Talk:260 Collins

Request edit on 21 November 2018

Hi all, if anyone has some time can they please review the page for any outstanding COI content and check all language is in a neutral point of view? If all is acceptable can we please remove the COI banner? In future all edits will be suggested only and there will be no further direct editing - this has been addressed on my talk page. Giantoct (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 26-NOV-2018

  Please consult assigning editor  

• It is recommended that, as a courtesy, you first try asking the editor who assigned the template — in this case Longhair — in order to find out if it can be removed. Since they placed the template, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected. You may contact them by placing a new message on their talk page. In the unlikely event that you do not hear back from them after a reasonable amount of time, please reopen this request by altering the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!
  Regards,  Spintendo  07:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the template. The article is not full of promostuff and the editor concerned understands the issues that led to the placement of such. -- Longhair\^talk 07:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Title change request

Hi, could we please amend the title of the page to 260 Collins per the new ownership and name change of the centre? Kaipara24 (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kaipara24, I did it per the official website rebranding. If someone disagrees they are welcome to comment here. Commander Keane (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kaipara24, I probably jumped the gun on that. I didn't realise that you removed a heap of references, particularly if they were critical, from the article. Also promotional material was added. I have reversed those edits. You are welcome to improve the article but please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you have a conflict of interest then you should only make suggestions, here on the talk page. I will keep the new title for now. Commander Keane (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have blocked Kaipara24 for username violation. I didn't make the connection to Kaipara Property Group until after the title move.

You can see Kaipara24's modifications here. There are possibly some good updates from the changes that could be cherry picked and re-added to the article.

Regarding the move, I still think it is ok given Wikipedia:Article titles, but if there is any doubt I am happy to revert back to the title "St. Collins Lane".

Sorry about the mess. Commander Keane (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposing Reversal of Previous Edits

{{connected contributor}} Could we please review the changes previously made and reversed - I'd like to think these were not promotional and factual developments of the centre, updating the current dated information of current ownership, tenancy mix and history of the centre. For example the current centre and tenants subsections are no longer relevant to 260 Collins and therefore needs removing / updating per the changes I had initially processed. Fkay08 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said above a review of the edits is warranted, to quote myself: "There are possibly some good updates from the changes that could be cherry picked and re-added to the article."

I doubt the revert I made will get reversed itself outright, but discussion is welcome. If anyone is interested: here is a link to the updates that I reverted.

Wikpedia articles tend to prefer an historical perspective, not just report the current situation. Just copying the current tenants from the official website is promotional, not encyclopaedic. Removing historical tennants that are referenced is problematic.

I hope someone sees this request and updates the article. Admittedly I could do a full rewrite but I am not motivated to do so. I may take a quick look and make some changes soon.

@Fkay08, you may be the most motivated to improve the article but you need to learn the policies, guidelines and standard practices of Wikipedia first. If you have time to burn I suppose you could work on an update in your personal sandbox, there are no guarantees that someone will merge the changes into the article though. Commander Keane (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have updated this in my personal sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fkay08). If you were please able to review this and incorporate these changes into this page, providing you're happy with the changes? Fkay08 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fkay08. I meant something else, but it is not important. Wikipedia:Sandbox has instructions on personal sandboxes, you have used your user page.

Nevermind, I can see your proposed changes (I created a diff for easy comparison to be used by me and anyone else following along).

If you are going to suggest small changes like this I think you should not worry about using a sandbox (sorry if I led you up the wrong path there, I assumed you wanted to make huge changes) and just create a new talk page section for each request putting {{Edit COI}} at the top. This is done by Michael Dell's people (example) and seems to work well.

Using the Financial Review as a source looks promising. I also found an interesting article from Realestate Source. Commander Keane (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Commander Keane, I can see your diff page which includes my proposed changes. Do I need to still put in a separate request per your message, or can these be implemented by yourself or another user? Thanks. Fkay08 (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fkay08, small change suggestions are probably the way to go. From memory I already looked at your suggestions and have made all the changes I felt were important. Commander Keane (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Request to update History section

Hi there, could we add the following updates to the history section per the new ownership from JP Morgan to UBS:

JP Morgan sold St Collins Lane to Credit Suisse Asset Management for about $122 million in December 2020. Following UBS’ global bailout of Credit Suisse in March 2023, control of the fund that held the mall transferred to UBS Asset Management, with Kaipara Property Group subsequently installed as the asset and development manager. Fkay08 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide the WL's for the companies mentioned? Please advise. When ready to proceed, kindly change the {{Edit COI}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=y to |ans=n. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  02:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo I've updated this just now Fkay08 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Request to update Tenants section

Hi there, could we also add the following updates to the tenants section per the recent state of the centre:

The centre currently has 3 flagship tenants on leases (Swatch, Birkenstock and TAG Heuer). The centre was greatly affected by the covid lockdowns and is currently closed on 3 levels (LG, 1 and 2) as it prepares to go into redevelopment.

