Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shopping Centers/Archive Jun 2007

Anchors and tenants

In some recent discussions on this page (namely, Tenant listing, and Anchor and Tenant Lists), now archived by a bot, a consensus seemed to be emerging on the following:

We should avoid including lists of tenants and/or largest tenants in shopping centre articles;
Lists of anchor tenants are appropriate, as long as they are properly sourced.

I made an attempt at putting the emerging consensus into words, and the draft read as follows:

Wikipedia is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists (including lists of the largest tenants) in shopping centre articles (except in the circumstances described below). It is appropriate, however, to include a link to the centre’s website (if one exists) under the “External links” heading, where readers can refer to the store directory.
The text of the article should also refrain from mentioning specific tenants (current or former), unless such tenants are noteworthy in the context of that particular shopping centre, and the tenant references assist in establishing the notability of the centre. For example, some references to tenants are encyclopaedic in nature and arguably merit inclusion in an article (e.g. “The ABC Centre contains the second largest IKEA store in the country” or “H&M opened its first store in Western Canada in the XYZ Galleria”), whereas others are not (e.g. “A new Radio Shack store opened recently in the south part of the mall”).

Given their prominence within the shopping centre and the role they play in drawing customers, it is usually appropriate to mention or list the anchor stores in an article, as long as such stores are identified as anchors in a reliable source and the source is appropriately referenced.

SchuminWeb suggested a minor text change, which was made. DGG raised the following valid concern: "Anchor stores has been used rather loosely, and some of the above discussion suggests that listing them may not be appropriate--what it really does is provide spam links for major merchandisers." Whereas I agree with DGG that few articles require yet another wikilink to Old Navy or Payless Shoe Source, my own view is that:

Absent any consensus, shopping centre articles will continue to be infested with tenant lists and references to non-noteworthy tenants; and
Properly sourced (can't emphasize this enough) anchor lists would seem to be the lesser evil, as they would comply with WP:V and WP:OR, and arguably a list of a centre's anchor tenants is noteworthy enough to merit mention in the article for that centre.

Still looking for further input, thoughts and opinions. Skeezix1000 18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as everything is attributed to a reliable source, it's great. In other words, I like it. And if someone does go against this, we can throw the book at them, so to speak. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this plan. At first I thought that including major mall stores would be okay. But since mall store change so often now, its best to keep the cataloging to the mall web sites. The key to this, of course, is that information needs good references.--Janus657 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too - as long as the anchors can be attributed, keep 'em. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, especially with lifestyle centers, multiple websites will think different stores are anchors. Maybe we should use the official web site/page for the anchors section, and then list the stores 3rd party websites, but not the official web site, think are anchors in the majors section. However, I agree entire directories, restraunt lists, and unsourced anchor lists have to go. I am open to changes or out right rejection of that proposalMetallic95 User Page | Talk 14:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point -- what if there are different sources that provide conflicting anchor lists? In my view, determining what source is most reliable is an issue for the editors working on the article to determine. Usually, it would be the official mall site or the site of the mall owner, but not always. Every situation might be different. This issue must come up all the time in other circumstances as well, for a whole variety of non-shopping centre articles. To be consistent with Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, we should give the editors working on the article the flexibility to determine what is the most reliable and up-to-date source, rather than trying to come up with guidelines now (anything we come up with cannot anticipate all situations or conflicts in any event). Skeezix1000 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you wouldn’t believe how many weird anchor listings I’ve run across. A common one is listing tiny clothing stores as “anchors”. In those cases, like you said, the article's main editors should probably evaluate which site’s list should be used on a case-by-case basis.

We should probably also decide where the proposal’s text would be stored besides this talk page. We could put it under section 6, structure, of the WP:MALLS page. We could also make a new section on the WP:MALLS project page, or a subpage, or a new article entirely in the Wikipedia namespace. Metallic95 User Page | Talk 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some special classes of tenants I want to mention, that are listed extensively and often separately in these articles: movie theaters, and, especially, restaurants. Of course, some restaurants are distinctive, but almost all the relevant ones are parts of large chains, and I personally put them in the Old Navy category--I've been reluctant to remove them, though, until I know if others agree. Theaters similarly are parts of large chains, and if there is anything where google etc have totally changed the way one looks for, it's motion pictures. Again,I have not yet started removing them. As for RSs, while attributing to RSs sounds good, the only up to date sources are online; though in some cases the mall articles are well maintained, most are not-- and articles covering the detailed changes through June 06 and not later are becoming increasingly less worthwhile.
I suggest the following:

