Talk:260 Collins

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 . 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 which also attempted to introduce the copyvio noted above. Axad12 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) TarnishedPath^talk 09:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

---

260 Collins → Collins ArcadeCollins Arcade – The shopping centre has officially rebranded — the website is now **Collins Arcade** (see https://www.collinsarcade.com.au/), and sources (e.g., news coverage) refer to it by that name. NateRichh (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

*Reason:* The new official name, confirmed by the official site, matches how the centre is now publicly known as of opening in November in 2025.

*Sources:*

* Official site: https://collinsarcade.com.au

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/first-look-this-revamped-shopping-mall-is-ditching-luxury-and-going-back-to-basics-20251111-p5n9da.html https://www.retailbiz.com.au/latest-news/collins-arcade-reopens-after-50-million-redevelopment/ https://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldsun.com.au%2Fnews%2Fvictoria%2Ftroubled-collins-st-shopping-centre-reopens-after-50m-bid-to-reverse-fortunes%2Fnews-story%2F2c4254ece6f4ecb29f5169197e85e608&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-2-NOSCORE

NateRichh (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

— NateRichh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I will note that I rather over-zealously moved the article from St. Collins Lane to 260 Collins one year ago. It looked like a straightforward request (see above), but in reality it was a marketing move - perhaps in preparation for this November 2025 re-launch; they couldn't have prospective tenants reading about how much of a failure this property is under previous names.

Anyhoo, WP:COMMONNAME says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). I am not sure what the sources say, but St. Collins Lane could be an option. Commander Keane (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: "Rebranding" is not a good reason to rename an article. I wasn't able to see the Herald Sun article identified above because of a paywall, but the RetailBiz article does seem to support the proposal. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment Nomination is likely AI-generated due to the use of em dashes and Markdown. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.