Talk:Bed and breakfasts

VFD discussion

Bed and breakfasts

Not an article and has been carrying the copyvio banner for more than a year now --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 11:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

• Delete. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:47, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
• Keep and rewrite. We have an article on hotels, and one on hostels. I think we gotta cover it. (I'll take a shot at it if you want... just let me know as I seldom get sucked onto this page. Shoulda blown out the copyvio stuff long ago. Shouldn't we have a place we keep track of these copyvios and their age? (WT-en) OldPine 20:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT) (Thanks for listening ;)

Hey if you are willing to tackle the article, I'll gladly withdraw my delete vote. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 20:39, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Keep if Old Pine is prepared to turn it into into a worthy travel topic. (WT-en) WindHorse 20:57, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Keep - Some may look at this as an "alternative", others may see it as "best choice available". In some rural areas, it may be "best choice available". I have stayed in a couple of them, with lady friends, in Holmes County. It was a good choice and it added much to the visit. If all do not want, or cannot participate in the activities, they have a pleasant place to sit it out. (WT-en) 2old 13:05, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

OK, I've kind of stalled out on this, was hoping someone would jump on board. Article is just fair at this point I'd say. I've never actually stayed in a B&B. I still think it's an article that should be here--hopefully to be improved. (WT-en) OldPine 13:28, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

• Keep - I think its worthy of being around, and will get improved over time. – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 00:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Proper noun

This article was moved with the claim that "bed and breakfast" is now a proper noun. I find the claim dubious at best. Wikipedia doesn't think so, and an ngram search seems to corroborate that. Most uses of "Bed and Breakfast" (capitalized) are within the names of specific bed-and-breakfasts, not as a generic term. This article should be moved back. LtPowers (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like many native users of English has mixed feelings about this. Wikipedia's lead begins clearly enough with "A bed and breakfast (or B&B) is a small lodging establishment..." but then later the more nominative style is used: "In January 2003 Tourism Queensland conducted a review of current research to gain a better understanding of the Bed & Breakfast (B&B) market" and "Bed & Breakfasts provide mutual benefits for both the visitor and the operator". A sign that many native English speakers are unhappy with the lower case version, is the tendency to want to hyphenate "Bed-and-breakfasts are popular with many foreign travelers, mostly from Britain, Germany, Canada, France and Australia, who have grown up going to B and Bs in their own countries". In many British sources (which is where the term originated) there is a tendency to distinguish between Bed and Breakfasts (bricks and mortar) and those establishments using a bed and breakfast style of meal plan. The same dichotomy (but in reverse) is seen between those folks that write they are buying a new "Hoover" (often actually a Dyson or Electrolux in the UK) to do the "hoovering".

This mixed usage was evident right from the very start of this (plagiarised?) article. However, the article was then completely re-written and the original editor of the new article clearly used the form that is clearer to non-native speakers in this original version. I do think that we should try and be consistent with the article prose and the article title. Additional authors used both upper case and lower case and did not really attempt to resolve the mixed case naming dichotomy.

On balance, I think it's clearer to non-native users of English to use title case - which is why I changed it.

It's also a bit more "symmetrical" with the usual BnB, B and B, B&B abbreviations where the lower case abbreviation is very rarely seen in the wild.

A lot of "academic" studies seem to use the upper case form - eg As usual, it's no big deal and I don't have a problem with changing things back. I do think "proper noun" was the wrong way to express the reason for this change in an edit summary. -- Alice^✉ 19:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I´d also say let´s move it back. Even if it's a slightly contentious case, we should err on the side on non-capitalization since, well, that's the way we name stuff.Texugo (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you change it back, most of the prose in the article needs to be changed again - and you'll still have the problem with upper case being used in association names and casual editors re-introducing the (more natural to them) upper case form. I think there are more deserving candidates for a change to lower case, eg Grande Randonnée where French usage is actually to have ALL lower case! -- Alice^✉ 20:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Texugo. There is no reason to really think this is more of a proper noun, than motel, or caravan park. And without clear evidence lower case is wrong, we should use lower case for the title. The fact that there is a mix of usage throughout the site is hardly a concern, when that it shown to reflect the mix of usage everywhere else. --Inas (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A rough consensus has emerged: There is no clear evidence (and is never likely to be) that lower case is wrong and our normal naming policy should apply. -- Alice✉ 20:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It may be a regional thing; perhaps Australians are more likely to capitalize it? And no doubt the propensity is increased thanks to the commonness of the abbreviation. Still, I think it's best to treat it the same as we would the words "motor hotel" or "trailer park" or "ski lodge". LtPowers (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've conceded the point with the summary above (now substituted with appropriate text and code since the transcluded template on which the summary was based was drastically changed on 11 March 2013), but your examples are not apposite. I very rarely see the compound word "ski lodge" capitalised (except as part of an establishment's name). Bed and Breakfasts are in an usual position because of both the common (capitalised) abbreviations and the fact that many native English speakers are inherently uncomfortable with not making clear the distinction between a stereotyped phrase used as a noun and their normal sentence construction of "I paid a lot for my breakfast and bed at a very swanky Bed & Breakfast". -- Alice^✉ 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. The capitalisation is an attempt to link the phrase, and I certainly don't think Bed and Breakfast is wrong, and I'd hate to see us set out to suddenly change it everywhere it is used. In some cases we need some way of indicating that it is a specific type of establishment. I know, for example, some UK hotels will sell "bed and breakfast", but they aren't "bed and breakfasts". --Inas (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree on lower case, but what about internet vs. Internet, then? OK, maybe this isn't the right thread for that. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Us pedantic wiki-gnomes need a safe hideaway to discuss these great affairs.

