Talk:Garden State Plaza

Blue Laws

No, they are not repealing the blue laws, even partially (I think). If you want to put that in, give a source. Abeg92contribs 18:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also there are no state Blue Laws they were abolished over 25 years ago, any blue laws that are on the books are Bergen County and any local municipality in Bergen County that has such laws on their books. I am a former resident of New Jersey and lived in both Essex and Bergen counties from 1967 to 2018 and so I am very familiar with the blue laws. This needs to be changed but I wanted to discuss it first. YborCityJohn (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Blue laws are state laws that can be waived by the county. Every county has done so except for Bergen. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Article title (or, to Westfield or not to Westfield, that is the question)

This was originally posted at User Talk:Elevatorboy617, in response to the latest move of the article, but I decided it may be more appropriate and get more input placed here:

Well, we've done this dance a few times, so I needed to bring it here. Firstly, per the naming conventions on article titles, common names are preferred for article titles. In the case of the Plaza, the "Westfield" part of the name is very rarely used. I believe this means that the article title shouldn't include "Westfield". 

Secondly, and more importantly, it is utterly incorrect to include the Westfield name in any sentence covering material that dates from before the Westfield purchase of the mall in 1997. It wasn't then part of the name and shouldn't be part of the name. 

I hope to hear your thoughts on this. oknazevad (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That goes for anybody; I would like to hear your thoughts. oknazevad (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

COI tag

This article has been subject to paid editing - please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:MallExpert. I have put a COI tag on it. The article needs to be reviewed for compliance with WP:NPOV and valid souring per the tag. Once the article is reviewed by independent editors, the tag can be removed - please make a note here if you remove the tag. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

went through this quickly, seems oK Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Westfield Content Change Request

Hello. My name is Erik Even, and I am a Web Producer for Westfield Corporation. We're concerned that many of the Wikipedia pages for Westfield centers have incorrect or outdated information, and even content that is not NPOV.

I have read the rules for Conflict of Interest, and I will not be attempting to make any page edits. I will simply be going into talk pages, and suggesting edits, which the community may then either act on or not. I genuinely appreciate any help you can give.

Our suggested text is below, which is meant to be the first paragraph.

Again, thank you for your help.

Suggested text:

Westfield Garden State Plaza is a two-story, 2.1 million-square-foot upscale shopping mall located in Paramus, New Jersey, and owned and managed by the Westfield Corporation. It is located at the intersection of Route 4 and Route 17 near the Garden State Parkway, about 15 miles west of Manhattan. Housing over 300 stores, it is the largest mall in New Jersey, the third-largest mall in the New York metropolitan area, and one of the highest-revenue producing malls in the United States. Its anchors include J.C. Penney, Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Neiman Marcus, and Nordstrom. It was the first large-scale shopping mall in New Jersey.

Westfield Garden State Plaza was described by the New York Times as perhaps the single most influential retail destination in the U.S.(*)

(*)http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/business/welcome-to-the-potemkin-mall.html

ErikEvenWestfield (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Westfield Garden State Plaza. 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/20101211064743/http://americancity.org/magazine/article/taken-for-a-ride-the-inanity-of-escalators/ to http://americancity.org/magazine/article/taken-for-a-ride-the-inanity-of-escalators/

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} 13:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion 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.

---

Should mall articles list their anchor stores or is this a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --RAN (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

List them

• Malls are defined by their anchors, so yes, it would be odd to have an article on a mall without listing the anchors. If we named every store in the mall, it would be a directory. There is nothing in WP:NOTDIRECTORY that demands we remove the list of the four anchors or two anchors in smaller malls. Anchor store is so important, it has its own article in Wikipedia. They are so important they should be in the infobox. --RAN (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've added them to the infobox (aand was unaware of this discussion when doing so) ... but no they don't fail NOTDIRECTORY not in the slightest as they're only listing the main anchors ..... not every store in the centre is being listed so no it doesn't fail NOTDIR however my main reason for moving them was because I didn't see the need for them to have their own section when common place for them is the infobox, That all being said I wouldn't object to a section providing that there's actual history to them (ie when they opened etc etc). –Davey2010^Talk 02:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia guideline WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE couldn't be much clearer in stating that "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." The infobox is intened to summarize content in the article and there is no reason to delete material merely because its's in the infobox; heck, we could delete most of the lead given the duplication of content of the infobox. It's interesting to toss out WP:NOTDIRECTORY as an excuse to delete sourced content, but none of the seven cases apply here. (Note: A hearty welcome to my stalker). Alansohn (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The material is already elsewhere in the article, though, so INFOBOXPURPOSE is already fulfilled. That's not been addressed: the anchors are already listed in the article in prose, and a separate Bullet list is redundant. oknazevad (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Just follow the sources. If particular features are commonly included in them then they are DUE mention in the article in the same WP:WEIGHT. Markbassett (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I guess I was pinged for this discussion because I had previously reverted this edit [1]. That edit to me had tons of issues because the edit summary did not match the edit. This reminds me of this discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 29#Wikipedia:Not menu which was discussing whether or not key menu items should be listed on a restaurant's page. I think the stores in the mall need to be with discretion. Just because its not a directory it doesnt mean there isn't benefit to listing key stores. I wouldn't recommend Forever 21 in every mall its located in, but in my revert example, something like "Nickelodeon Universe indoor theme park" is something big and unique and should definitely be listed. - Galatz^Talk 23:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. I support listing them. Anchors are the lifeblood of a mall. When one comes or goes, it's usually the second biggest news after a mall opening or closing. I think therefore having them in the lede and listed in their own section, as they are here in the Westfield article, isn't overkill. If the concern is that there's no prose, why not add a note after each providing the date they opened? On a related note, I looked at the Infobox shopping mall template [[2]] and the number of anchors is included as a parameter, but not the actual stores, so they can't go in that infobox - yet. Adding that parameter is another discussion, but I'd probably support that also. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Do not list

