Talk:The Dorchester

Recent edits

I’ve reverted two recent changes by anonymous editor 212.227.114.140 (talk) with edit history
“I come here to learn something and end up staying a half fucking hour to clean up the writing of your drooling idiots from the trailer parks. I just how you stupid fucks get shut down"
and
“The bit about Shinawatra is nonsense. It is not borne out by the BBC link. You stupid fucks"
I can't see that these unsubstantiated changes are any better than what was there before, and I can’t see any reason to accept changes made in such an uncivil fashion. Swanny18 (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

---

PS This
"The exiled Prime Minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra resides at the Dorchester, having arrived in the UK the day after the coup d'état of September 19, 2006. [1]"
as our uncivil visitor points out, isn't mentioned in the source given. Does anyone have a better source? Swanny18 (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

---

PPS And now I’ve just spent half an hour cleaning up this mess...Swanny18 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

The Dorchester is mentioned in an episode of hotel comedy series Fawlty Towers when a guest asks about the new chef Terry (played by Brian Hall). Sybil answers: "He used to work at Dorchester", which leads the guest to expectingly think he worked at The Dorchester. Sybil then gives the precision "No, in Dorchester".

The hotel was also featured in ITV's X Factor, in October 2006, as the location for Sharon Osbourne's bootcamp stages of the competition.

The hotel is featured briefly in Brannigan. Its front exterior is seen in establishing shots, and in close-up when gangster Ben Larkin (John Vernon) and his henchmen exit the hotel.

In Mr Jolly Lives Next Door, the unnamed characters played by Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson spend an evening at the hotel with Nicholas Parsons.

In December 2007, Jake Shears of the Scissor Sisters filmed a documentary where he met his idol Dolly Parton, entitled Jake's Adventures in Dollywood in one of the suites of the Dorchester. This was filmed in Dolly's hotel suite, as she regularly stays at the hotel when visiting the UK, usually booking entire suites for her and her entourage.

The hotel room featured in the conclusion of 2001: A Space Odyssey was modelled after The Dorchester.

Swedish new wave band The Sounds' fourth track on their 2009 album Crossing the Rubicon is named after the hotel.

Roger Sterling mentions parties at The Dorchester with stewardesses to Don Draper in an episode of Mad Men describing how the latter imagines working for McCann Erickson on the Pan Am account.

In Jeffrey Archer award winning book the hotel is spoken about several times in A Prisoner of Birth

The lobby, bar, and a guest room of The Dorchester are featured in The Mapping of Love and Death, a novel in the Maisie Dobbs series by Jacqueline Winspear

References

Edit warring

Inappropriate adding of COI and other silly tags which clearly indicate that you haven't read the article. Please provide examples of what concerns you. As far as I can see the only sentence which even comes close to what you claim is in the lead that it is one of the world's most prestigious and expensive hotels, which it is, and there are countless sources which support that statement. The article is clearly written neutrally and any claims are quoted for neutrality purposes in the architecture section. I always make a conscious effort when I write hotels to try to make it not sound like a travel guide. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Just read the article instead of removing the tags in bad faith and with accusation of editwarring. The Banner talk 15:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Duh, I wrote most of the article and always read what I write. There's really nothing suspicious or excessively POV or advert-like about it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

