Talk:Drake Circus (traffic junction)

Drake Circus
Drake Circus
	Picture of Drake Circus, from the roof of the Drake Circus Shopping Centre.
	List of places United Kingdom

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 November 2007. The result of the discussion was delete.

For previous discussion, see Talk:Drake Circus/page 2.

Whether to delete

This article was 10 minutes old when somebody applied a speedy deletion tag. The historical references to the Drake Circus area including over 3000 historical references from local government archives had been vandalsied on an article that was similar and previosuly deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 12:48, 12 November 2007

It would help if you could explain how this version differs from the one that was already decided to be deleted as per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus. DoubleBlue (Talk) 12:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is allowed to propagate and be given a chance to grow it will be substantially different from that article. It is an area that was heavily blitzed, saw the death of countless citizens, has historical associations with Sir Francis Drake, Sir Joshua Reynolds etc, contains some of Plymouths most prestigious landmarks both old and new, received royal visits and today is the subject of a multi-million pound investment. The other article was heavily linked to the promotion of a nearby mall that happens to share the same name. I am sure when users search for Drake Circus want to be told about its Mills, musuems, factories, reservoirs and buildings - they do not want to be redirected to an ad for a mall.Nicole 50dc 13:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above referred to a previous version of the article, which was deleted or moved. doncram (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 8, 2008 article and its speedy deletion

New article about the place

I opened a new article about the place, to be separate from the article about the mall, in response to a posting at wp:ANI. Immediately it was expanded considerably by an IP editor. Probably that is fine, but I hope that this article won't be site of a new edit war. I think there is room for an article about the place. Please, this article and talk page should not be the place for discussion of the wikipedia-notability of the shopping mall, which is a different subject. doncram (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

north hill district

i hope nobody objects however i was proposing to change the article to read 'drake circus is an area in plymouth'. I have no verification to show its a sub-district of north hill as i believe it is an area in its own right (in a similar way to Piccadily Circus in London.)

Request hold on speedy deletion, and please stand down

The new article was tagged for speedy deletion and then it was reverted to being a redirect, seconds after i put in a "hangon" tag, with my reason: "I didn't know what i was getting into when I responded to request at wp:ANI, but i think it is appropriate to have an article about the place, separate from the article about the shopping mall. I have now seen the past AfD and other material. What was immediately added to the stub has problems / is substantially the same as before, but please allow me a day or two to try to create a more appropriate article." I undid the reversion to redirect, and do ask for some time to fix this article. I have read the past AfD and see both the legitimacy of deleting it then, and the way forward that several editors there would have allowed, for a different article. I can't create the new article immediately, due to Wikipedia servers being weird now and my having to go do other stuff.

But, could everyone please stop for a day or two and let me try to form an acceptable article about the place. Especially, to the IP editor and others who want there to be an article about the place, please stop editing this and allow me to try. Your pasting in old text will just cause this article to be deleted, because it will appear to be substantially the same article as was covered in a legitimate AfD article that led to deletion. Or at least it will complicate matters, and also lead to deletion. I am going to put an "underconstruction" tag in the article and will indicate that i am done when i remove that tag. doncram (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is somehow so contentious that someone over-rode my "hangon" request and deleted the material, again redirecting to the article about the shopping center. I asked that the overrider comment here to explain their action, and hope that they will. I'll begin drafting my suggested replacement article at Drake Circus/Temp. Discussion to continue here, including suggestions for this draft replacement. doncram (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous AfD. I don't think anything has changed since then. If you can prove to me otherwise with reliable sources specificaly about Drake Circus then fine. Jolly Ω Janner 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth City Council website is an excellent source of information. Jolly Ω Janner 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on new article in progress