Perhaps the answer is to do as we do with different varieties of English spelling and just say: look, this is no big deal, there are really better things to spend our time arguing about (down the pub/Pub/traveller's pub/travellers pub/Travellers Pub/Traveller's Pub/Travellers' Pub;) if you are doing an edit, then try and ascertain what is the majority usage (unfortunately we can't use the strong national connection test here to resolve the different orthographies) and then try and keep the usage consistent throughout the same article. And that, I'm afraid, brings me full circle. I noticed that the major usage throughout was "Bed and Breakfast and thought it better that the title of the article reflect that equally valid usage.

Now I really would like to sort out AC, ac, A/C, a/c, air, air-con in listings, especially as the great Wi-Fi/WiFi debate has already been sorted. I guess this need for clear rules hang-up must be a peculiarly Singapore thing, surrounded as we are by our very flexible neighbours to the East and our little too rigid (unless you're a member of the right party) neighbours to the North... -- Alice^✉ 01:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality of websites?

Firstly, it is a fair rule of thumb to state that a website reflects its business: exhibiting the qualities likely to be found in the bed and breakfast or hotel. On their website you should expect to see: a website availability calendar with easy online reservations, a toll-free telephone service, and ample easy-to-navigate information. A little “reading between the lines” will tell you a great deal and help you make the right quality choices for your vacation or break to ensure that your expectations are fully met.

Dunno about this one. There are some pretty bad motels with good websites that selectively omit many of the property's faults; conversely, some good B&B hosts might not be web-savvy at all. The image that comes to mind is a grandmother in a country kitchen baking fresh bread - potentially a great B&B host, but no more likely than anyone else to be a good webmaster. K7L (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, that is a pretty odd statement. I'd support striking it altogether. Texugo (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

AirBnB?

I'm a little unsure about these... do we list rooms in private homes, or only "official" B&B's which are government-registered as licensed businesses and listed in the official guidebooks? 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:945 21:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't list individual private homes, IMO. Linking to Airbnb might be appropriate in limited cases (such as is done at Alhambra (California)). Powers ^(talk) 00:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say we should not list them at all, based on articles like this one which claims over 70% of listings in Barcelona are illegal. For similar reasons, I would oppose any listing of Uber or other such ride-sharing services. Pashley (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hospitality exchange, ride sharing and home exchange are perfectly legitimate global travel topics. If we need to explain what an AirBnB does, we should do so once, there, and mention hospitality exchange and home exchange as alternatives on this page. If we start adding "AirBnB is available in Alhambra (California)" and the like to every city in which these operate, that could become spammy quickly - if they accept listings from anywhere, that opens Special:Allpages to "AirBnB is available in Aachen, Aaiha, Aakirkeby, Aalborg, Aalst, Aamby Valley City, Aarau, Aarhus"... clear out to Zwolle. Individual rooms are likely not worth listing, unless they're open on a semi-permanent basis. With complete freedom of entry and exit, many rooms are here today, gone tomorrow or vice-versa. There are currently three individual AirBnB rooms listed in WV destination pages, in Verona, Dehradun and Shangrila. Two of the three links are broken and fall back to the main city listing. The one working listing contains info already available from other sources.

Certainly, I don't agree with suppressing all mention of AirBnB just because some hôteliers want it gone for purely anti-competitive reasons, the same way we don't remove all mention of Internet telephony just because the régime in a few countries may be prone to block it to protect a badly-overpriced national telephone monopoly. Link it once. Just once. K7L (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with K7L. The availability of rooms offered on AirBnB emerge and disappear at an entirely different rate than regular hotels, so it's very likely that the information we provide for individual destinations is outdated. The service should definitely be mentioned in a travel topic such as Sleep. In the same way, Uber should not be listed in all articles but it'd certainly be a good idea to tell people something about it in the taxicabs article. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Negro vs. African-American

Cabins for Colored, South Carolina, June 1939

This edit changed the historical definition of US (1930s-1960s) "tourist home" from:

private homes which often opened their doors to Negro travellers in an era of racial segregation where widespread discrimination left a limited number of other options.

to:

private homes which often opened their doors to African-American travellers in an era of racial segregation where widespread discrimination left a limited number of other options.

In the era in question, the terminology would have been "Negro" (at best). Its replacement with the more politically-correct "African-American" is a neologism which originated after the 1960s civil rights movement and long after the US federal government had moved to end racial discrimination in interstate commerce. No one was labelling US-born members of the domestic black populace as "African-American" in 1930. K7L (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary (or desirable) to restrict ourselves to historic terminology when writing from a modern perspective. This isn't a direct quotation, so strictly adhering to era-appropriate language seems odd to me. Powers ^(talk) 17:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)