Talk:Square One Shopping Centre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shopping Centers, which is an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to enclosed shopping malls, outdoor shopping centers, and dead malls. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Ontario
Ontario Portal
This article is part of the Ontario WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

The IMG tag says screenshot of a webpage, but that implies the entire webpage, not a single photo from the mall's corporate site. Cuz you're essentially taking the photo from the webpage and it's not necessarily fair use.

Also, the layout was messing up the paragraph layout; the pics were covering the actual text of the article. --Madchester 02:20, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)


I've seen that pic before and it's not a screenshot. It's straight from the Square One webpage and you basically saved the pic from your harddrive to upload it. That's not allowed and we already have an appropriate photo taken by a local user anyway. --70.27.20.140 00:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I'd like to help

I am a member of the AMA and I've been asked to take a look at this page and see if I can't resolve a conflcit invovling pictures. Let me know if it is not too late or if you need assistance. I am willing to be an informal mediator (try to help the aprties work out a deal) or an informal arbitrator (here evidence and offer my non-binding opinion). I'd love to be able to help. Just let me know.Gator (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've heard from Mb, what about you Madchester. Would you like me to mediate or would you like me to arbitrate. It sounds like Mb wants me to arbitrate and offer an opinion, but I will not take any action until I hear from both parties. Let's, for now, keep all discussion about this here ant on my talk page.Gator (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That last layout by MB1000 wasn't so bad. Jok2000 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've heard form both sides. They both made their arguments and they both seem to indicate that they want my opinion. I would be willing to render my opinion on the matter if that is the case. I will examine the two versions and think about it and any possible compromises and will offer my opinion shortly. If, in the meantime, either of you do not want a third party neutral opinion in favor of another option such as mediation, please let me know.Gator (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In response to Mb1000 on my talk apge (let's keep this stuff here please) I was aware of your recent edits and am basing my opinion off that version versus Madchesters. Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Neutral's Opinion

Summary

Two users, Mb1000 and Madchester were engaged in a ongoing dispute regarding the proper placement and size of pictures in the Square One Shopping Centre article that had devolved into an edit war. I was asked by Mb1000 to render a neutral opinion regarding two different page versions: [1], by Mb1000, versus Madchester's version at [2]. After obtaining Manchester's consent I accepted the matter.

Policy/Source of Opinion: Madchester has cited the Wiki-policy that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files as a source for his belief that the pictures, or the placement of those pictures by Mb1000 was inapprporiate. He/she also argued that the artcile was too short to have three photos and that his compromsie solution involving a gallery of the excess two photos at the bottom of the article was a fair compromise given the length of the article. Apart from the policy, I also based my third party neutral opinion off an examination of the two page versions in an attempt to determine whether one version was "cluttered" or whether, asthetically speaking, one version was more pleasing than the other.

Opinion: It is my unbiased opinion that Mb1000's version of the page at [3] is superior. I examined the policy cited by Madchester and believe that neither version of the page violates this policy. Madchester was concerned that the pictures clutter the text, but Mb1000's latest version seems to do no such thing. In fact, in my opinion, the gallery version of the page seems rather awkward.

While there are a large number of pictures for such a short article, Mb1000's placement of them as of December 16, 2005 at 03:50 is not, in my opinion, in violation of policy and is more pleasing to the eye.

Thus, the only really relevant criteria to make my determiantion was asthetics. I understand that Madchester beleives that his/her version is superior, but, as a third party neutral, I was asked to give my neutral opinion as an uninvolved third-party. In my opinion, Mb1000's version is more asthetically pleasing than the gallery compromise that Madchester has put forth.

Recommendations: The one thing that struck me about this was that there was virtually no discussion of this issue on the article's talk page. It was almost completely contained within Mb1000 and Manchester's respective talk pages. I would recommend that debates concerning articles be kept within the article's talk page as much as possible so as to promote as much outside discussion and bring in as many outside opinions as possible. I believe the edit war that developed here was largely do to this strategy of negotiation. Further, I want to compliment Madchester for his compromise gallery proposal, as it helped ease tensions.

