Talk:Hotels

Deletion and validity of this article

I figure I should address this before anyone questions the validity of this article. I think I can make an excellent article out of this subject as we have done with Hostels, which is an article in itself.

I currently am a member of about 5 or six different hotel chains' loyalty programs and have stayed at many hotels in the past year. I would like to ask for about four weeks before this article is deleted, because my access to the web is very limited ( one or two days a week). Should by then we decide the work is not worth it please go ahead and do what the consensus is.

Thanks,

(WT-en) Sapphire 13:28, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)

I am wondering how this article might evolve. My initial concern is its title is very general. What are we likely to write about here? What a hotel is , or isn't? The various hotel chains? Their loyalty programmes? The benefits and disadvantages of this type of accommodations?

Could some aspects of this topic be better covered by Wikipedia? Like the history, business and economic aspects. As the topic stands it is very broad. I would prefer a more explanatory title like Hotel chains' loyalty programmes. That said, I think what has been written so far looks interesting. Whether it is of value is another question. -- (WT-en) Huttite 01:11, 27 Nov 2005 (EST)

Actually, I have a semi-article sitting around on my hard-disk about what hotel star ratings mean, which I've finally added to main page. I agree with Sapphire that, as an extremely frequent hotel stayer, reviews of hotel chains in general are useful. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:35, 27 Nov 2005 (EST)

Accor

Jpatokal,

I tried to edit this article, but there was a "conflict" since you also edited the article at the same time. I'm going to change the Accor paragraph. If you like it the way you had it before I did anything just change it. (WT-en) Sapphire 03:32, 30 Nov 2005 (EST)

Grand old hotels

A new user added this section with a link to a new article, so by the time this comment is written the new article may already have been created, but if not let's start out by listing "Grand old hotels" on the Hotels page, and only if the list gets long, complicated, or there is a consensus to create a separate article should a new article be created. One of the goals of Wikivoyage is to have complete guides, which means avoiding lots of sub-pages when they aren't necessary. -- (WT-en) Ryan 05:33, 12 April 2006 (EDT)

I'm too lazy to sign in, but I second Ryan's idea. - User:(WT-en) Sapphire

It was me that created that section, and I'm not pleased that someone took it out. The Grand old hotels page currently has about 20 hotels from half a dozen contributors. I'd say it is worth keeping and needs more than a "see also" link here. (WT-en) Pashley 04:46, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

I think those 20 hotels would fit on this page. Still, I'm not sure I like having a list of individual hotels outside of the destination guides. After all, there are probably thousands of "Grand Old Hotels" around the world, so this list is going to be huge eventually if it continues. Don't you think the data would be better placed in the destination guides? -- (WT-en) Mark 05:05, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

I'd like to tighten the Grand Old Hotels criteria enough that there aren't thousands... every one in the list should be a destination in itself. And there actually are people who travel purposely to visit them, I met a safari lodge owner in Zambia (!) last year whose idea of a vacation is a week at one. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:00, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

If we add Europe this list will get very long. By any of the criteria I've seen discussed there are three Grand-Old hotels in Lausanne, 4 or 5 in Montreux, and around a dozen in Paris. Perhaps modern renovation should disqualify them? That way the Ritz is still in but the totally updated Hilton Paddington is out... -- (WT-en) Mark 06:43, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

Now that the article has been created you can probably restore the section within this article that links to it. I originally removed it because it was added by an anonymous user and I was hoping to get the "Grand Old Hotels" information to start out as a section within a more relevant article before being branched off - we have a condition that large attractions such as Disneyland or Angkor Wat only get their own articles once their section in the corresponding town becomes large and complex, and it seemed to make sense to do that here as well. Since the Grand Old Hotels article is already fairly large and complex I don't think it makes sense to move it back into the hotels article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 10:45, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

I put it back. Methinks the criteria for a Grand old hotel include that is was at some point the place to stay, so by defintion there can be only one per city or at most one per major district. (WT-en) Pashley 20:55, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

Cut down list of brands

The list was getting increasingly spammed, so I've imposed an admittedly arbitrary limit of requiring at least 500 hotels across multiple countries to qualify. This cuts out Radisson at 435 (quoth Wikipedia), but I think the rest of the big boys should be in there now. Radisson clocks up 1700 when you figure in {Country,Park}+{Inn,Plaza}, so it's listed now. Yay.

