Talk:Dickens World

Untitled
The unreferenced/personally researched comments on this page must surely be removed? The last half of the article is POV or unreferenced.(unsigned)


 * It is an interesting point- but the first half of the article is personal promotion, and factual inaccurate just reflecting a press release and a commercial promotional website. The second half of article reflects that and is refering to local knowledge. Indeed, what we read here will no doubt occur in the Chatham Standard this coming week- then will be referenceable. This is similar to the companies Press Release which describes a situation that will eventually happen. The press are being kind to Dickens World- possibly because they will have to contradict there own articles, or possibly because the realise that the delay was caused by the need to have a dust free environment before the completed animatronics can be installed, which has got to happen before sound levels can be set, and this has to be done before the staff can be fully trained.


 * I cannot see why this is at the moment a Kent Article of Medium Importance- surely it is of Low importance. If it is now or in the future then Chatham Dockyard must have its status raised to High. ClemRutter 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made the adjustment.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reviews
From the outset, I make no secret that I work at Dickens World, and I am well aware that there have been more than a few people who have gone home unhappy. I'm not on here to defend it, this isn't the place for that discussion- I'm only here to construct a NPOV encyclopedia article based on factual information. I agree there probably should be some lines referring to the fact that it wasn't fully operational when it opened (and still isn't), and that a lot of people have been disappointed when visiting, particularly over the first bank holiday weekend- those points are both factual and relevant to the article. But please, let's do it properly, without original research, and strive for WP:NPOV. Thank you. --Lawlore 00:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To clear the decks, I know people involved in the planning of the attraction, and understand the difficulty of writing an article knowing the aspiration and the actuality. But I have been approached by former constituents complaining of 'the Council wasting money on all the .....'


 * Perhaps there is a need for a subheading describing the final concept, and a subheading describing the current state of the project. There is a need to separated attributed fact from press releases. Quoting the MD is a form of self promotion and needs to be removed in the interest of WP:NPOV.


 * There is a need to look again at the text and replace 'is' with 'will' in certain cases


 * I think you should have transfered the personal research on to this talk page where it belongs but POV


 * It would be useful for DW to release some photo with a PD CC2.5 tag so they can be included: as even it you were to take some shots personally, there would be copyright difficulties.

ClemRutter 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken about quoting the MD being self-promotion, although I'm unsure how that particular point (that DW is not and was never intended to be a theme park) could be reworded without causing questions of citation- that sort of claim would need a reference, and it's inevitable that is going to come from the MD. I had included the reference to Disney on the basis that many articles on DW, , had made the same connection. If you can come up with a more NPOV way of presenting it, by all means be my guest.


 * As for the suggestion of splitting of the article into two headings (what is actually there and working, and what is supposed to be there), I agree that could prove a useful starting point. On my next shift, I will work on getting an accurate list of the current state of play with regards to what is and isn't operational yet (and possibly due dates, although I'm again wary of self-promotion)- as a restaurant worker, we tend not to see a lot of the rest of the site. Of course, a lot of that info is also to be found in the visitor reviews, and I'm not convinced it's changing on a daily basis just yet.


 * | My edit yesterday (better, I feel, linked to than quoted, given its length) was to remove a POV personal review better suited to a site designed for that purpose. Whereas I accept something does still need to be added about the initial reaction, that wasn't the way to do it, and I see little relevant factual information to be salvaged from the review itself. Parts of it were downright false, and such comments as "I went there today" / "A personal visit" have no place in any Wikipedia article. I am sure we can come up with something more encyclopedic than that. --Lawlore 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The 11:35 edit is looking really good.ClemRutter 10:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Premature opening
re: this section:


 * ==Premature opening==
 * Upon the grand opening of Dickens World, visitors quickly noted that several advertised features were either incomplete or not in operation, including the "Britannia Theatre" (incorporating a state-of-the-art animatronic show), and a "Dickensian Shopping Mall". Many of the earliest visitor reports were negative, often stating that although the site was impressive looking, it was lacking in working features and appeared to have been opened before it was finished. Construction work continued nightly until early August 2007, at which point the "Britannia Theatre" and animatronic show opened to the public, completing the attraction.