Please keep in mind that my opinion is based almost entirely on my personal fact finding and preferences and, as this opinion is in no way binding upon the parties, I can only hope my assistance in this matter helps to persuade the parties to put this behind them and move forward. Thank you for your AMA request and please think of me if you need anything in the future.Gator (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Images

Upon review of Wikipedia:Images - Image choice and placement, it suggests that articles with more than one photo require a variety of text as a compliment. Unless the article is substantially expanded, comme Toronto Eaton Centre, Mall of America, there really isn't a justification to crowd the article with so many photos. --Madchester 18:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

In order for me to have made a fair and neutral evaluation it was important for all parties to present relevant arguments and evidence to me before I made a determinaiton (which was I allowed some time to pass before rending my decision) and not wait until a final decision is handed down. Howevever given as how I did not make this clear before taking htis under advisement and in the intertest of good will, I have examned this policy as well and believe that there is a sufficient variety of text for the photos to be in compliance with this policy as well.

In all frankness, this issue is really about personal preference and not so much about policy. I'm sorry my decision did not go in your favor this time, but I hope that everyone involved will be able to move forward from here and that the dit war will cease. Thanks again for the request, I hope I was able to be of some assistance.Gator (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed one image, as per Wikipedia:Images. Please provide a copyright source for the other image within the next seven days or else it will be tagged for deletion. Thank you. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Once again I have removed the image. As the article has not been expanded to the length where it can support more than two images, its presence is unnecessary. Perhaps it could be restored after significant improvement has been inflicted upon the article. Also, please provide copyright rationale for the first image, or it will be tagged for deletion in approximately one week. Thank you again. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The copyright rationale confuses me; who created the actual image of the shopping centre? If someone does this, it does not grant them permission to sell or lease the image whatever way they want; the same with the images placed at Cool (song). Although they were uploaded by someone who took screen captions of them, they are not entitled to distribute them as pleased. Therefore, your images must contain fair use rationale. See the images at Cool (song) for an example. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I will be addressing this situation with User:Carnildo as your intolerance is becoming rather bothersome. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not appreciate other users caling me intolerant. --Mb1000 21:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Then do not persist in placing the third image in the article. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Then do not persist in removing it. --Mb1000 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blackout

  • How is the information in the article on the blackout relevant to Square One? Thousands of malls had to be evacuated and were closed until the power supply was restored and reliable -- Square One is not unique whatsoever in this respect. This section should really be deleted. Skeezix1000 14:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe Mb1000 added those details to inflate the word count, and thus justify his decision to cram the page with 3 photos. B/c at the moment, the page doesn't really follow Wikipedia:Images' guidelines. --Madchester 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the information is very relevant. People may wonder what happened at the mall on the day of the blackout, so I decided to include the information. As for you, Madchester, please abide by this policy, thank you. --Mb1000 18:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both User:Madchester and User:Skeezix1000. The information is certainly irrelevant, and was added to expand the article for the sake of the third image. I'm actually going to request for User:Carnildo to try and sort out this mess. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This mess they ye have created. --Mb1000 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet it isn't us who have materialised the mess. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I beg to differ. --Mb1000 03:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Then beg. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enough is Enough

Don't mess with me!
Don't mess with me!

Enough is Enough. This edit war has been going on long enough. My version, with or without the section on the Blackout, does NOT, in any way, violate the Wikipedia Images policy. Period. Read the above opinion by User:Gator1, a member of the AMA.

User:Madchester and his henchmen have tried time and again to disfigure this article by various means. They think I am going to concede and surrender. I shall NEVER give up, I shall NEVER surrender! Whatever the cost may be! So Madchester and Company: Just give up. --Mb1000 21:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

2 things to point out:
1) An AMA decision is not final. As Gator said, "as this opinion is in no way binding upon the parties". His opinion was made before I brought up evidence of WP:Image, which was pointed out to me by Hollow Wilerding when I made a similar mistake by putting 2 photos without enough accompanying text. The informal Straw Poll of opinions suggests that WP:Image should be followed.
2) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, if you have an issue with the page layout, propose certain changes to WP:Image instead of making unilateral edits to challenge existing policy. Such disruptions, comme "I shall NEVER give up, I shall NEVER surrender!" inhibit the normal functioning of Wikipedia and can result in a block, according to the site's Blocking Policy.
Thanks, --Madchester 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


I've remained silent just watching this entire episode and, apart from my opinion on the policy, this is just ridiculous.