we discard lists of tenants, including restaurants, including those worked into paragraph form, unless there is something distinctive to say about particular ones.
we include only the anchors about which we have something to say, but this does not include detailed changes--whether in list or paragraph form--unless there is something really significant to be said. The corporate history of Federated Department Stores, for example, does not need to be specified at length in every mall article where there is or was a Macy's. (Alternatively, we include only the anchors for malls where we are able to maintain the lists adequately)
The basic strategy is to get good articles for the articles that we do have, rather than as many articles as possible..
There are two practical choices for the malls where we don't have good articles and have no immediate prospect of any: One is to retain as stubs, but stub articles--although I often like the idea--are getting harder and harder to defend for all classes of article. Another, of course is to eliminate, or just leave in lists. But the ideally best way I think is to combine into regional articles, which is parallel to what is happening about schools.

There's only one problem--making this conversion takes work. I've been intending to convert quite a number of elementary school articles into sections, but have't actually done any. (for those who my not have been folowing the technical improvements, it is now possible to put section redirects into categories, so the individual listings in the category are not lost when converting the individual articles to sections )DGG 20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the main points you've raised:

*Restaurants and movie theatres: Agreed. If a restaurant or theatre holds any special significance, then arguably it can be referenced in the article, but simply listing restaurant and theatre chains that happen to lease space in a particular mall is what we are trying to avoid. They should be treated no differently than any other tenant.

*Reliable sources: Not sure what issue you are raising. Yes, I agree that many sources would be online. But online sources are not discouraged or prohibited by Wikipedia:Reliable sources, despite the transitory nature of some online sources. Perhaps the bigger issue is the maintenance of articles. I guess what you're saying is that an anchor list might be properly sourced and accurate in 2007, but may be inaccurate and out-of-date in 2009. However, that's true for a lot of properly sourced information in Wikipedia, as you know. It would seem to me, though, that an out of date list merits removal. Typically, if anchor lists are properly sourced, they will be for the most part be shorter, and will be easier to maintain.

*"only the anchors about which we have something to say": That's an interesting point. The draft wording right now says that it is okay to list anchors, as long as they are properly sourced (and by sourced, I mean that the source identifies them as an anchor, not simply confirming their presence in the mall), but you are suggesting that we only mention anchors for which there is something significant to say. I think a lot of editors would take the position that anchor stores, by virtue of being anchor stores, are noteworthy and merit mention in a mall article. I lean more to your viewpoint. However, I also believe in baby steps. I am primarily interested in achieving consensus for the removal of the "worst offenders" (lists of random tenants, mentions of non-noteworthy tenants, un-sourced lists of what some editors deemed to be anchors, etc.). The solution to anchors is a bit less obvious. I'd be very interested in everyone else's view on this point.

I agree with your last two points, but I believe they are beyond the scope of this issue. Except for this -- if we reach some sort of consensus that mall articles should not contain endless references to non-noteworthy tenants, many articles will become significantly shorter (one participant in an earlier discussion noted that many mall articles consist solely of descriptions of the comings and goings of chain tenants). As such, editors may find themselves reassessing certain articles and how they can best be improved (whether by finding something noteworthy to say about the mall, or through other strategies).

Except for your point about anchors, I think the draft wording already covers the other points you made. However, I will draft some additional wording to clarify/emphasize your points. And it would be great if everyone else could comment on DGG's point about excluding even anchor references, unless there is something significant to say about them. Skeezix1000 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new text in bold

Wikipedia is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists (including lists of the largest tenants) in shopping centre articles (except in the circumstances described below). Tenants include retail stores, restaurants and other services (such as cinemas). It is appropriate, however, to include a link to the centre’s website (if one exists) under the “External links” heading, where readers can refer to the store directory.

The text of the article should also refrain from mentioning specific tenants (current or former), unless such tenants are noteworthy in the context of that particular shopping centre, and the tenant references assist in establishing the notability of the centre. For example, some references to tenants are encyclopaedic in nature and arguably merit inclusion in an article (e.g. “The ABC Centre contains the second largest IKEA store in the country” or “H&M opened its first store in Western Canada in the XYZ Galleria”), whereas others are not (e.g. “A new Radio Shack store opened recently in the south part of the mall”). In other words, a tenant should not be mentioned in an article simply due to its size, its location within the mall (such as in a new expansion), or due simply to its mere presence in the mall.
An article about a shopping centre need not repeat information about a particular tenant that is not unique to the mall in question and more appropriately belongs in the article on the retailer itself. For example, every mall that contains a Macy's need not repeat information that is already found in the Macy's (department store) and Macy's, Inc. articles.