ow, claiming ownership and protecting your own article. The Banner talk 19:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's apparently now impossible to expand an important article and not attract somebody of your ilk... What has this place come to... I've barely begun expanding the article and I don't appreciate having tags slopped all over it while the work is going on, that isn't an ownership issue. Again, provide evidence here of the problematic sentences you see and they can be assessed by myself and the others. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Banner, I'm not sure there is any call for accusing people of ownership based on such scant evidence. Perhaps you could back up your tags by saying who has the COI on the page, and where you think the POV is in the article? - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I, too, am unclear about the claim of ownership. Dr. Blofeld isn't the only editor here; I'm working on it as are Ipigott and Nvvchar. Pokey comments promote a hostile environment, the kind that some editors, especially women (i.e. me), tend to avoid, so please be nice when addressing concerns. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Anybody noticed the smiley straight behind it? The Banner talk 20:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's funny isn't it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate your efforts to remove move of the peacock terms out of the article. The Banner talk 16:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dr B. OWN accusations are used all too freely on here and IMO are attributed to pissed off individuals not getting their own way. I would be very careful throwing around such accusations Banner. There is a huge difference between OWN and protecting an article from POV pushing information from being added. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What concerns me is that Banner thinks that however prestigious or successful something is you must never discuss its success. This article didn't have COI and advertising issues and it had no "peacock" term or excessive POV which should have given him reason to slop ugly tags all over it and claim that I'm working for the hotel. But to hide the fact that the Dorchester is not a prestigious name in the hotel business and that it was very popular with actors and businessmen is hiding the truth. Some of the most prominent business decisions made in the UK have been made at the Dorchester (Ken Adams sold Chelsea to Abramovich at the Dorchester, British Petroleum etc) The fact that Eisenhower and numerous "important" officials lived in it during WWII illustrates its "importance". For some people or institutions it is appropriate to use a few "peacock" expressions. You'd expect an article on Jimi Hendrix to mention something about greatest or most important guitarist, for Peter Sellers you'd expect the article to mention something about his major success and influence as a comedian. You'd expect an article on the Dorchester to mention it historical connections and popularity with American actors and others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sometime you can't scare people away with rudeness and bluff, Dr. Blofeld. The fact that you removed a lot of the peacock term indicates that what you called "bad faith tagging" was not so bad faith as you cried out. (Maybe too harsh, okay.) And your edit on by userpage was just of a historic level of pity. The Banner talk 11:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of terms?? I reworded two statements which bore any resemblance to "peacock" and were not at all problematic, but I reworded them just to be on the safe side and at least try to see what you were going on about. You've only had four barnstars in your history on here and one of them was by me; don't you think it looks out of place you carrying on like this and and you being rewarded by me? If you're comfortable with that then it just illustrates what a pitiful character you are. Martijn Kajuiter is far more likely to be a COI case than this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And now you start following me around tagging (mainly older) articles I have written. How pity-full. Here is some candy, stop crying and be a good boy now. The Banner talk 13:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Banner, enough. You've not provided any evidence of COI or POV, despite being requested. I don't think this continuation of this thread is particularly constructive, so can I suggest you move on to more productive work? - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not tagging for POV and COI even though most of them have the same level of "peacock" and "advertising", but a lot of your articles have sources which need filling out. That's not disputable and I think you know this. Be a good boy and fill out the sources. Citing a source as "Highbeam" without any proper publishing information is problematic. I just find it astounding that somebody who clearly lacks basic editing skills can go about slopping masses of tags on articles... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Willie Bioff

I appreciate that it's cited and that it does indeed concur with what the source says, but I find "American mafia boss Wille [sic] Bioff stayed at the hotel with his wife in the winter of 1939 during a vacation to Europe, shortly before being arrested for income tax evasion" hard to believe. Quite aside from the difficult logistics of "vacationing in Europe" at the height of World War II, Willie Bioff was a prominent Jewish figure and I can't imagine Continental Europe would have been top of his list of tourist destinations. The sole source is Hollywood and the Mob: Movies, Mafia, Sex and Death by Tim Adler; Bloomsbury is a respected publisher of children's books and fiction but not exactly the Cambridge University Press when it comes to non-fiction, and Tim Adler is a hack freelance journalist and former London editor of Deadline.com, not any kind of historian. Since Adler also claims specifically that Bioff's trip to London was made on the SS Normandie, which had been seized by the US military on 3 September 1939 prior to being converted into the USS Lafayette (AP-53) and was in no position to be taking mobsters on vacation jaunts to London, I don't think anything he says on the matter can be considered credible. – iridescent 2 12:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

OK that's fine, you were only reverted because you edited it as an ip and ip's often vandalize or cause trouble with certain things... I still haven't got around to continuing my work on this, hopefully by the end of the month..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Dorchester/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take up this review. Initially this looks like a well referenced and well written article, so hopefully there shouldn't be a lot of point to make! I will read through this article and give my first initial comments tomorrow. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   It is well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes, well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This appears to be a well written and much applauded article - it gained 3214 views last month[2] and the subject itself is very famous. I will mainly focus on copyediting issues.

Initial comments

Construction

• "The upper eight floors were erected in just 10 weeks" - perhaps 'ten' weeks would suit this sentence?

I prefer to use digits for numbers above nine, that's an accepted and common form to use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Exterior

• "The architectural style adopted by Green, largely based on William's design..." can you mention that the person in question is William Curtis Green?

Mentioned in the beginning of history but I've written the full names again for reference.

1931-1945

• "Cabinet Ministers such as Foreign Minister Lord Halifax and Duff Cooper stayed there" - who was Duff Cooper? It explained who Halifax was (his position in the Cabinet), but not Duff Cooper? I think this problem appears in the lead too, other than that the lead would be fine!

Ambassador to France from 1944.

• "Bostonian Sherry Mangan of Time was one of several American correspondents who stayed at the hotel during the war" - I take it that refers to the Time Magazine? Or something else? It's just that it might confuse new readers if they do not know if it was referring to the magazine...
• Time is mentioned again in another sentence "In March 1945, Ernest Hemingway and Time correspondent and lover Mary Welsh stayed at the Dorchester"

Yes it's Time magazine. I've linked in the first instance to clear it all up.