Madchester: serious question now, if you didn't care what I had to say and were sure enough in your opinion on policy that it didn't matter what anyone else had to say and you were only going to listen and stop this reverting if I agreed with you then why did you consent to me giving my third party neutral opinion? I mean it wasn't binding, but why did you even bother listening to an opinion if it didn't matter. Did I just completely waste my time looking at your case and the policies on a Saturday?Gator (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Gator, I respect your opinion, but as I indicated above, it was before WP:Image was brought to my attention. I've actually been rational in this whole situation, referring to existing WP policies when making my points. I've never resorted to the name-calling and verbal tirades that some of the other editors have been engaged in. Cheers, --Madchester 21:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You brought that policy to my attention I gave you an opinion on it too after you brought it to my attention so my original question stands. I don;t think any of these polcies dicate that Mb's version is unacceptable, it's a matter of preference. But more importantly (I don;t care if you disagree with me) Why did you seem to care what I had to say if you had no intention of changin yuor behavior if I ruled against you? If you were so sure about your policy interpretations, you should have just refused to hear what I had to say instead of seeming itnerested and then saying its not binding and then reverting to your previosu behavior. What was the point?! That's all I'm saying. I wish I didn't waste 1/2 a Saturday trying to "help." Next time: Just say No.Gator (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, someone agrees with me! Thank you, Gator! Madchester and his team must be mad as hell! Oh, and by the way, Gator, if you are an alligator please bite Madchester right on the ass! Thanks. --Mb1000 02:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the time to move the comment made by Carnildo to the spaced provided below as to let the message sink in to Mb1000. The following states:
My opinion is that the Square One logo (Image:Squareonelogo.jpg) is clearly appropriate, and should go at the top of the article. If there's such a thing as a "mall infobox", the logo should be part of that. The aerial photo should also stay, even though it's not a very good picture, because it gives a sense of how big the mall is. The view of an entrance (Image:Squareonepic.jpg) should be removed, because it is probably not a press kit photo despite being labeled as such, because it doesn't provide any significant information, and because it's quite possible for a Wikipedian with a camera to make a replacement (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy). --Carnildo 00:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Since Carnildo appears to be an expert upon images, the article will be layed-out according to his instructions. I will be actioning the following within the next minutes. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Mb1000, I am going to be seeking further assistance, because you are possibly breaking copyright laws, and if Wikipedia is perhaps sued, there is no telling what is going to happen. I request you to remove the city-side entrance image! If it is not, I am going to locate higher authority. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on, look, this is my first edit war and I'm not enjoying it any more than you are. I have tried everything from being extra polite (at the begining) to being extra rude. I will now try to appeal to your common sense. My version is superior and yet you and Madchester have been 'haters' since day one. Please stop this petty and childish behavior. What are you trying to prove?

Also, the photograph in question is a promotional photograph. It is meant to promote the mall, and is thus promotional. The photograph is not available for licence anywhere because it was created by the mall with the express purpose of promotion. That is its purpose. Thank you for understanding. --Mb1000 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I recall making comments about Mb1000's image fair use issues months ago. (See page history for April 2005 and the top of this talk page). The image had been a fair use violation. Mb1000 had cropped a photo of the logo from the mall's website and used a {{web-screenshot}}) tag for it's licensing. In one of his edit comements, Mb1000 claimed that "the picture in question does not violate copyright law, it is a screenshot of a webpage". Unfortunately, you're not allowed to simply cut an image from a website and call it a "screenshot". I originally reported the image for a fair use violation, and it was removed a week later.
Now, Mb1000 has once agained taken photos from the Sqaure One website, this time using the licensing tag of "{{promophoto}}". The problem here is that even if a photo is made available in some form of media, it doesn't mean that the public can freely use it for their own means. As Carnildo indicated the photos are probably not available as press kit photos The three criteria found in Wikipedia:Publicity_photos would suggest that the Square One photo was not intended to be used for such promotional purposes.
However, even if a new and suitable photo is found, this doesn't mean that it can simply be added to the main body of the article. WP:Images suggests that there should be enough relevant text so that the photo can actually compliment the information.
--Madchester 20:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Square One is the 2nd largest mall in Canada, not the third.

