Talk:Usborne Publishing

Clean-up
I've added a text box at the top to bring this into line with other businesses and start the clean up. I've also removed a bunch of unsourced statements and weasel words and paragraphs written like advertisments. It looks like this page was mostly put together by people from the company (franchise or otherwise) so it has a lot of sales puff and unencyclopedic adjectives ("most", "many", "best" etc). The reason I've cluttered up the text with some many citation requests (rather than just deleting the sections outright which is what I probably should have done) is to give these people a chance to put some proper sources together for them. I've left stuff up that's verifiable and if you work for the company you should be able to back these claims up. I'm being kind because I like the products of this company, they've been reasonable about their contributions in the past and I feel they should get another crack at it before someone stricter than me turns up and just deletes everything.

On another note, if you're going to expand on anything, maybe some info on the history of the company's development would be more useful than any more lists of writers and titles! Silverwood (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This reads a little like an advertisement to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.212.19 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

External links removed
I have removed all the links to:
 * websites people have created to earn money
 * international versions of the websites.

My rationale is that the UK site (the parent site) contains links to international branches, and Wikipedia is not a repository for links to all the Usborne sites globally. I have relinked the Usborne Books at Home link to the official UK UBaH site rather than affiliate/agency sites. In the future, please do not create such links. Burns flipper 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

-

Hi Burns flipper,

some good points well made on the netrality of this site and I agree with your removal of the international site links.

The difficulty with the first point, the links to people's private Usborne sites, is that the 'organisers' of Books at Home, the Mum's who organise book parties etc. number in the hundreds, perhaps thouands, and are largely hard to police. Some make their own websites, others have blogs and such. Unfortuantly some also think that it's alright to post their own sites on the wikipedia page but since you have brought it to my attention (I didn't mention, I work for Usborne) we'll talk with the people at Books at Home and see if they can't talk to the organisers and warn them off doing this in future.

Cheers.

Graemewill (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of MLM references
I've noticed that reference to Usborne's multilevel marketing-style selling practices is being removed. What's up with that? They do operate as an MLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dode222 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted another removal of MLM, and will add what looks like a reliable source discussing it: here. Tacyarg (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On trying to add the article, I find that it is the financial section of the Daily Mail, so a deprecated source, so have not added. Tacyarg (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dode222 Agreed. Details surrounding their business model, with reliable sources, would improve this page. The Quicklinks section also seems to lack context. Jmbld (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jmbld, yeah, it also seems kinda advertisementy. I wonder if there's someone from Usborne editing the page. Dode222 (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)