Talk:Battersea Dogs & Cats Home

Neutrality tag

Hi - added a POV tag as the opening copy reads like an advertising pamphlet - needs to be re-written from a neutral POV. Body of article could do with significant additional details and research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.153.99 (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Battersea Dogs & Cats Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921092209/http://www.petplanet.co.uk:80/petplanet/charity/battersea.htm to http://www.petplanet.co.uk/petplanet/charity/battersea.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605074319/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23811157-battersea-stamps-place-in-animal-history.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23811157-battersea-stamps-place-in-animal-history.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126064956/http://www.battersea.org.uk/dogs/staffies_theyre_softer_than_you_think/super_staffies.html to http://www.battersea.org.uk/dogs/staffies_theyre_softer_than_you_think/super_staffies.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304091250/http://www.battersea.org.uk/apex/webnewsstory?nsid=18109&pageId=222-newsitem to http://www.battersea.org.uk/apex/webnewsstory?nsid=18109&pageId=222-newsitem
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126101720/http://www.battersea.org.uk/about_us/whats_new/david_gandy.html to http://www.battersea.org.uk/about_us/whats_new/david_gandy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126101715/http://www.battersea.org.uk/about_us/whats_new/puppy_love_for_paul.html to http://www.battersea.org.uk/about_us/whats_new/puppy_love_for_paul.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151211034840/http://www.battersea.org.uk/apex/webpressrelease?nsid=9686&pageId=pressrelease to http://www.battersea.org.uk/apex/webpressrelease?nsid=9686&pageId=pressrelease

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know I'm gonna delete the aims section because it feels wrong for Wikipedia to feel like advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakurai64 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Might rewrite the whole page, apperently on April 5th 2018, A user known as BatterseaMarketing started editing and after that account was blocked, Another user popped up and started editing. This users edits have survived for far too long on this site. I am in belief that marketing on behalf of your employer should be banned on this website. Rakurai64 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Should a "Controversy" subsection be added?

I noticed on Trustpilot ([1]https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/battersea.org.uk) that it has scathing reviews, with an average of just 1.7. I was considering adding a "Controversy" subsection to the article but considering it looks like the marketing arm of the charity police their Wikipedia page quite vigorously (judging from the comments here) I am wondering whether it's worth doing as it will just get deleted. Is it worth doing, and is Trustpilot an unreliable source on Wikipedia, as I don't want to waste my time if it is. Thank you! Tris2000 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)