Comments here welcome about the new draft article in process at Drake Circus/Temp. In particular, i fabricated an unsupported statement about the circus being a bus route destination for years prior to the new shopping center. It would be a good point to make towards establishing the place is a location predating the shopping center. But does anyone know if there are busses that go there with Drake Circus stated as their destination? Photos would be valid evidence. doncram (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos would not be, Bus schedules would. A Bus stop, however, isn't notable. It was stated in the AN thread that this location relates to numerous points of english history, relating those would be important as a priority. I do find the numerous redirect reverts and edit warring to keep it a redirect to be in bad faith though. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dropped that bus route business entirely, it was my speculation only. doncram (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it as a redirect until there's a totally absolutely sure-fire viable asserted-notability well-cited article written that can no-questions survive AfD will avoid insta-deletion (speedy-deletion as recreation of previously AfD=delete without resolving its concerns). Doncram is taking a reasonable approach here...work in a temp location until the article is ready-to-go. Given that on-going process, why would we want to fork it onto the main article here. I'll be happy to protect the article as a redirect if that will help here. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Totally against the priniciples of Wikipedia to build entire articles in secret then debut them. Nothing is lost by letting this article build in the mainspace; it's not trying to cover a new topic over an old one here, just a redirect. This is a lot of BITEy behavior here, and DMacks, your demand is an absurdly high bar for any editor to meet, and certainly NOT how most articles here start out. Offering to use your buttons to ensure it's not changed seems pointy and a poor decision as well. Leave this article to grow, let the editors have more than an hour before edit warring... shit, generally, show some good faith here. ThuranX (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret? It's linked right above. There are only two ways we can go here...speedy-deletion as recreation of article that was deleted by consensus, or keep the redirect. The article presently recreated in mainspace doesn't overcome the problems noted in the AfD that led to original deletion/redirect. That's really how things do work here...not-ready-for-going-live articles get built in non-mainspace until they are in a form sufficient to avoid being deleted. If an article is only in a form that will be deleted, why bother even writing it? Mainspace is explicitly not for things that are not presently mainspace-viable. I'm trying to tell you how to avoid getting this article deleted again and creating an even higher bar for anyone who then tries to write another article about it. DMacks (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youre' talking down to me like I'm a new editor. I'm not. Stop treating everyone else as stupider than you, just because you've got a few more buttons. I see no BLP vio or anything else precluding this article from having a few days to build up. The only reason I've seen is that two years ago, an article here was redirected to a mall, a redirect which has since then been militantly protected. This is ridiculous. I'd like a specific link to the policy that says all articles must be born fully clothed and "mainspace ready", a bullshit term if ever. Further, if so, I'd like your explicit commitment to deleting all stubs, as stubs are clearly not mainspace ready, but sitting there waiting for another editor to help out. ThuranX (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the temp page is more open than the usual SOP in these situations of having an editor build the page in user space and then going to DRV with the candidate article. When there is a situation, like this, where prior community consensus was to delete the article, it is usually helpful to say "See! I can make an article about the subject differently than the one deleted before!" to prevent deletion of the new article under CSD G4. Given the contentiousness of this title, I think DMacks is following a prudent path that is hardly unique. —C.Fred (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, DMacks is. An article similar to this one was deleted via AfD. Maybe that AfD was broken, maybe this new article will soon be sufficiently dissimilar to the old one for it to be OK. Most stubs are not re-creations (good or bad) after AfDs ended in "delete". ThuranX may wish to show good faith to DMacks, and indeed to the participants in the AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is the new draft in Temp space okay now?

I think the new draft in Temp space is close to being acceptable now. Please consider these thoughts of mine about it:

I think it establishes, well enough, and with adequate references, that Drake Circle is a term commonly used to refer to a location. In my view, and per viewpoint of many expressed in Option 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations), that is sufficient for there to be a wikipedia article about the location.
I use the term location, rather than area, except in one deliberately vague phrase. I understand from previous comments included in the AfD, that there is no official district named Drake Circus. So, I believe it is not supportable to define the area. I expect that locally there is an understanding of what is meant by the area of Drake Circus, but in terms of documentation, there is essentially only the label for the former roundabout (now an intersection) and for one stretch of roadway leading from it. I think it is best not to define precisely what is the area.
This location is more significant than other locations. It is a location, if not the location, of University of Plymouth, which apparently has 30k students so hundreds of thousands of past students and visitors are aware of this location.
Also, it is a Circus. There are no Circuses(? Circi?) whatsoever in most areas of the world that i have frequented. When i have frequented areas like England which do have circuses, it has been maddening trying to figure out what is meant by the term, when you are trying to meet someone there or whatever. So I tend to think that any Circus, at least in any urban area, is notable. There cannot be that many of them, they could all be enumerated and covered in wikipedia, if only as items in one list-article "List of Circi". However that list does not exist and Drake Circle is meritorious enough as a location on its own.
It explicitly addresses the fact that the newish shopping centre has somewhat usurped the name. This seems to me to be extremely necessary to acknowledge, that there is some ambiguity in what Drake Circus refers to.
I include a deliberately vague sentence: "And, depending on how the Drake Circus area is defined, the shopping center is not within it." I intend for this sentence to stand unreferenced (and believe the current fact tag added by Jolly can just be removed). It is, by construction, absolutely true, and needs no further support. You could say that a sentence which so constructed is meaningless, but it is not. A reason to include this sentence is to acknowledge, indirectly, various sentiments that frankly deserve acknowledgement, and this sentence does no harm to anyone else.
There is more importance for Wikipedia to cover the Circus location, due to the fact that Wikipedia has an article about the shopping centre. In discussions, some have expressed their opinion that the shopping centre's notability is disconnected to the notablility of the historical location. I tend to think that the shopping centre is notable, but if it has an article, it is all the more important that there be a stub on the location. Otherwise, Wikipedia appears to be taking a side in the locals' debate about the shopping centre. For appearance of neutrality, Wikipedia should cover neither, or both.
I copied in the History section from the shopping centre article, believing that it is verified and true and more appropriate here than in the article about the new shopping centre. If this version survives, then the shopping centre article can be pared down to coordinate with this article.
I do not wish to include mention or material on the reservoir, the bomb shelter, or the planetarium that appear in some prior versions. The references so far put forward for that material do not highlight Drake Circus (and in the case of the planetarium are not official or reliable enough to establish Drake Circus as its location, in my view). In my view, it is not well enough established that those places are within the area that is locally regarded as being Drake Circus. Passing that hurdle would be hard, of course, because there is no available documentation of what that area is. I am a little suspicious about this material, because it seems to be padding meant to support retention of the Drake Circus article, while to me a short article about the location, without covering history of things that happened nearby is fine on its own.
Finally, and reiterating, I think the article should remain very short, unless truly new sources turn up with extensive treatment about Drake Circus and its history. I think this article should be considered a viable short article, but one not to be expanded, so it should not be labelled as a stub (note, wikipedia usage of "stub" conveys a request for expansion). Less is more. doncram (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kudos to you for trying, doncram, but I don't see how an article that has less info in it than the AfD'ed one can have a chance of passing another AfD, unless the bar to inclusion has been lowered in the last year or so. Just to deal with your first point for now:- you're aware, of course, that Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) is a dormant proposal and so the opinion you refer to: "every geographic location or entity that has a name and a verified location is suitable for inclusion as a topic of an article" holds little or no weight. The lede of WP:UKCITIES (3rd para) suggests that an article on this ill-defined area may not be appropriate. Oh - I think this covers your second point too. More later. —SMALL JIM 22:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well let us differ in opinion about what general policy for allowing there to be articles about any location, anywhere. I do generally hold that viewpoint, shared by many others, and yes that link i provide is to a dormant, unresolved discussion, but that was only my first argument for this article. I also argue that this location is more notable than other places. I look forward to your further comments. doncram (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do have differing views on this—I prefer to stick closer to what I see as consensus—but I can tell that we at least can remain civil :) Now, I started off drafting a response to each of your points, trying to rebut it if possible. But just after I realised that's not what I wanted to do, I made a fortuitous discovery.

Here's a compromise. Plymouth has a ward called Drake which covers this area. Unlike most other wards/suburbs of the city it doesn't yet have an article. So I suggest we should write it and redirect Drake Circus to it. The ward's southern boundary apparently just misses the shopping centre (the map does not show the latest change in road layout), but Drake ward includes the university, museum & library, site of air raid disaster, Drake's Place reservoir and several former mills on the leat, Plymouth's main railway station, several architecturally interesting buildings further up North Hill, and no doubt more. A quick Google shows me that there was a minor kerfuffle over the defection of a councillor in 2001 which adds a different dimension too.