Given their prominence within the shopping centre and the role they play in drawing customers, it is usually appropriate to mention or list the anchor stores in an article, as long as such stores are identified as anchors in a reliable source and the source is appropriately referenced.

How's that?Skeezix1000 22:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Proposal

Skeezix1000's original text is in italics, his/her revisions are in bold, and the newest text is in plain text.

Wikipedia is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists (including lists of the largest tenants) in shopping centre articles (except in the circumstances described below). Tenants include retail stores, restaurants and other services (such as cinemas). It is appropriate, however, to include a link to the centre’s website (if one exists) under the “External links” heading, where readers can refer to the store directory.

The text of the article should also refrain from mentioning specific tenants (current or former), unless such tenants are noteworthy in the context of that particular shopping centre, and the tenant references assist in establishing the notability of the centre. For example, some references to tenants are encyclopaedic in nature and arguably merit inclusion in an article (e.g. “The ABC Centre contains the second largest IKEA store in the country” or “H&M opened its first store in Western Canada in the XYZ Galleria”), whereas others are not (e.g. “A new Radio Shack store opened recently in the south part of the mall”). In other words, a tenant should not be mentioned in an article simply due to its size, its location within the mall (such as in a new expansion), or due simply to its mere presence in the mall.
An article about a shopping centre need not repeat information about a particular tenant that is not unique to the mall in question and more appropriately belongs in the article on the retailer itself. For example, every mall that contains a Macy's need not repeat information that is already found in the Macy's (department store) and Macy's, Inc. articles.

Given their prominence within the shopping centre and the role they play in drawing customers, it is usually appropriate to mention or list the anchor stores in an article, as long as such stores are identified as anchors in a reliable source and the source is appropriately referenced. The anchor list should usually come from the shopping center/owner’s official website, but the anchor list on the official website may not always be appropriate (example: the official website lists many anchors, most of which are small in size). If this occurs, an anchor list from a non-official website should be used, but if there are multiple non-official websites with anchor lists for a particular property, the editor(s) of the article will be responsible for choosing which anchor list is to be used.

How's that proposal? Metallic95 User Page | Talk 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that this new proposal strays back into POV territory if we pick one we like better. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this day and age, anchors are not simply the largest stores -- they are usually the tenants that have the biggest drawing power. In a smaller mall, especially some of the higher-end ones, you might possibly have smaller stores acting as anchors. It is unusual, but possible. And, as SchuminWeb said above, I don't know that it is appropriate for us to analyze the list of anchors identified by the mall/owner (doing so violates WP:OR), unless we have concrete reason to doubt the reliability of the source. It is hard for us to determine right now, when trying to come up with a very general guideline, specific rules for judging sources -- I think it is a job best left for the editors of individual articles who are in a much better position to assess reliability. You are right, though, the proposed language should include some sort of caution that not all sources are necessarily reliable. Rather than the language you proposed, I would suggest a less prescriptive approach, something like: "Not all sources purporting to identify the anchors in a mall are necessarily reliable or authoritative; in some instances, there may need to be some discussion and consensus among editors as to whether or not it is appropriate to rely on a particular source." Let me know what you think. Skeezix1000 12:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider

- The biggest tenant when the shopping centre opened was notable
- The tenant paying the most rent when the shopping centre opened was notable
- The tenant paying the most rent proportional to lettable area when the shopping centre opened may have been notable

(often, supermarkets and department stores pay trivial rent compared to usable retail area)

The same applies, when a shopping centre closes should it "die".

"Real-time" information is news and belongs at Wikinews. It isn't encyclopedic - but if a tenant has been the biggest / flashest / most expensive ever since the place opened then that might be different.

We're not a directory and we are bad at being a directory. This is good, it should help us discourage people from filling articles with directory information.

If the only reference to support a section is a directory or press release then the section shouldn't be there.