The one thing I'd still like to add is a list of independent luxury hotel brands -- Aman, Four Seasons, Shangri-La, Langham etc -- which obviously don't have the same kind of volume. Any ideas on how to define this?

And here's the overflow: (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:00, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

• Loews Hotels is a smaller luxury chain with several locations in the U.S. and Canada.

• Kimpton Hotels is an eclectic group of hotels in major destinations across North America. Many of their hotels also offer outstanding and unique dining experiences.

• Langham Hotels International Langham has a luxury hotel heritage dating back to 1865 when the Langham Hotel in London originally opened as Europe's first Grand Hotel.

• Four Seasons is arguably the best hotel chain with 9 Four Seasons hotels being rated as five star by the Mobil Travel Guide and received numerous awards from J.D. Power and Associates.

• Millennium-Copthorne Hotels

• NH Hotels is primarily based in Europe, but has several locations in Africa, and South American countries where other chains have not invested in like Cuba, Chile, and Uruguay.

• Shangri-La Hotels & Resorts operates the Shangri-La and Traders brands, mostly in Asia but with some presence in United States and Europe as well.

• Kempinski Hotels is a collection of five-star hotels across the world. Founded in Germany 110 years ago, Kempinski Hotels & Resorts has been expanding aggressively in Europe, Asia and the Middle East during the last decade and now accounts for 59 luxurious properties with additional 41 on their way.

Thanks for trying to find a solution to this, Jani. I've been watching the spamming and unsure exactly how to strike a fine line. I agree with the 500 hotel rule – just because a entrepreneurial family might have one hotel in Germany and another across the border in Austria does not make it worth mentioning. Regarding Shangri-La, Four Seasons, and the like I wouldn't be opposed to listings these despite the 500 hotel rule since they are so well known despite being very small chains. However, for the sake of consistency I'd leave them out. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 15:44, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

What about two chains I've never heard of — Chatrium and Maitria — that were just added? I assume that edit should be reverted, citing this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't even think those are chains, more like individual hotels somewhere deep in Thailand. When I last edited the article, I made sure we only have chains with global reach. Some Chinese chains can easily clock 500 properties, but they are not quite relevant to somebody not visiting China, so it's best we only mention them in topical guides. The list of brands is to help the reader figure out what the described category is based on their probable experiences and help them figure out hotel choices when faced with unknown. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think at least Chatrium is a small chain; search results included one in Yangon. However, in any case, I've reverted the edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I travel mostly in Asia, where Shangri-La is one of the most important high-end chains. To me, missing it under Hotels#International_chains seems to be a blunder. Pashley (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What about Four Seasons? How extensive are they? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

They have about 100 hotels covering nearly every major city in the world. Powers ^(talk) 21:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that should be sufficient to list them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

One star hotels

Kudos to whomever wrote that--I got a big chuckle! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:22, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

I suppose that still leaves the question of who is issuing the one-star rating and where. If it's a provincial or national tourism bureau distributing a list of all hotels lawfully in operation in an area, an establishment with one star might be the worst hotel in town as described. If the star/diamond ratings are from an heavily-edited guidebook (such as a Michelin or an automobile association) the worst hotels just don't get included (no stars) as one must meet a minimum standard to be worth listing at all. K7L (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Loyalty Programs

Updated Swissotels loyalty scheme to Swissotel Circle as it is now. --(WT-en) Omricon 12:12, 27 February 2012 (GMT)

Not an outline

This travel topic isn't an outline, as far as I can tell. --(WT-en) CurvyEthyl 00:28, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Major overhaul needed

This could be an extremely helpful article that could hold a lot of information not to be found in either Wikipedia or on sites like TripAdvisor, but for now I believe it is a bit of a dump. My thoughts:

1. A number of traveller-oriented topics are missing or could be expanded in broader detail for the benefit of the travellers:
   1. Advice on how to book hotels, how to use travel agents and intermediaries, how one should
   2. Other hotel services (porters, ironing/laundries, luggage storage, housekeeping, concierge, TV/payTV, WiFi/Internet, fitness, wellness and spa facilities)
   3. Regional differences - there are certain issues with hotels that are specific to a region and should be discussed for the benefit of the travellers
   4. Hotels vs other accomodation options - some general advice for travellers to get to know and choose their options better
2. Listing hotel-operating companies might be a good idea, but I think what should take precedence is the discussion of the existing segments in the hospitality market and which international brands fall within each (e.g. a traveller familiar with Holiday Inn Express might want to know that Hampton by Hilton and Ibis Styles provide a similar level of service)
3. A laundry list of hospitality loyalty schemes is just that, a laundry list, it doesn't seem to serve a purpose other than trivia. A broader discussion of how to benefit most from a scheme like that would be warranted, but discussion of individual schemes would best be done why discussing a hotel operating company, if at all.