Interior

• "Between 1988 and 1990, the hotel was completely renovated by Bob Lush of the Richmond Design Group at a cost of US $100 million" - wouldn't it be good to convert US dollars into British Pounds using a currency conversion template? For example {{To USD|100|GBR}}?

I agree but your template didn't work so I reverted back. Ideally it should list the value in 1988.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

References

• Ref 56 The Promenade has a dead link.
• Ref 6 Sir Francis Towle is a dead link, but that could just be me?

Both sorted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

On hold

This is a well written and referenced article, when I first looked through it I thought that it could pass with ease and I was not wrong. The problems with this article (if you can count them as 'problems') are a couple of dead links and some very minor copyediting issues. The lead looked fine and complied per WP:LEAD. Overall it is a modest article that attracted some 3214 people a month but I must congratulate all the work that has been put into it! I will put this article on hold for a maximum of seven days. Once these very minor issues have been addressed I be happy to grant this GA status! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 23:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, all points addressed except the currency converter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Since all those minor (mostly copyediting) issues have been addressed, I will be happy to give The Dorchester its well deserved GA status. The whole article complied per the GA criteria. Don't worry about the currency converter, I looked myself and couldn't find anything that would convert Pounds into US Dollars... but other than that, well done on building another Good Article! From the start I knew that this one would easily pass. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Dorchester/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take up this review. Initially this looks like a well referenced and well written article, so hopefully there shouldn't be a lot of point to make! I will read through this article and give my first initial comments tomorrow. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   It is well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes, well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This appears to be a well written and much applauded article - it gained 3214 views last month[3] and the subject itself is very famous. I will mainly focus on copyediting issues.

Initial comments

Construction

• "The upper eight floors were erected in just 10 weeks" - perhaps 'ten' weeks would suit this sentence?

I prefer to use digits for numbers above nine, that's an accepted and common form to use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Exterior

• "The architectural style adopted by Green, largely based on William's design..." can you mention that the person in question is William Curtis Green?

Mentioned in the beginning of history but I've written the full names again for reference.

1931-1945

• "Cabinet Ministers such as Foreign Minister Lord Halifax and Duff Cooper stayed there" - who was Duff Cooper? It explained who Halifax was (his position in the Cabinet), but not Duff Cooper? I think this problem appears in the lead too, other than that the lead would be fine!

Ambassador to France from 1944.

• "Bostonian Sherry Mangan of Time was one of several American correspondents who stayed at the hotel during the war" - I take it that refers to the Time Magazine? Or something else? It's just that it might confuse new readers if they do not know if it was referring to the magazine...
• Time is mentioned again in another sentence "In March 1945, Ernest Hemingway and Time correspondent and lover Mary Welsh stayed at the Dorchester"

Yes it's Time magazine. I've linked in the first instance to clear it all up.

Interior

• "Between 1988 and 1990, the hotel was completely renovated by Bob Lush of the Richmond Design Group at a cost of US $100 million" - wouldn't it be good to convert US dollars into British Pounds using a currency conversion template? For example {{To USD|100|GBR}}?

I agree but your template didn't work so I reverted back. Ideally it should list the value in 1988.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

References

• Ref 56 The Promenade has a dead link.
• Ref 6 Sir Francis Towle is a dead link, but that could just be me?

Both sorted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

On hold

This is a well written and referenced article, when I first looked through it I thought that it could pass with ease and I was not wrong. The problems with this article (if you can count them as 'problems') are a couple of dead links and some very minor copyediting issues. The lead looked fine and complied per WP:LEAD. Overall it is a modest article that attracted some 3214 people a month but I must congratulate all the work that has been put into it! I will put this article on hold for a maximum of seven days. Once these very minor issues have been addressed I be happy to grant this GA status! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 23:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, all points addressed except the currency converter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Since all those minor (mostly copyediting) issues have been addressed, I will be happy to give The Dorchester its well deserved GA status. The whole article complied per the GA criteria. Don't worry about the currency converter, I looked myself and couldn't find anything that would convert Pounds into US Dollars... but other than that, well done on building another Good Article! From the start I knew that this one would easily pass. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox pic

In my opinion the "The Dorchester, Dorchester Collection" logo at the top of the page looks rather amateurish and tacky – apart from its placement being somewhat awkward in a page-layout/design sense, it's a blurred, poor-quality scan or something, and rather detracts from the page. I'd certainly remove it. What do others think? Ericoides (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Then replace it with a more "professional" one! I've uploaded a new image..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey connection

The room at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey is based on a hotel room at the Dorchester. Fast-forward to the 9:45 mark. Does this deserve mention in the article? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfTgU8G6Ljc --RThompson82 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick apparently based the hotel room in 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on The Dorchester, as he stayed there during filming.[4][5] This may be worth mentioning here, and in the article about 2001. Another thread is at Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Dorchester_Hotel_connection.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)