Please see this page from Square One Shopping Centre's official website and it clearly states that Square One is the second largest mall in Canada.

The following independent sources also agree:

--Mb1000 05:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Two points on this: One, before the Metrotown expansion, Square One was clearly the second-largest mall in Canada, and this was widely publicized, so it's not surprising that some people keep repeating this factoid in press releases or what have you. It's also not surprising that Square One keeps making this claim, as being the second biggest is probably a big selling point for the mall when it come to attracting retailers and tourists. None of these claims are backed by any hard evidence. Based on the figures provided by Square One [6] and Metrotown [7], Metrotown has at least 100,000 square feet more of retail space, and about 90 extra stores. These are the only figures I have seen regarding the size of the these two malls.

Two, there seem to be a number of different measures used to gauge the size of malls. For example, the Mall of America is famous as the biggest mall in the U.S., but it is actually only the biggest when it comes to total area. [8] There are actually a number of American malls that are bigger when measured by amount of leaseable retail space. By that meassure, Metrotown would seem to be the bigger mall. If Square One's claim is based on the fact that it has a bigger total area, that should be supported by actual data on the areas of the two malls. The only other way Square One could claim to be bigger is if Metrotown is looked at as two seperate entities rather than a single mall. This is the case with the King of Prussia Mall, which claims to be the second-biggest mall in America, but on most lists is broken down into three smaller malls.

- timminspress 12/08/2006

Going by the data provided by the respective mall developers, Square One actually ranks behind the Eaton Centre and is thus the fourth largest mall in the country. 208.101.91.76 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charges brought against mall employee

Repeatedly, the user IP 162.53.103.225 (who also has other IPs) has added material to the article regarding the charges brought against a security guard employed by the mall's contractor. I had previously removed the material in question because it was not properly sourced, and for other reasons.

Even though now properly sourced, I have once again removed the material for the reason that Wikipedia is not a catalogue of the activities of employees of various organizations. For example, imagine if Wikipedia was to have information on every McDonald's employee that ever committed a crime while at work? Of course, if the crime or criminal is notable enough then it would be advisable for the article in question to contain information on the subject. This incident was anything but notable; it barely even made news in Mississauga, Ontario where the mall is located and where I am a resident.

I hope that I have here clarified my reasons for the removal of this particular material added by IP 162.53.103.225. --Mb1000 02:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

When you say "barely made news in Mississauga", you're wrong. It was on the front page of the Mississauga News. Not a global newspaper by any means, but still, the local news source for a city of 500 000. It also made the Toronto Star and smaller mentions in other papers as well. I have several family members and friends employed at the mall and I can tell you that this incident is still very prominent in their minds.\

No offense, but it sounds like you have an ax to grind. --Mb1000 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, the blackout that affected all of northeast North America should be mentioned, but a mall-related incident should be left out. There's no axe to grind here. You removed the paragraph due to lack of citation, and rightly so. Now there's a proper citation, so it should be left alone.
To the anon user, please read up on WP:LIBEL. No defamatory details about a person or organization are allowed on Wikipedia. --Madchester 16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You said it best: "all of northeast North America", not just one person. The blackout was a significant event that affected the mall for almost two days, and that actually made headlines. This incident is simply a claim by one person, and barely made headlines. Would you also like to add information on the mall employee that may or may not have stolen half a cookie while at work? Anyways, show some manners and sign using the 4 ~ like everyone else. And yes, I will revert again. --Mb1000 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World's largest Wal-Mart?

