Talk:Parcelforce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Customer Service Section 2 Parcelfarce 3 Clean up? 4 Malicious content

[edit] Customer Service Section

A recent edit has added this to the customer service section:

"In busy times, such as Christmas, the staff often simply put "You were not in" notices through letterboxes, even while being watched by the customer through a window. This allows the drivers to meet their internal performance targets which do not include any measure of how many parcels are delivered, only how many addresses are visited in a day."

I'm pretty sure this is irrelevant to an encyclopedia entry and needs removing since it doesn't have a citation and I'm pretty sure whoever put it there has no solid proof of this that is anything more than pure speculation. The term 'often' implies that this is a very frequent occurence, which I feel is something of an over-exagerration. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, so I'll leave this for a week or so to see if anyone thinks I'm out of line in requesting this deleted, but if someone with a bit more experience thinks it should be removed straight away then by all means go for it. --86.145.214.89 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no-one seems to have anything against it's removal so I'll get rid of it now. --86.137.36.167 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parcelfarce

There are numerous comments on the company's performance. These need to be backed up by citations otherwise they come across as POV Dick G 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up?

'Since 1986 regular daily mail services have been provided by the Royal Mail while retail postal outlets are operated by the Post Office.' this does not make any sense! --Pandaplodder 09:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The additonal text recently added on the company's history is poorly written (several typos) and lacks any sources that can be taken seriously - e.g an "employee briefing" is not an encyclopaedic reference, and at best is just hearsay. These new sections need to be backed up with hard evidence - not just one person's original research. Also, the original sentence referenced above (and now deleted from the article) makes sense. It draws the distinction between Royal Mail subsidiary enterprises. For example a non-UK reader might read the term "post office" as referencing all mail services - which is not the case. The Royal Mail's group's corporate structure runs its retail products and services out of its "post office" branded entity and via its post office outlets/counters whereas the physical mail delivery function is more commonly known as the "Royal Mail". The sentence at issue seems to be concise and unambiguous in that respect. When an article has been stable for some time without new additions/re-writes, it is courteous to debate new content/edits before making changesDick G 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious content

Recent edits have removed references that were critical of the company and replaced it with content referenced only to the company's own website. Whilst some of the previous content was tenuos and colloquial, it was nevertheless referenced in independent news sites which are more valid sources than the company's own press releases. I have cleaned up where appropriate Dick G 10:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)