• Even if only a partial list, it's still a plain list without context or prose discussion. It's also redundant to the mention in prose earlier in the article, which fulfills WP:NOTDIRECTORY's call for prose far better. oknazevad (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Do not list separately This is actually a good discussion to have. I've noticed an ongoing edit war about this at a different page that happens to be on my watchlist, but have chosen to stay out of it. I don't think it's so much a WP:NOTDIR issue as it is redundant information. If all the stores in the mall were listed, then yes it would be NOTDIR, but listing the anchors is certainly reasonable. However, the anchors are listed in the lead and the anchors are listed in the infobox (as they should be), so what is the point of listing them third time? It's a waste of space.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include them in paragraph form. Anchor stores are important, but often change with time. (A mall near me started out with a Woolworths, then Woolco, then Walmart, then a factory outlet.) Stores that are important to the financial integrity of a mall will generate news or magazine articles when they open, close, or make significant changes, and so will be written about in the history section. Large or longstanding anchors may be mentioned in the lead paragraph as well. If they are then listed both in the infobox and in an "Anchor Stores" section, this is triply redundant.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Mention, don't list - (invited randomly by a bot) maybe the question doesn't mean an actual list, but just in case, I think a list is undue. Simply mentioning them in a sentence would be useful. Jojalozzo (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Mention without a specific list. I was a little confused by which sub-heading to place this under, as "list" could be defined in numerous ways (bullet pointed, comma separated etc). I favour mention of these in the article, though not as a bullet-pointed "list", but rather integrated into the prose that discusses the stores in general, with particular note to those that are significant. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:50, 25 March 2018 (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.

Requested move 9 July 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior 22:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Westfield Garden State Plaza → Garden State Plaza – This is by far the most common name for the mall. Signs directing traffic to the mall simply read "G.S. Plaza" Needforspeed888 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The inclusion of "Westfield" falls under WP:OFFICIALNAME, and is not found in most uses. Plus there's the plain inaccuracy of even mentioning it from before Westfield bought the mall. It's long bothered me, as seen in the above section where I questioned it. There's numerous other Westfield-owned malls that include it in the name of the article where it may not be appropriate. oknazevad (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support The WP:COMMONNAME is definitely not with Westfield in the title. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support the WP:COMMONNAME Djflem (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Is Garden State still the largest mall in NJ?

American Dream Meadowlands has a retail area of 3,000,000 square feet according to the artice. 150.250.5.30 (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Garden State Plaza

NOTE: This discussion began at User talk:Alansohn.

Alan, apart from the issue of citation styles, you have removed valid citations from the article, and replaced them with ones that are are not in any way superior. For example, in this revert of yours, among the things you did was to remove this quite valid NorthJersey.com citation, and replace it with this signup pages to Newspapers.com, which does not bear the same information. Can you please tell me why you keep doing this?

Second, with regard to WP:CITEVAR, that policy states change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. Isn't this exactly what you have done? There are cite templates all over that article, you persistently remove them, and without discussion. Why is this? Do you believe there is an "established" citation style in the article? If so, what is it? What is your rationale for this? Nightscream (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightscream is correct. What you're doing is the violation of CITEVAR. Bringing a single ref inline with the rest of the article's established citation style is not a violation of CITEVAR, but changing the entire citation style, as you have done, is. And frankly, taking refs that are already rendered with templates out of them is a straight-up crappy CITEVAR violation. Knock it off, and respect the established citation style of the article, or I'm bringing you to ANI. oknazevad (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightscream and Oknazevad, as one of the earliest contributors to the article for Garden State Plaza some 15 years ago, I followed and helped to continue to establish the consistent citation style used in the article. Over the subsequent years, numerous editors have made additions that conflict with this consistent citation style, and other editors have made edits that consist entirely of changes to this consistent citation style, as seen in this edit. Where I have made changes, they have been as part of comprehensive edits to the article and have either been to restore the status quo ante as the reference had been inserted or to replace a non-functional source with one that works. I had checked the source before I made this edit that Nightscream questioned at which point the Internet Archive link was not working, which is the only reason I replaced it.