There seem to be a number of different Wal-Marts that are claimed to be the biggest in the world. [9] A newspaper story about the one in Honolulu says it is 317,000 square feet, nearly 100,000 square feet bigger than the Square One location's reported size. Perhaps it was the largest in the world when it opened, but it no longer seems to hold that title. --Timminspress 19:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this claim refers to regular, non-Supercenter Wal-Mart's. --Mb1000 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference? What constitutes a Supercenter Wal-Mart, and how is it not still considered a Wal-Mart? 208.101.91.76 09:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A supercenter is a Wal-Mart that includes a full grocery department, with fresh meats, vegetables... --Mb1000 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But wouldn't a super-centre Wal-Mart still constitute a 'Wal-Mart' for the purposes of the awarding the title 'World's largest Wal-Mart'? 209.196.238.142 07:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A Wal-Mart by any other name... Brown168 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I disagree that a Wal-Mart Supercenter is a regular Wal-Mart. But even if it is, what proof is there that Wal-Mart Square One is not still the largest in the world? The comment is properly sourced, and I will thus, for the time being, continue to revert changes to it until someone can prove, using a reputable source, the there is, in fact, a Wal-Mart that is larger. And in the interest of fairness, I will be emailing Wal-Mart Canada myself to ask them about this issue, and I advise anybody else interested to do so, in order to verify my claim. --Mb1000 00:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a description of the Hawaii Wal-Mart Hawaii " Wal-Mart currently has a two-story project under construction, with a Sam's Club on top of a ground-level Wal-Mart, each with a 150,000-square-foot footprint. The building will include an extra 4,000 square feet for other tenants, as well as a four-story, 1,700-car garage." [10] Sounds like two seperate stores. 208.101.91.76 01:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


In retrospect, I agree with Mb1000 on this one. I was simply taking someone else's assertion that the Honolulu store was larger at face value. Upon quickly researching the store in question, yes, it does appear to be two separate entities in the same complex, one being a Sam's Club. Still, I find it hard to believe that with all the Wal-Mart stores built since, the Square One location is still the largest. Hopefully, you get a response from Wal-Mart head office. Brown168 02:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

From the New York Times (A Wal-Mart for Mexico City, August 30, 1993) [11] "Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the biggest United States retailer, will soon open a 244,000-square-foot Supercenter here in the world's largest city. ... The Supercenter, which will be Wal-Mart's biggest, is in a concrete building in Plaza Oriente, a new American-type strip-shopping mall in the working class neighborhood of Iztapalapa in the eastern part of the city."

And bear in mind that this was 13 years ago, so there may well have larger Wal-Marts built since. The whole "Wal-Mart Supercenter not being a Wal-Mart" argument doesn't really seem to make much logical sense. Perhaps a more accurate claim to make for Square One is that it has the world's largest non-supercenter Wal-Mart. 208.101.91.76 05:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I just recieved the call from Wal-Mart Canada Head Office in response to my enquiry. The person who I spoke to informed me that the Square One Wal-Mart is no longer the largest Wal-Mart in the world, but is now the second largest, after a Wal-Mart located in Brazil. This includes Supercenter Wal-Marts, and is based on the total square footage of the store. I will be updating and correcting the article shortly. --Mb1000 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Did they explain how 220,000 is bigger than 244,000? [12] It seems reasonable, that given the verified size of the Mexico City Wal-Mart, you would have to cite a source showing the Square One Wal-Mart is bigger than 244,000 square feet before you could call it North America's largest. Also that sounds like orginal research, which I understood that Wikipedia disallows . Unless a verifiable, existing source can be found that shows the Square One Wal-Mart is the world's second biggest, it would be better to simply say that it's one of the world's biggest. Timminspress 20:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "See also" section

