you not understand about branding? Of course they are going to use their own branding, the council is not the only official body that gets to name areas. As for the rest of the UK, you are quite wrong, nobody uses the term Newcastle Quayside in common speech or written form. "Quayside in Newcastle" maybe, recognising the actual name. Nothing you have ever said here has been backed up by any source at all. But all of this is beside the point, nothing you have said justifies moving this article at this time, because your suggested replacement is an unsourced POV mess which isn't even a legitimate db page or article. It is designed simply to justify the move, and not improve the pedia. Per WP:BRD, your change was reverted, it is not supported by policy or any evidence you have yet provided, so you need to seek consensus, and stop your disruptive edit warring. At this time, all you have justified is a disambiguation hatnote to Quay on the current article. Attempting to list all places called Quayside without an article is never going to be accepted as a legitimate article. The term Quayside is clearly not misconstrued currently on en.wikipedia except by you, and has never been in the past. All you need to do to know that is look at the incoming links to see that. MickMacNee (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melonite, I have reverted your third revert, and have issued you with a 3RR warning over this issue. You registered in 2005 so maybe that's harsh, but your understanding of policy as it appears to me so far warrants it, as I have had to repeat myself on basic points of policy many times now. Despite your edit summary, it is your change which is opposed by me per WP:BRD, and has been since you first made it, so repeating back to me what I told you to do repeatedly, to seek dispute resolution or a consensus for your opposed change while continuing to revert is disengenuous to say the least, and disruptive at worst. I have used the talk page throughout, so given the lack of agreement/compromise between us, again, do not simply tell me to discuss it while continuing to revert to the opposed version. As the change is being instigated on a stable article by you, I am not going to go out of my way to seek a consensus for your change for you, and the version you are edit warring to restore is poor quality indeed, whatever actual justification you might eventualy have, as explained just above. If you revert again in this manner I will have to use the 3RR noticeboard. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pick up on the point about branding and the council, outside of the NewcastleGateshead brand, Newcastle council also refer to the area simply as Quayside, for example in promoting bars and Quayside multi-storey car park. Apart from which, the street on the Newcastle side of the river is actually called Quayside. A quick googlesearch of quayside doesn't seem to yield any other notable places in the world using the name, so I see no reason to disambig or move this page until someone comes up with another notable place that is also referred to as Quayside and provides some references as to why it is notable, as per the above. Johnwalton 15:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Article

The proposal for article deletion is that this article does not represent the global meaning of Quayside. The article itself is not encyclopedic, and therefore does not actually meet WP policies, it is not notable for a location, it can be even argued that the article appears as an advert, advertising the NewcastleGateshead initiative. With the AfD in place, let the WP community decide. //Melonite (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The proposal for article deletion is that this article does not represent the global meaning of Quayside." Well how on earth is that a valid reason for deletion? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe before the consenus of others was to move the article to a more suited place. Yet instead this was ignored and speedy closed because someone did not agree with what the Wiki Community was wanting, and therefore it was ignored. //Melonite (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- There are ways of settling disputes about the proper title of an article, but AfD is not one of them. See WP:Dispute resolution.DGG (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Quayside → Newcastle Quayside — As previously stated this article does not offer a true and global representation of the term, No body disputes that the Newcastle Quayside is notable. But naming the Newcastle Quayside merely Quayside gives cause for confusion to those not in Newcastle, in a recent AfD dispute it was suggest that the article is moved to another location, the main object MickMacNee originally objected point blank at the deletion, users then suggested to rename/move the article when MickMacNee stated what about the name Quayside The question needs to be asked does MickMacNee have a COI in this subject. //Melonite (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am just laughing at the idea that I could possibly have a conflict of interest over a geographic article. Have you even read WP:COI Melonite? Anyway, I'm opposed to the move until you show me a credible article or a disambiguation page that actually meets the rules for disambiguation, that you propose to put in its place (moving this for Quayside to then just redirect to the better title is just a waste of time). MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User Drawn Some (talk · contribs) moved Quayside to Newcastle Quayside at 17.16. This is hardly helpfull, as all it does is redirect Quayside, without addressing the reasons for the move request. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. If there's a discussion in place, why would anyone do that? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really don't know, but they've buggered off and left it to others to sort it out. MickMacNee (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am just ~~laughing at why~~ suspicious as to why MickMacNee is trying so hard to protect this article, when it was clear from the discussion on the AfD that was speedily closed the general consensus was that the article be moved to something which actually mentions Newcastle in the name. //Melonite (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only two people at the AfD proposed to move it. One of those was me, and now I am now considering the name. If it hadn't been such a stupid AfD in the first place, I probably wouldn't have said it. And, if you are denying the sockpuppetry, there were actually more delete votes. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I moved it to the proper name which is "Newcastle Quayside" as a Google search shows. For example, from the official Newcastle tourist organization itself: [1]. No need to make a big deal out of it. After the double redirects are cleared by the bots, it can be made into a disambiguation page which is what it should have been all along. Drawn Some (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is your proposed disambiguation page then? Unitl its created, what have you achieved with this redirect? And see above for the rebuttals that the place is actually called 'Newcastle Quayside' instead of just Quayside. If you are going to make moves that are 'no big deal;' please read the previous discussions. All you are doing is making work for others. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)You can't just wait for bots to do everything for you. If you need to create a disambiguation page, it needs to be done fairly quickly to avoid any confusion. Having "Quayside" redirect to Newcastle Quayside is even worse. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And if we're moving it willy nilly out of process, as its 'no big deal', I've moved it to Quayside, Newcastle, as there is a specific street and area called Quayside in Newcastle, and you obviously didn't do any real research before picking your chosen official name. This is per the geographic name disambiguation rules. MickMacNee (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is in the process of creation. Unfortunately I don't have as much time as others to spend on WP creating pages constantly, although the page will be ready shortly, I'm unable to give a time but it will be shortly. //Melonite (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've already seen with your last attempts, you are the last person that should be creating any such page. Leave it to someone who actually knows the disambiguation style guide. MickMacNee (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee I think you need to calm down somewhat and not take it personal, you keep quoting that it is no big deal, this is clearly a big deal to you, I am not making any personal comments about your editing style, I therefore expect the same in return from you. But if you do not wish me to create the page then so be it I won't. But please keep it civil as it is not helpful. //Melonite (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've made plenty of personal comments about me, so pull the other one. It's about a big a deal to me as anything else on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee and does two wrongs make a right? Clearly you hold a grudge as the last time we discussed this matter was October 2008, and I have not commented what so ever since then. Someone have an axe to grind maybe? I say it again MickMacNee your comments are not helpful in resolving this. Are you entitled to tell someone not to create a page, just because it might not be to your liking? This is just becoming silly now, as no matter what I (or anyone who disagrees with MickMacNee ideology) xe will most certinally make it personal. 90.194.37.139 (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was posted by me, but as my WP session ended and it posted as if I was not logged in and thus is appearing from my IP //Melonite (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no reason, based on your recent showing of not knowing the deletion policy, that your knowledge of what should go in an article or dab page has progressed since 2008. If you want to try, by all means go ahead, but otherwise, stop wasting my time with your accusations and general nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move template

I am about to remove the template about the move from the top of the page. Regardless of the civility issues above, I don't think there's much point naming it from "Quayside, Newcastle" back to "Newcastle Quayside". The initial problem about "Quayside" not reflecting the whole world has been solved. As there is a specific area called "Quayside" in Newcastle, the Quayside, Newcastle name is better, and fits in with the naming conventions. Otherwise it would be a bit like having "Berkshire Reading". I know some visitor guides etc will call it otherwise, but that doesn't reflect the majority. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If there are any issues, let's discuss them here first, rather than just jumping in a doing the wrong thing. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but it hasn't been solved, because Quayside now just redirects here, which is arguably more confusing. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but I meant in terms of this article. Regardless, the template didn't mention the former name anyway. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would we be better off redirecting Quayside to Quay, as long as we change the links first? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move templates simply mention the current name of the article, which is why it is particularly bad to move a page which has an active move request. It doesn't seem particularly sensible to assume that someone specifically typing in Quayside in the search box in reality wanted Quay. i.e. if they did want Quay, why did they ignore it and carry on typing to get Quayside? MickMacNee (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realise that. Many visitors will not know what the drop down search box does exactly, and I can easily type Quayside and press enter before Quay even appears, and I'm rubbish at typing. It's the best option I can think of at the moment. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been moved back to Quayside. MickMacNee (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Good! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A clear case of not what is right and what community wants, but a case of who can shout the loudest and run fastest to find an administrator its not what you know it's who you know. I'm sure it will come into dispute again no doubt. //Melonite (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Melonite, you are completely wrong. I moved the page back because it was clearly pointless to have Quayside redirecting to Quayside, Newcastle, Newcastle Quayside or anything else. Find consensus for the move, and for what to do with the Quayside page and do it then. Leaving a stupid redirect behind while moving this to an inaccurate title was, frankly, the worst possible outcome. I do not "know" anyone here, and I would appreciate you not casting aspersions upon my integrity without a shred of evidence. – Toon 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant good as in it's over for now. I certainly won't get involved it it gets disputed again. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quayside. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090514122424/http://www.visitnewcastle.org.uk:80/newcastle_quayside.php to http://www.visitnewcastle.org.uk/newcastle_quayside.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]