If you agree or disagree, please do chip in! If you don't, please be informed that I intend to slowly edit this article in the direction outlined above. --PrinceGloria (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

All of that sounds really good to me. By all means, plunge forward! I'm eager to see your edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And so I did! I see that K7L continues to be actively involved and I hope this article will see many edits from many users in near future, as I believe it is both far from perfect and my edits would warrant reviewing and do-overs.

My idea of the target form of the article, based on my understanding of WV's principles, is to provide a comprehensive guide to using hotels as travel accomodation that would cover and explain everything as if to a completely ignorant first-time traveller who has never stayed, or even heard of, a hotel. This has obviously a rather slim possibility of actually happening, but I believe this article will be of assistance mostly to travellers less familiar with hotels in general, for whom at least a part of the information provided will be new and who will value this introduction. Simply listing what everybody knows with the assumption that they already do basically defies the purpose of having this article at all, IMHO.

I am thusly worried if we are not making it too complex or difficult to take in, and whether we are not providing overly many irrelevant details. While I guess we need to explain every detail that might help a traveller choose their hotel and room wisely, use it to their maximum benefit and avoid mistakes and mishaps, I believe there are details that are simply interesting and not very useful, and I admit I do not know where to draw the line sometimes. My feeling is e.g. that providing too much background information on how hotel companies operate, especially with regard to various specific hotel companies and their history and peculiarities, might be distracting and irrelevant (this refers to e.g. the passage on how different brands allow Cendant, Choice or Wyndham to circumvent franchise agreement clauses - this is important if you operate a hotel, not stay in one). On the other hand, I find the knowledge that hotel operators, owners and hotel chains are separate entities somewhat useful for understanding how hotels work and what to expect of them.

My personal concern is whether the language I use is simple enough - on the one hand, I enjoy being (in my view) verbose, sophisticated and elaborate while also precise and exact, but on the other as a non-native English speaker I always have in mind the fact that this language version will have many visits from non-native speakers with a varying degree of command of English. Conversely, I am worried if my writing is not overly cautious in assuring every aspect is being covered and explained properly.

Your thoughts on the above, y'all? --PrinceGloria (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have time to think of of that over, but it would probably be better to just plunge forward and add to/rewrite the article and then discuss what is excessive and should be removed. With regards to your tone, that too is something that can be fixed after-the-fact, because Wikivoyage should be written in lively language. One thing that is on my mind reading this is advice I heard on a tv show just a couple days ago...websites that list hotel rooms receive 15-30% of the booking price as commission. For travelers looking for small, cozy, family-run hotels and bed-and-breakfasts at a low price, that is a big burden on these businesses. For small accommodations like these, booking directly or in person can result in a better deal for travelers, since the commission isn't a factor. This is an example of when the business side of things is relevant and should be mentioned. AHeneen (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the case with large hotel chains as well, it is not that booking websites service those for free. While you might have less opportunity to haggle with a large chain hotel even if you call them directly, they are bound to give you a part of what they'd otherwise pay as commission back by way of loyalty schemes (most loyalty schemes only honor and reward stays booked directly with the chain, be it via website or directly at the hotel). There are also special offers available on the hotel's/chain's website only, or just as well via intermediary websites only. I guess hotel rates, pricing policies and strategies and tips on how to secure a good rate warrant yet another section of the article, but I guess it's too late in my time zone for me to start one now and fill it in with reasonably coherent content - but what's the time where you are? :D --PrinceGloria (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If a booking website were to approach some huge chain and ask for 15-30% of the booking price, they would be rebuffed. Huge chains have their own centralised reservation systems, the booking website needs the chain more badly than the chain needs yet another pointless middleman. That gives the chain some leverage in negotiating a better deal. The small independent, on the other hand, is told to take it or leave it. The website can afford to lose a sale to a small vendor, but can't afford to alienate a major chain. The same sort of thing happens routinely with credit card merchant accounts, where "Mall-Wart" loses a smaller percentage to card fees than "Country Crafts Emporium on Main Street" or some mail-order firm which has no choice but to accept cards as whatever price is imposed on them. More annoyingly, middlemen routinely impose one-sided contracts which prohibit merchants from offering a more fair price to clients who pay directly and in cash as it's rare for governments to pass consumer legislation with teeth to prevent this. Like shoplifting, the costs are added to the price of the product and everybody pays. K7L (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding the rack rate?