Changing citation styles is not only purposeless, it conflicts with policy, which is clear that no one citation style is "better" than another. Alansohn (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Internet Archive not working, replacing it with a signup page at Newspapers.com is not appropriate.

The fact that you edited the article years ago does not mean that there is an "established" citation style in the article, in light of the fact that the article is filled with both templated citations and non-templated citations. You simply took a citation out of a template, not any of the others in the article, an act for which there is no apparent purpose or reason.

Moreover, it has been my observation that wikification tends to favor placing bare citations into templates, and not the other way around. I have never observed bare citations referred to as a "style".

You have two editors now who have argued against your edits, and it seems that you are reverting against both of them, and in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Do you intend to continue reverting if I restore the cites in question? Or do you prefer to continue this discussion with more editors participating? Nightscream (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightscream, if I have "removed" sources, it is because the exiting references were non-functional or did not cover the material they claimed to be sourcing. If an edit I made inadvertently removed a source, the rather simple solutions are to let me know or to reinsert the source.

, on the other hand, if you're citing this malicious edit, which removed extensive sourced content, as an example of a "an ongoing discussion", there is something completely f'ed up here, as that edit was the very definition of WP:POINT. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not. I provided the diff of the edit I was citing above. The citation in question indeed supported that material.

As I stated above, that webpage works perfectly fine, whereas the Newspapers.com signup page you replaced it with does not. Are you going to fix that? Do you intend to continue reverting against the two editors now who have opposed your edits? Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightscream, I confirmed that the Internet Archive version of the link is working and reinserted the reference in the format in which it was added to the article, with the replacement of the archived version of the link for the original link, which is no longer functioning. Again, if you believe that this malicious edit, which removed extensive sourced content, is part of "an ongoing discussion", there is something seriously wrong here. Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk page to come and moderate a dispute about reference styles in this article. Pinging Alansohn, Nightscream and Oknazevad. It's a shame that this is creating a wedge, because you all clearly want to improve this article. I spent a little time reading WP:CITEVAR, which does say that there is no right style, but it should be consistent. I personally prefer using templates, but can see how others might like to use the open formatting. For anyone else reading this in the future, the difference comes down to which of these two styles should be the article standard (refs rendered below):

<ref>Verdon, Joan. [https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/596202205/ "Garden State Plaza carousel stops spinning"], ''The Town Journal'', February 11, 2016. Accessed February 10, 2021."The carousel at Westfield Garden State Plaza in Paramus has twirled for the last time."</ref>

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.northjersey.com/news/garden-state-plaza-carousel-stops-spinning-1.1504302|author=Verdon, Joan|title=Garden State Plaza carousel stops spinning|publisher=[[NorthJersey.com]]|date=February 2, 2016|accessdate=February 2, 2016|archivedate=February 4, 2016|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160204090742/http://www.northjersey.com/news/garden-state-plaza-carousel-stops-spinning-1.1504302|quote=The carousel at Westfield Garden State Plaza in Paramus has twirled for the last time.}}</ref>

References

WP:CITEVAR also says to avoid switching styles, if one is established. So I'm going to put on my Solomon hat and say that absent any other guidance from Wikipedia, whichever style was first should be the established style. So which was first? It looks like the first refs were added by Alansohn way back in 2006 with [[3]], so technically that's how they should be maintained. But if one of you can make a good convincing case in this discussion as to why your preferred style is better, feel free, and then you can join forces to help keep things consistent going forward. Good luck! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtempleton, thanks for taking the time to look into this, analyze the dispute and render a fair and reasonable judgment. While I agree with you as to your final decision, I would like to suggest to Nightscream and Oknazevad that we seek a compromise under which that citation formats be retained as entered, with references created without templates being left as is and the same for those entered with templates, whatever the status quo ante was when the reference was created. I offer to do my best going forward to refrain from switching formats without a reasonable justification and I hope that Nightscream, Oknazevad and other editors will agree that we split this baby in half and abide by this compromise. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Personally, I think the idea that a "style" is established simply because one editor was the first add citations 15 years ago, to the point that we cannot use templates is an absurd standard, but appreciate Alan's willingness to at least leave the templated ones alone.

@Alansohn: So are you going to switch back the ones that were originally within templates? Thanks for the compromise. Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightscream, I had already started making changes and will continue to review the article. If you have specific matters that you believe should be addressed, I will look closer. I do want make sure that we reach a global consensus on this compromise. Alansohn (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alansohn: Thanks. Question: If going forward I'm expected to write out citations without templates, how do I include archive info, which I often do now? Nightscream (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Expand upon guardian requirement

Currently the only bits of information about the recent guardian requirement for minors 18 and under is the last sentence in the intro and a little bit in the history. Given that this is a pretty big deal with fierce reactions and that you can still sneak in easily (my little brother literally did it this past weekend) I think it makes sense to expand upon that, however I fear a WP:COATRACK ARTICLE and since I’m learning about the rules and regs of this supermassive website I’ll take whatever advice as a learning tool. Jason Ingtonn (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)