Entertainment brand Kingpin has taken a 3500-square metre, 10-year lease for the lower ground and mezzanine levels of the mall that were last occupied by British department store Debenhams before its collapse in 2019. On level two – replacing the former food court – Australian coworking and flexible office space provider Waterman Workspaces has leased a 2000-square-metre space for 10 years as its first CBD location. Fkay08 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

References

The source given for this proposed text is paywalled, and cannot be reviewed. Do you have another source? Please advise. Regards,  Spintendo  02:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo I've updated this just now Fkay08 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Is information of individual leases and square meterage really encyclopaedic? Personally I don't think so. Axad12 (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Given it's a section focused specifically on tenants, I don't see it diverging from the theme. The current last point gives total square meterage, so the proposed addition above highlights that these 2 new tenants will be anchoring the centre with large leases under long terms. Fkay08 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my point is whether the section is of encyclopaedic value. Details of tenancy agreements are fundamentally not encyclopaedic. Axad12 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps overly detailed tenancy agreements or minor tenant specifics might not add value unless they are particularly noteworthy or illustrative of a broader theme, which I would agree the above is. I don't agree that the section itself is not of encyclopaedic value.

It should be pretty self explanatory why outlining the tenant structure of a page dedicated to a shopping centre is important, from detailing its practicality and usage, and illustrating the centre's impact on the local community or retail landscape. Fkay08 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not the website of the shopping centre. Also it is not an article in an industry mag.

Stating which companies have outlets in the shopping centre is encyclopaedic detail. Stating how big the floorspace is, or the length of a lease, is not.

However, if we are going to talk about things that are and are not self-explanatory... where is your disclosure of the nature of your conflict of interest, as required under WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE? Axad12 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, so you agree that the section itself is in fact encyclopaedic, but my addition of the minor tenant specifics are not - if this is a widely held view then I'm not averse to removing the size and term of the tenancies from my proposed additions.

I did follow @Commander Keane 's instructions on how to submit a topic under a conflict of interest. I can disclose I'm an employee at Kaipara Property Group. Fkay08 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a widely held view for it to be removed from your proposal. You need a consensus for it to be included in the article.

I would say that a Tenants section could reasonably include a list of tenants, but not (as at present) a detailed list of individual ins and outs which reads as blatantly promotional (and thus, by definition, unencyclopaedic).

Please note also that according to WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions., i.e. to list those organisations in relation to which you have a paid conflict of interest. For some reason you are currently using your user page to host a version of the 260 Collins article (presumably due to confusion re: the difference between 'userpage' and 'sandbox'.) Axad12 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I have rationalised the Tenants section along the following lines:

The only tenants listed are those sufficiently notable to have their own Wikipedia article.

Removal of non-neutral language such as "anchor tenant".

Removal of text stating that things were going to happen (I have assumed that those things did happen).

Removal of excess (and potentially promotional) material re: Leica.

Removal of the last sentence, which appeared to be an operational update rather than encyclopaedic info (and in any case duplicated to some degree material already in the section).

Moving forwards I would suggest that additional tenants simply be added to the present list, without reference to square meterage, length of lease, or other verbiage (and certainly without anything along the lines of "It was announced that...".

Following on from the above, however, it doesn't seem that the 2 brands detailed in the edit request above (Kingpin and Waterman Workspaces) have their own Wikipedia entries, so my feeling is that they should not be listed. If I am overlooking anything there then please let me know (e.g. if they have an article under a different name). Axad12 (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I also note that if I place the second part of the original edit request into Google it indicates that the text is a direct lift from this source [2]. Please note that attempting to add material lifted from elsewhere into Wikipedia is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. Axad12 (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, the full text of the article can be located elsewhere by placign the text into Google, it confirms the attempted copyvio. The article would also seem to include some rather negative info about the shopping centre's financial performance.

I note that the COI user attempted to remove the only reference to these difficulties currently within the article in this blatantly promotional (and now reverted) edit [3] which also attempted to introduce the copyvio noted above. Axad12 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)