I have repeatedly removed the "See also" section and the internal link contained within it for the reason that the list to which it links is quite confusing and defective. As I mention on it's talk page, it does not set criteria properly. For example, the Toronto Eaton Centre is slightly larger than Square One by square footage, but has, at the least, 30 less retailers. It is only larger by square footage, not by number of stores. The list therefore should mention that it is a list of the largest Canadian malls by square footage. Therefore I will continue to revert these internal link additions to the Square One article until these issues have been addressed. In order to speed this process as much as possible, I will try to work on the list to make it compatable with reasonable quality standards. --Mb1000 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that there's basically an infinite number of ways to measure the size of a mall, the total amount of retail space, or gross leasable area, seems to be the industry standard, and also the most logical. Largeness is a measure of size, not the number of parts something is comprised of, so measuring the largeness of a mall based on the number of stores doesn't really make much sense. By that logic you could say that a house with five rooms is a bigger building than an aircraft hanger. The other main possible measure would be total overall area. If you want to compile a list based on that data, go ahead, but then you're going to run into a lot of issues with malls that contain large nonretail areas, such as amusement parks or hotels, which is why the mall size is almost always measured in GLA. I think this article has been edited with more of a focus on keeping alive an outdated PR claim than on reflecting an objective version of the truth. Timminspress 05:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. One would almost think that Mb1000 works for Oxford or something. Brown168 10:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One of the largest in Ontario

I have edited the article to remove the claim that Square One is the largest mall in Ontario. I feel this is justified, based on the points raised above about there being no one agreed upon measure of mall largeness. Square One may be largest in terms of number of stores (which, again, I don't feel is a measure of size) but it only second biggest when measured in terms of gross leasable area. If the claim was meant to be based on the fact that Square One has the largest total area (i.e. including corridors, food court space etc.) then this should be supported by some sort of sourced data.

Also, saying Square One is one of the largest malls in North America may be a bit of an overstatement, considering that it wouldn't even rank on this list of the 18 largest malls in America. One of the largest malls in Canada would be a more reasonable claim to make, but whatever.

Plus, as long as I'm being pedantic about claims made in this article, an estimate of 20 minutes to drive from Square One to downtown Toronto strikes me a tad optimistic. Maybe if you hit nothing but green lights and there wasn't much traffic on the highway, but there are times when the mall is so busy that it can take five or ten minutes just to get out of the parking lot. Considering how widely driving times can vary, perhaps distance (28 km in this case) would be a better stat. [13]Timminspress 06:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An Ontario mall with more stores

It can't truthfully be claimed that Square One (with 360 store) is the largest mall in Ontario based on number of stores, because the Pacific Mall in Markham has 400 stores. [14] Yet Pacific Mall has less than a fifth of Square One's gross leasable area. [15] I think that is a pretty clear example of why it makes no sense to measure the largeness of a mall based on the number of stores. It seems a bit crazy to say that a 270,000 square foot mall with a lot of very small stores and no major anchors is the largest mall in Ontario, but using the measure of most stores=biggest that's exactly what you would be saying. Timminspress 19:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio photos

I have removed the copyvio photos, as tagged by Carnildo. There should be fair use alternatives available. There are public domain photos of Yorkdale Shopping Centre and that is also owned and operated by Oxford Properties. Similar situation for Scarborough Town Centre. --Madchester 19:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] hyperbole

It seems like a bit of a stretch to say Square One is one of the biggest malls in North America. If you look at the list of the biggest malls in the U.S., there are at least 20 malls that are bigger, and the smallest of those is 1.8 million square feet, so there are probably a few more between that size and Square One. Not to mention the three malls in Canada that are bigger.

So in short, its probably safe to say that Square One is probably somewhere in the top forty largest malls in North America, out of several thousand, which is impressive, but I don't know if it justifies say it's one of the largest. You might as well say that it's one of the largest in the world.

It's probably more accurate to say that it's one of the largest in Canada. Timminspress 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Entertainment / Restaurants (located on Rathburn Rd)

Free advertising? None of these places are a part of Square One and the section should be removed. Coolbrook76 11:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That plot of land is owned and operated by Oxford Properties Group as part of the Square One operation. 38.112.96.194