Ga rr ie 06:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I 100% agree with your three bullet points, but I do think we agree on the fundamental issue: tenants should only be referenced in an article if there is something significant or noteworthy to say about them. They should not be referenced simply because they exist in the mall. And I certainly agree with your point about Wikinews -- the "news" that some editors insist on inserting into shopping centre articles (e.g. "A new Subway recently opened in the north food court") does not belong in Wikipedia.Skeezix1000 12:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once we are happy with the draft, what do we do with it?

In response to User:Metallic95's suggestion above, I have created a subpage for everyone's review (Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers/Anchors and tenants). Obviously, the text remains under discussion here. Once (and if) finalized, we can also reference the subpage on the main WikiProject Shopping Centers page. Skeezix1000 12:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest version of text

Just so we have the latest version in front of us, here is a clean copy of it. I did a bit of minor copyediting -- others should feel free to do the same. Only significant changes are:

I changed the last paragraph to read that it "may be appropriate" to list anchors, rather than it is "usually appropriate", in order to address concerns raised by DGG;
I added at reference to WP:OR and WP:V at the end.
The second last sentence of the last paragraph (dealing with reliability of sources) is still under discussion above.

Here it is:

Wikipedia is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists (including lists of the largest tenants) in shopping centre articles (except in the circumstances described below). Tenants include retail stores, restaurants and other services (such as cinemas). It is appropriate, however, to include a link to the centre’s website (if one exists) under the “External links” heading, where readers can refer to the store directory.
The text of the article should also refrain from mentioning specific tenants (current or former), unless such tenants are noteworthy in the context of that particular shopping centre, and the tenant references assist in establishing the notability of the centre. For example, some references to tenants are encyclopaedic in nature and arguably merit inclusion in an article (e.g. “The ABC Centre contains the second largest IKEA store in the country” or “H&M opened its first store in Western Canada in the XYZ Galleria”), whereas others are not (e.g. “A new Radio Shack store opened recently in the south part of the mall”). In other words, a tenant should not be mentioned in an article simply due to its size or its location within the mall (such as in a new expansion), or solely because it exists in the mall.
An article about a shopping centre does not need to repeat information about a particular tenant that is not unique to the mall in question and that more appropriately belongs in the article on the retailer itself. For example, every article on a mall that contains a Macy's need not repeat information that is already found in the Macy's (department store) and Macy's, Inc. articles.

Given their prominence within the shopping centre and the role they play in drawing customers, it may be appropriate to mention or list the anchor stores in an article, as long as such stores are identified as anchors in a reliable source and the source is appropriately referenced. Not all sources purporting to identify the anchors in a mall are necessarily reliable or authoritative; in some instances, there may need to be some discussion and consensus among editors as to whether or not it is appropriate to rely on a particular source. Anchor lists that are not sourced may violate Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.Skeezix1000 13:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goal article

OK so it seems lists of anchor tenants aren't the way to go. What makes Mall of America a B-Class article? It is flagged as unreferenced. It has long lists which don't do it any favours. What I am trying to work out is how to improve articles like Westfield Penrith and a justification for removing the list of tenants, and the sort of information I should be looking for to improve the article and get it toward being a B or better class article. (and so on for other Aussie westfields / Marketplaces). I have gotten onto using a template for suburbs, something similar to this "suburb skeleton" but for shopping centres would be great.Ga rr ie 06:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WP:SHOP

Hey guys, I was wondering if anyone would object to my request to requisition WP:SHOP for an essay entited Policy shopping. I know you guys already also have WP:MALLS and WP:DEADMALLS, and I can't really think of a better WP shortcut for the essay. The wikiproject seems to have had a surge in activity lately (after a long stagnant period) but still seems to only have a few core members. Would you guys mind? /Blaxthos 06:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to that. We took WP:SHOP from rejected policy Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers) in April. The shortcut had been pointed at the previous title since November. You're more than welcome to add a disambiguation link to the top of the project page, but please don't take WP:SHOP outright without strong consensus.

By the way, you may want to repurpose WP:PS for your essay. That presently sits on an inactive page called Wikipedia:Pokémon Stubs, which has not had an edit since July 2006. You would likely encounter less resistance to repurposing that, if any at all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHOPPING appears to be available. Use SHOPPING as the shortcut to your essay, and add a dab link to the top for this page, and similarly, SHOP will continue to redirect here, and we can add a DAB link to the essay at the top of this project page. Skeezix1000 11:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for taking care of the DAB's for me. :-) /Blaxthos 01:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]