Hotels price the same room differently to different clients. They initially quote a "rack rate" which, like the "manufacturers suggested retail price" on merchandise or the "sticker price" on motorcars, is the worst rate available from the client's point of view. There are then discounts for corporations, seniors, auto club members, bookings made online, conventions and a long list of categories which bring this from overpriced to marginally less overpriced.

Other than "make your price comparisons online before departure", is there any advice which should be in the article? The words "rack rate" currently don't even appear in this page - while other niche topics (such as extended stay or boutique hotels) appear to be given more detail than is justified by the small market share they represent. K7L (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, the section on hotel rates and perhaps the advice on how to get a better rate is sorely missing and on my list to add to the article. I'll get down to that right away, and I guess it could benefit a lot from you taking a go at it as well! --PrinceGloria (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Section on star ratings

Before I plunge forward on that one, I'd love to sound the opinions. Mine is that this section currently contains very little useful information and some very creative writing that is perhaps entertaining (not to offend anyone, but I guess entertaining more to the writer than the readers), but for the most part not very useful and even quite misleading.

In my experience, star or similar ratings vary wildly between countries, and are also often applied by other entities such as tour operators in a way incosistent with any country's rating standards. In short, IMHO they are a very rough guide as to whether the property is low or high-standard, or perhaps even just what it aspires to be, as the reality might be found to be different. There seems to be no point in trying to generalize on that or giving guidance as to what to expect from a property of this or that star rating for many reasons, some listed in the very same section.

I guess the discussion of star ratings in detail in individual countries might warrant a separate article, but the current state of the section is that it creates the impression of being comprehensive, complete and written from a position of authority, while I find it to be anything but. How about culling it to the bare minimum and leaving room for expanding the factual discussion of star ratings in an individual article that we might start in due time down the road? --PrinceGloria (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The separate article exists at rating systems and is mentioned in the text already. The issues you mention are already identified explicitly in the article. I don't see an issue here. K7L (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me put it more bluntly - the discussion as to what to understand under different star levels is, in my opinion, a lot of bollocks as it stands and I'd delete it. Would you believe it is extremely worthwhile? --PrinceGloria (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd shorten it quite a bit; leave the details to the rating systems article.

I also have my doubts about the parts about the whole "Hotel types" section; the text admits these are American terms, so do they belong in an international guide? Are they just advice from Captian Obvious?

Anyway, what is a full service hotel? It seems to me it should have several restaurants with different styles of cuisine and at least coffee and sandwiches or some such available 24/7. Also at least two bars, one quiet pub or lounge and a louder one for the party animals. Live music in at least one; a five-star should at least sometimes have bands with a national or international reputation. Pool, gym, sauna, ... Pashley (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's Captain Obvious. At a certain point in time I had to learn what all those "full service hotel" and other monikers mean, and I guess it's good to introduce readers to this if they've come long enough to browse an article on hotels (which is a bit of a d'oh itself, ain't it?) While the term "full service hotel" is of American origin, its usage is widespread (largely due to the sheer influence of American hospitality industry and American tourism on the global sector). If you believe the description could be better, I'd plunge forward. This article does not get much action and I guess it doesn't serve it well. Looking forward to your contributions and working with you on improving it. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Beds

I don't think that this was a constructive revision to my changes. First and foremost, our external links policy prohibits linking to Wikipedia in this manner. But second of all, the descriptions are insufficient (which is why I changed them in the first place). Surely talking about seven people in a bed is ridiculous, but to state that a king could sleep three is not. And to state that one person would be "comfortable" on a queen or two "comfortable" on a king is a gross understatement. Powers ^(talk) 13:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have restored your wording for the bed types and re-removed the wikipedia link. Texugo (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, I believe having three people in a king bed is possible but ridiclous and we should not advise that, most hotels I know would not allow that anyway. Maybe it's different in the US, but still that would be quite a bizarre situation to me to have three folks in a 2x2 bed, why not get a slightly cheaper room and have an extra bed put in? I truly don't see how "more than ample" is any better than "comfortable". A king is comfortable for two, a queen is comfortable for one. We can go by "more than ample for two" and "more than ample for one", still same thing to me.

