This template is within the scope of WikiProject Shopping Centers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of enclosed shopping malls, outdoor shopping centers, and dead malls on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Shopping CentersWikipedia:WikiProject Shopping CentersTemplate:WikiProject Shopping CentersShopping center articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
I have a real problem with the scope of this template. Complexes like BCE Place are not shopping malls. They certainly have a retail component, but it is quite insignificant compared to the other uses in the complex. They are not thought of as shopping malls, and they really don't belong on this template. There is such a multitude of templates on Wikipedia, many of which are larger than necessary, and it seems unnecessary to clutter up the articles relating to office buildings with shopping centre templates. This template should be limited to actual shopping centres, and mixed-use complexes where the retail component forms a significant portion of the overall gross floor area and is the primary use or is one of the primary uses (e.g. Toronto Eaton Centre). Skeezix100011:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on removing BCE Place. Would you consider including PATH (Toronto), even though it's more of a shopping "network" than a mall?
Another scope issue: Golden Horseshoe is too big a region to group all its malls together. People reading about malls in one region are less likely to be interested in being able to quickly access the articles of malls in other regions. –Pomte12:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the comment on the scope of the region, I also agree. Perhaps limiting it to the GTA (Toronto, Peel, Halton, York and Durham), and eliminating Simcoe, Waterloo and Niagara would scope it nicely. The reference to largest malls should also be removed -- this template is just too big. I am not even sure that the template itself is necessary -- the category of shopping centre in the Golden Horseshoe more that adequately covers this off. But before we get into that discussion, we should at least initially deal with the above-noted issues. Skeezix100013:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and removed non-shopping centres from the list. Essentially, I removed the complexes where retail is primarily an accessory use to the main use(s). For the downtown, I replaced the entries for all of the office towers with one entry for PATH. Skeezix100019:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template should exist for the reason of usefulness as any reader at one mall article would probably be interested in other malls within vicinity. Templates can coexist with and be redundant to categories. I agree the "...in blue or purple depending on your web browser" legend is unnecessary, it should be intuitive what a bold link means. I am indifferent as to whether the largest malls should actually be bolded. To reduce vertical space, suggest getting rid of some "Region" words at the left as long as they don't get confused with the associated county. I'm going to propose renaming Category:Shopping malls in Greater Toronto to Category:Shopping malls in the Greater Toronto Area. –Pomte02:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that templates can coexist with categories, especially when they organize information in a manner different than the category, but I'm not too sure that they should ever be redundant to the category -- the same information in a different place. Some articles are, frankly, infested with superfluous templates. Having said that, I think we can agree to disagree on that issue, in a friendly way, because I have no intention of nominating this template for deletion or anything. Removing it from non-related articles went a long way to address my concerns. Skeezix100020:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The changes here have not come to fruition, major shopping centres with more than 4 Anchors are being ignored within the Niagara Region which is a part of the Golden Horseshoe (and Greenbelt) political and geographic regions. The Seaway Mall in Welland has four anchors in an all indoor complex and should be added. The Niagara Square Mall in Niagara Falls has 6 Anchors after the loss of The Bay and the prospect of a new vendor in its place. and the Fairview Mall of St.Catherines (Distinguished from that of Greater Toronto) has four indoor anchors while new development has seen 5 additional major vendors on site bringing the total to 9 for the mall that services North St.Catherines.SamichX 18:27, 23 July 2008 (EST)