What do you (and others) think? —SMALL JIM 15:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An expansion upon your suggestion would be to put what I created as Drake Circus (disambiguation) at "Drake Circus", and point from there to the Drake (ward) article that you suggest (as well as point to the shopping centre), and describe the Drake Circus location within that "Drake (ward)" article. That would be equivalent, pretty much, to describing the Drake Circus location within the Plymouth, England article, as was mentioned as an alternative too. But perhaps some would say that Drake Circus is not important enough to include in the Plymouth article, so the idea would work better with a ward article. About this: I think you should go ahead and create the "Drake (ward)" article, and make that into a viable alternative. That would be useful work anyhow as I assume the ward is a valid wikipedia article topic. doncram (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthering that alternative, although is not my first choice, I started an article at Drake (ward). Could anyone please look at it, put it into appropriate categories and Wikiprojects and so on? doncram (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still currently believe that it is appropriate to have the Drake Circus article be as proposed in the Temp version. I appreciate Smalljim's restraint about the Temp version article, but I would welcome his point-by-point views about it, as addressing them here would be better than having them come up in a new AfD. I'd like to make the Temp version AfD-defensible, although there may yet be differences of opinion. About the 3rd paragraph in WP:UKCITIES, I read that more as a comment about other situations, like when one name is used as name for overlapping official and/or unofficial areas. I don't see that specifically excluding having an article about this location. And, what do you think about my reasoning for the importance to have an article about this, given there is an article about the shopping centre? I don't think it is really explainable to those who want there to be an article about this location, why there cannot be one. Is the main argument against it that there exist more important, other locations, lacking articles? Then, perhaps facetiously, i could say: please list those so i can create stub articles for all of them. :) doncram (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend to post both of those comments? Please clarify as they seem not to be compatible with one another. FWIW I prefer the top one (make this a dab page and include its content in a new article on the ward). —SMALL JIM 23:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did intend that, leaving an insertion point if you wanted to comment about the first comment, separately than the second one. I don't mind helping to expand/clarify your alternative suggestion. However, and especially in the absence of an article about the ward, I do not support that alternative as a substitute for having the Temp version at "Drake Circus". doncram (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Sorry, but I'd really prefer not to spend time responding point by point to those ten items now. It's open to anyone else to do so, of course (where have they all gone?). I'll just reiterate that I don't think Drake Circus/Temp should pass an AfD, for the same reason as last time: it's not sufficiently notable (points 1–4). I must also re-emphasise my strong evidence-based belief that the conjectural group of disaffected locals is really just one person with a huge conflict of interest regarding the shopping centre (points 5–7). I do now agree with you, though, that Drake Circus shouldn't redirect to Drake Circus Shopping Centre and I think we can fix that and all the other issues with Drake (ward). Thanks for starting that article and I'll spare what time I can to work on it. —SMALL JIM 17:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of surprised too, at the total falloff of activity here. Perhaps some are just giving us some time to work, which is what i wanted. However, i expect that interest will resume if we do not put something better in place. Thanks for developing the Drake (ward) article. Seeing that, I am coming around to trying to make that alternative work (using that article plus a disambiguation page at "Drake Circus"). The current ward article version would not work yet for that purpose, in my view; I will try to edit it to clarify about ambiguities addressed explicitly already in the Temp version. doncram (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have a go at it - I've done now till tomorrow (GMT). I left a HTML comment in the article about content that I can add, and I hope you noticed that I've corrected some errors in the Drake Circus Shopping Centre article. I hadn't realised until today that both malls (1971 and 2006) are actually located more or less right on top of the original Edwardian Drake Circus, so it really does form part of the history of the site and the claim of usurpation of the name (in /Temp) is probably not appropriate. I don't know why (or when, exactly - sometime in the 50's I think) the council renamed the lower part of the Tavistock road to the same name. —SMALL JIM 23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I tried drafting a UK place infobox, but I am not sure it adds significantly, and maybe it should not be added to the article. Especially if it is regarded as an infobox only for populated settlements, which could not easily be defined for this location, as i am proposing the article. Also i am having trouble getting the photo and caption to display. doncram (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the photo. The rest depends on deciding the above issue, I think. Infobox:Settlement might be an alternative. —SMALL JIM 23:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I further reduced the text showing in the infobox, i think to the least it will allow, now. As such, it just shows a link to UK list of places, and i guess that is okay. Basically, i think the infobox doesn't add anything helpful though, beyond what just having a photo with a caption provides. The location is not a "settlement", by my informal understanding of what that would be, by the way. doncram (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox Settlement}} says it can be used for "any subdivision below the level of a country". It has so many options that something is bound to fit! —SMALL JIM 17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative idea

Given that the mall is in Plymouth and both considered meanings of "Drake Circus" are near to each other and in Plymouth and there are apparent official buildings and other entities that claim DC as their address but aren't in the mall, should the redirect point to the Plymouth page instead of the mall page? Maybe even have a section about his part of town, discussing the historical vs recent revival projects. That means we don't need to establish total stand-alone notability for the location, which appears to be primarily as a container for other notable things (buildings, historical events, etc) but can put a few sentences about them in their historical, geographical, political context in that article. DMacks (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more and more reasonable to me. "Drake Circus" could be a disambiguation page, pointing to the section in the Plymouth article as well as pointing to the article about the mall, and perhaps to the song of the same name. doncram (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