I know we are not supposed to link to Wikipedia, but this is the only source I have found that actually gives the measurements of typical bed and mattress sizes in so many markets in one place. If you can find one, please replace the Wikipedia link. I also don't think it makes sense to simply copy the whole lot from Wikipedia if there already is a good article on that. Lastly, I don't think that any amount of words is actually of much value vs. actual numbers, what is "ample" or "comfortable" for one will be "just enough" for somebody else. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• A king bed is nearly square; it provides more than ample room for two people
• A queen bed provides enough room for two adults to sleep comfortably

This makes no sense... a queen sleeps two, but a king is bigger because it sleeps... two? That tells nothing actually useful. K7L (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it's true, isn't it? I've found king beds to be bordering on too large for two people, which is why I put the bit about three in there. True, hotels don't generally allow it, nor would most people favor the approach (which is why I said "if they're friendly"), but it conveys the size. Which is kinda the whole point of this exercise. How else would you like to describe the size of a king?

PrinceGloria, two different editors have now removed the Wikipedia link and you have re-inserted it twice. That's edit warring and that is simply not acceptable, especially since you are (by your own admission) going against explicit policy. I am going to remove the link again and you are not to re-add it without a clear consensus, understood?

-- Powers ^(talk) 18:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

With regard to xl policy, I will raise it on the policy's talk page to clarify. This language, btw, is not something I would find acceptable by any policy or guideline, be it @Wikivoyage or any other context, and I would hope we could refrain from that in the future.

To me, king beds are OK for two people and anything smaller is a compromise by my standards. And I have a BMI of 22 at a height of 1.8 metres, just to make sure. I do not think that adding that a third person might perhaps fit conveys anything. It is a bed that is 1.8 or 2.0 metres wide, that's about it. You may fit a large dog, two medium dogs or many very small dogs or cats, a golf bag, a corpse or a trouser press between two people and they will still somehow fit, but this is about as good a guidance as saying that an average hotel room may fit a 50 cubic metres of down feathers. It simply doesn't really make sense. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I re-added at the same time the above comment was being made, but it does make absolute sense that two parents and one young kid, or one parent and two kids, could reasonably use, and be allowed to use, a king bed. Texugo (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So let us not beat around the bush and refer to people who are small and very friendly, which is awkward. Why don't we say that a king bed could sleep a kid with two adults or an adult with two kids, which is a piece of actually useful travel advice?

Referring to K7L's comment - the fact is that a king sleeps two comfortably, and a queen sleeps two a little less comfortably. There isn't THAT much of a difference, which is what the article should say. A king was not invented to sleep a "small and friendly person" in between two people. It was invented to sleep two in relative comfort. The queen was invented to sleep two in less comfort. That's about it. That's the thing. This is basically what we should say as a guidance. A queen is OK for two people, a king is obviously better, but there is not THAT much of a difference unless you're petty (as I am and I refuse a queen when I booked a king, but that's petiness and nothing else). PrinceGloria (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

ːPerhaps "A king is almost big enough for three..."? K7L (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not:

• A king bed is designed to provide two people with ample room to sleep. It is larger than a queen bed and big enough to fit two adults, two adults and a small child or an adult with two small children
• A queen bed is designed to sleep two people comfortably or a single person with ample room to sleep, and is markedly smaller than a king bed

PrinceGloria (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

History

User:K7L, I truly believe for our purposes history of particular forms of accommodation is irrelevant. This is a guide for contemporary travellers to get acquainted with different forms of accommodation they can choose while travelling NOW. I would advise to remove any discussions of history and leave it to Wikipedia. BTW, motels still exist, quite prominently across the US, e.g. the Motel 6 chain. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There's really no need to talk about them historically. They might not have gaudy neon signs anymore, but it's not as if they were some rare and dying breed. In addition to Motel 6, many other chains in the US have at least a some properties in the traditional roadside motel style: Best Western, Super 8, La Quinta, Rodeway Inn, Red Carpet Inn, Travelodge, etc. Texugo (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying they don't exist... only that construction of new motels has ground to a halt and many of the motels still operating are now calling themselves "inns", "lodges" or some other designation to dissociate from the connotations of a low-end budget property. K7L (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Chains like Super 8 and Motel 6 are still very widespread and unapologetic with their use of the word, and regardless of the fact that some other chains may be trying to downplay their association with the word, it's still common parlance for such modern inexpensive car-friendly accommodations. I think the current language emphasizes the historical aspect far too much, and even the previous language was a little overboard in that respect. Texugo (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There was a bit of excess detail dumped into Hotels#Motels as part of a proposed attempt to merge Motels in its entirety into this article, half a month ago (see Talk:Motels). The detail should be in the motels article, not here. I've cut this back by a paragraph or so. As for Super 8? They changed their name from "Super 8 Motels" to "Super 8 Worldwide" years ago. Motel 6 still uses the word, but their location here is an economy, limited service hotel at the motorway off-ramp. K7L (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Any detail that belongs, should be here. Any detail that pertains to history, does not belong anywhere in WV. The Motels article is redundant. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