This seems pretty unencyclopedic years on.. does anyone care anymore? More of a news item than a encyclopedia item for the ages. Real social criticism welcome though - the Disneyification of Dickens? Green Cardamom (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See your point. The difficulty is whether we need an advert like this at all. We clean up commercial spam- rmv ing urls from external links. There is no NPOV source available. The opinions of local Dickensians were formed in those months of hype- and these folk are knowledgeable- having run the Rochester Dickens Festivals for decades. There are no available copyright free photos to use- so the only facts we have is that there is a shed with a large carpark where some people appear to work where entrance is allowed for a large fee. Employees of DW have edited this article.

The news report at least gives a subtle warning. Any suggestions? --ClemRutter (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do we take this article
Four years on, and even the reference has disappeared? It seems to have less prominence than a branch of Brantano. Incidently, tours are now limited and controlled, and cost has come down to £5.50. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have zapped Architecture tag- we are talking about tenants in a tin warehouse in a shopping centre- as for the article I have located a reference and exciting reading it makes. I predict it will be gone by February 2015. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dickens World is an important marker for the reception of Dickens in the early 21st century, and several scholars have published about it. I plan on fixing up this article a bit and adding some references. Certainly the page deserves to exist. PCFleming05 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good luck to you. It is a shell, with a website that is 2 months out of date. It is a venue for bazaars, boozing and minor celebs-- Try to google: Dickens World 2014, now ignore the tourism pap-- and you are left with very little.... -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Commentary & opinion
Yesterday I deleted the following " Unfortunately, despite claiming to celebrate the life of one of England's greatest-ever masters of the written word, Dickens (sic) World cannot get even basic grammar and punctuation right on their website, referring to being open on "Saturday's" and "Sunday's" and offering "children's party's", along with numerous other errors, which seriously undermines their credibility. They even spelled Dickens' name wrong on this page and it had to be corrected. Such sloppiness is hardly a fitting tribute to Dickens! "

Such grammar and punctuation errors may or may not exit on the website, but the removed text (including 'unfortunately', 'sloppiness', 'greatest-ever', 'hardly a fitting tribute') is commentary and opinion: this has no place on Wikipedia. Also, this appraisal is not supported by the single given reference.

However, the same paragraph has been restored without satisfactory explanation, and the false accusation of vandalism. The text has again been removed, and the author is requested not to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.184.144 (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * General advice. People who make multiple edits are advised to register- so that they get notification when articles that they are following are changed, also it allow then to receive help on their own talk page. They get advice about notability of the subject and the references. People who only edit one page- a page about a commercial enterprise or a politician are naturally carefully watched. The reference given to ciao.com cannot be said to be noticable or unbiased- but even they note that most of the recommendations come from folk who have not posted any comments before (or after). It can be argued that this page is only notable for its commercial history and in how the attraction is contracting- and the PR stunts they are playing to attract punters. With a little more experience you would see that you should try and build up an edit history on other subjects. With a little more experience you would see that the paragraph needs changing not blanking- that the reference to the primary source (the website) is not ideal but allows the reader to verify the information which is the whole point of references. The second part of the paragraph could be seen as a POV or a true reflection of the local Dickens experts who walk past the door but one where no one has bothered to wade through a pile of Kent Messenger group papers to find when the remarks were printed. Obviously, your blanking will be reverted each time. For amusement and entertainment- here is a link to the Dicken's World -hover over Plan your visit--  Clem Rutter (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. The above is irrelevant to the discussion. The section under discussion is entirely POV and unsupported and hence should be removed. GeoffreySuchart (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks: For trying to help- it is an interesting case, I have commented out blatent POV and would prefer to use a secondary source rather than primary, but one should use these opportunities to try and help new users understand better ways of contributing. I hope this page is now on your watchlist so you can assist with keeping this page on the straight and narrow. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)