-If the disruptive students want their little piece of history that’s fine with us so long as it is confined to the name of whatever is the subject matter of that history – so with the bomb shelter it could be indexed under bomb shelter – Plymouth – there is no need to mention Drake Circus which in any event is our trademark name. For those who are bombastic and arrogant to banter our name around they would do well to remember that we have not consented to the use of our trademark outside the context of promoting our mall. I hope this clarifies the position and puts an end to the ridiculous campaign to remove or vandalize our article.Znette (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah. Read the Wikipedia policies. One, WP:SPAM. two, WP:OWN. If the area was called Drake Circus before you built your mall, then you don't own the name 'Drake Circus', you named the mall after the place. ThuranX (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put, ThuranX. And to expand on the trademark comment, given that the proposed article on Drake Circus has nothing whatsoever to do with shopping, it can hardly be argued that a new article will infringe on trademark. —C.Fred (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should note that there is a history of attempted Joe jobbing of the mall staff on this article. See the blacklist archives. - MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i doubt the Znette comment is real one, it smells like a fake posed to attempt to drum up controversy, to me. Anyhow this new discussion about the mall is irrelevant here, it may be relevant to the separate article Drake Circus Shopping Centre, not to this page. doncram (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - what's been going on here, then?! The above "blah" is based on this ciao review with added ranting. Probably violates Ciao's copyright, but our vandal doesn't bother about things like that—yes, of course it's the same person who's appeared under many guises since User:Yiwentang. Just look at some of those early contribs (this and this, for instance) and apply the duck test. I'd say there's strong evidence that points to a distinct COI issue that has been missed up to now, as well. —SMALL JIM 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drake circus

Just to let you know that Drake circus (without a capital c) redirects to the article on the shopping centre. Jolly Ω Janner 16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, Drake circus should redirect to Drake Circus. Unless Drake Circus redirects to the shopping centre, in which case Drake circus should also (avoiding a double redirect). This is a side issue, though, whose resolution will be obvious once something gets settled on an article for the Drake Circus location. doncram (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

current February 9 version of Drake Circus article

There's a current new February 9 version up at Drake Circus, a substantial copy of some previous versions. I don't think this contributes to settling anything, because I believe this version is subject to the decision of the past AfD. If there is a 2nd AfD, now about this version, then I suppose that will delay consideration of the new draft article that i was drafting in a temporary area, discussed above at #Comments on new article in progress. However, let this discussion section be about the current version that is up. It is tagged for speedy deletion and there is edit warring going on to remove the tag or not. The current version does not have properly formed references. The current versions makes assertions about the bomb shelter, etc., which do not link to anything clearly mentioning Drake Circus, so the bomb shelter section seems irrelevant. There are other problems noted previously with respect to much of the same text. doncram (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree that the current Drake Circus version is identical enough to the AfD'ed version, and is even inferior with regard to sourcing, as to warrant speedy deletion.

I am also of the opinion that Drake Circus/Temp is sufficiently improved as to be a good candidate article.

In my opinion, the correct process here is to speedy delete the current article and replace it with the Temp article. However, I do not want to move boldly on this unless other editors are in agreement. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no doubt that the Feb 9 article met G4 so I've deleted it. Drake Circus/Temp looking good though. Nancy ^talk 19:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better that you just deleted it, rather than putting in the redirect to the shopping centre, as that was just confusing matters IMHO. About the Temp version, good, please do comment above in its discussion section. doncram (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a revolting turn. A dogpile with buttons. Abuses of power and huge BITEs taken out of others. ThuranX (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention melodramatic histrionics from editors who should know better. Sheesh. --WebHamster 00:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Could you clarify which you are referring to, the February 9 version posted and since removed, or the Temp article? If the latter, i'd prefer for organizing this discussion, for that to be discussed in discussion section area above, though i am not in charge in any sense. doncram (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time to tidy up

I think the silence that has descended here shows this has been satisfactorily resolved. Drake Circus is now a disambiguation page directing readers to Drake (ward) and Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Drake (ward) includes, and expands on, the information that was in the disputed Drake Circus article, most recently worked on by doncram at Drake Circus/Temp. I asked doncram what he wanted to do with this piece of work, but had no reply.

So to tidy up I'll delete Drake Circus/Temp in the next day or so (under WP:CSD G6), unless anyone can provide good reasons why I shouldn't. Thanks are due to doncram for taking the initiative to resolve this issue. —SMALL JIM 16:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i didn't get back to you sooner. I'm okay with that Temp page being deleted now. I saved a copy, anyhow, in my user space. I just revised the disambiguation page in a small way, too, to provide mention of Drake Circus the former traffic circle, hope that is okay though it may need tidying. Thanks. doncram (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. It's gone. —SMALL JIM 11:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite imagery

I was browsing Google Earth today and viewed its historical satellite photos. There is a satellite photo from 31 December 2001 and an enhanced version of that photpgraph dated 31 December 2002. It shows the old Drake Circus Shopping Centre and the grotesque car park. The Drake Circus junction itself is acutally a round-a-bout with a wide more proper road (Cornwall Street) connecting to it. Might be interesting to view it. Jolly Ω Janner 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]