Talk:Westfield Doncaster

Should be neutral

The Revitilisation [sic] section of the article sounds a bit like advertising to me, should it be edited to make it sound neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.154.163 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote the services paragraph, sounded like it was pasted straight out of the News Limited article Kbbbb (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kmart

Kmart is certain to be there come this time next year - don't know where you got the info that Target would replace. It's simply not true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.130.89 (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by 122.107.132.220

122.107.132.220 made this on the main page this edit:

For those who are typing that Kmart will be reopening this isnt true so stop editing that it will. Big W and Target will be reopening in June along with the food court so for those again editing it for August stop :)

Can you both please sign up for accounts so everyone else can tell you appeat, and add some Wikipedia:Reliable sources if possible. ;-) Wongm (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Target IS definitely opening August 7th.. So I have changed the date. Omg12345 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison table

Why all the bitching about the comparison table? It is supposed to be for the major retailers, just because a store isn't listed in it does not mean it wont be in the centre. Sheesh! Wongm (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Reopening

for ppl who think kmart is reopening, just read this n shut up wit ur bull

http://westfield.com/newdoncaster/vision/plan/index.html

if u still cant c, u mite wanna check this site out: http://www.childcare.com.au

--Thfrang 09:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Look - I dont know what you're refrences do but I cant see anything about Kmart . Yes, target is on there but not kmart. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirection Link

I don't know how to create a redirection link but someone who does know should create a link so that 'Doncaster Shoppingtown' redirects to this page - I tried searching for it but it didn't work, there's no redirection for it. Ronnie M. 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't think the way we say "state of the art", the use of the word "Unfortunately", "very low price" and things of that manner are very neutral at all. Especially when you haven't nothing to back it up with.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bus schedules are for bus companies, wikipedia is an encyclopedia

I really don't see the point in including all of the urban bus lines, their times of running, the routes they take, and their points of origina in an article about a shopping center. This is about a mall; it is not about a bus line. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bus timetable

The bus line and the proposed Doncaster line, has got to do with the centre. Its transport for the centre. This page may be for the world to see, but also its community. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this isn't a community bus schedule page. The Metlink provides that already at their website. The proposed Doncaster line discussion in this article is not understandable. This is an encyclopedia. See my comment above this one. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

well please tell that to the hundreds of editors who have made those bus timetables on numerous amounts of pages. I am not in a 'argument' with you. you do sound like a wise person, but in these circumstances, I dont see that it is the right thing to do. Bus time tables, connect this centre with other places. there are links and references, as well as intresting facts. for example, many people never even heard about the Doncaster Line until they read the article. Now I am not asking you to stop debating, but I am just saying, until its outlined by an administrator that It is not aloud to have a big depth in explaining transport, I will make sure the timetable stays. Thankyou MelbourneStar1 (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And if there is something you don't understand...as you mentioned the Doncaster Line, maybe do some research on it, as well as ask someone about it. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thousands of editors add bad external links to wikipedia all year long, and that does not matter in the least. They are removed from articles.

But time tables are available through the bus company. The arguments that will allow the time table to remain are arguments that show its encyclopedic value. But it has none. Wikipedia isn't a tour guide, it isn't the yellow pages. It's just an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to describe and explain topics, not to prepare bus riders for trips.

And, actually, no, it's not required that something be "outlined by an administrator," as that's not what administrators do here at wikipedia. Editors, like you and me, set, outline, discuss, refine, modify, change, and decide policy. However, as you are just determined to make sure it stays, I have decided that I will simply move forward with requesting that all of templates be deleted. I will notify you on your talk page of the deletion discussion. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Listen, Kleopatra, I have just taken a look at the 'Wikipedia:Edit warring' page. Look I am honestly not trying to argue with you. If i have made you feel annoyed in any way, I'm sorry. ts just I personally don't like the steps you have taken...like I am sure there is other ways of resolving this issue. I want there to be detailed timetables. You dont want there to be detailed timetables. So why don't we try and make an agreement to KEEP all timetables, but to make them brief...and not in your words as an 'advertisement guide'. I think thats fair, what's your input, with this comment? :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this bus schedule is not in keeping with the tone of an encyclopedia. I think really the most we should say about this is something like "Westfield Doncaster is easily accessible by public transportation" if it can be backed up by a source. Also, aside from anything having to do with the goals or policies of Wikipedia, generally it is a really bad idea to copy bus schedule information without some kind of plan to keep it up to date. These schedules can and do change quickly, and it's harmful to leave up outdated information about them. It's true that there is all kinds of inappropriate content on various Wikipedia articles. This is not a reason to keep more of it, though; that argument is not useful here, MelbourneStar1. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, MelbourneStar1, wrt your edit summary here, admins have absolutely no more say in whether this table should be here than anyone else does. An admin may come in here and block people who are edit warring or being uncivil or protect the page if it's being vandalized, but deciding issues like this is not something that admins have a special responsibility to do. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well reguardless of what you two think, I will be removing the bus routes, but I will be keeping the information that tells readers there is a bus station, as well as a proposed station. You can not delete a whole section with no valid reason. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dont worry about the comment i just said. Instead I am going to delete all bus routes, on the local super regional shopping centres including Doncaster, But i will be keeping the part of the section that states that busses serve the shopping centre, and the fact that there is a train station proposed. Removing a whole section will just make matters worse, it won't resolve any problems, but make more in the near future. Thanks for your time. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's never regardless of what anyone else thinks. Wikipedia has policies.

However, yes, the section about the new train station, if it's sourced, can be part of the article. Also, I think a list of bus lines and companies, without the template, and linked to the appropriate bus company articles is appropriate. Providing information about the bus service is appropriate, but providing links to bus schedules went way overboard. A lot of the tone of the other article will require rewriting however. Keep plugging away, your persistence will serve you well as a wikipedia editor. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want the article to be destroyed...thats all. Look with what you have just said, I think we can all say that we have finally reached an agreement. I'll make sure the transportation section is sourced...not in too much depth too. Now we'll need to fix the whole article section by section, I'll try and fix up some areas too, but i'll mainly be working on Westfield Southland, as its local to me.

To fix future problems could we please try and tell each other what we are fixing/changing on the article before we do so? Thankyou, and i'm sorry for the small dispute. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Other than the bus schedules, which you had seen elsewhere, you seem to know what you're doing, so I don't see any problems with your just editing the article as you see fit. You probably include too much that is just meant to be helpful, and your prose could be tightened up here and there, but, in general, I think I'm fine with your just editing. I will do some clean-up every now and then on whatever you are working on. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be great :) Thankyou MelbourneStar1 (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

removing POV template without ongoing discussion per Template:POV instructions

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)