We're arguing about a very small amount of text. I see no harm in a single short paragraph of history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

If we make a concession here, soon we will see suh "small amounts of text" appear all over and make the guides unwieldy and actually useful information hard to find. I am seeing this increasingly in many articles - people dropping some random facts and trivia or reflections how unimportant details have changed or info vaguely even related to the topic at hand. As for the article on Motels - it says the very same as the entire section here, just with more words. This is something we should not encourage either. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This page is not about motels. That's why it's titled Hotels. Dumping the entire motel article here is excessive and would push this article badly off-topic. K7L (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

PrinceGloria, I feel like you are going too far, and that with your logic, we'd get rid of all background as inessential. But it isn't. A big part of the reader's experience here should be to read engaging writing that interests him/her in the subject at hand. Without a bit of history, don't we risk making the article or section on motels dry and boring? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It is about style, not verbosity. This project is about information, not light literature. People come here to get informed, not fill in their free time. There are travel writers with their blogs, guest columns and books. We are here to provide concise, useful and easily usable information. How we do it is about the style we use. Even a website providing dry info on airplane incidents (Aviation Herald) can do it in an amusing way thanks to the good writing style. It is more challenging to write short but interesting and contain oneself from going overboard with verbosity and I am often guilty of actually going overboard with extra words and unnecessary factoids. I WISH other users correct me and improve on my sloppy writing, while I am doing the same whenever I see a way to put things in a better way.

Most important, however, is providing useful info. The article expanded by several users was pretty much filled to the brim with all the info I can think of, there are other articles in dire need of facts, let us not try to improve on something that is already very fine. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Who said we had to be concise? The Buffalo article is a shoo-in for Star once its districts are complete, but it's far, far, far away from "concise".

On the other topic, I agree with Texugo that presenting the motel as an historical oddity rather than a contemporary and active category of hotel is misleading.

-- Powers ^(talk) 01:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel that the short history paragraph presented the motel as a historical oddity? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe these edits inappropriately changed the tense of the verbs to past and represents the motel as something that no longer exists. Powers ^(talk) 17:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hilarious story: don't leave food on the window ledge of your room with open windows

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/14/world/canada/sea-gulls-fairmont-empress-victoria-nick-burchill-pepperoni.html

--ϒpsilon (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

To guide and FTT?

This is a pretty extensive article, covering different types of hotels, rooms and amenities among others. Maybe it's not very far from guide status which means and eligibility for a month on the Main Page as FTT. Is there still something important missing? ϒψιλον (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Quote

I don't really understand what this means:

"Hotel rooms constitute a separate moral universe."

Does that mean that common morality doesn't apply because you can have illicit sex in a hotel room? If so, that's in no way true in much of the world. If not, I really don't know what point is being implied. In either case, I suggest deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove the quote. If somebody reading this has never booked a hotel room, how does this help? Also I don't think that we should quote from living authors without a clear link from the article to the quote, and should also give details of the work quoted from. AlasdairW (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Done --Ypsilon (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the quote is meaningless. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I inserted the quote four years ago, when Wikivoyage had yet to develop a tone. The article has grown past the quote. /Yvwv (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

What defines a hotel?

The definition suggested in the intro does not distinguish hotels from hostels and campings: "....some level of service for guests; at least a lobby desk." Perhaps there should be a "understand" section that explains the difference between hotel and other types of accomodation. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed the "in contrast" clause: also hostels have some level of service for guests, usually at least a lobby desk.

What about linen and housekeeping? Are there hotels where you are supposed to bring own linen and clean the room yourself?

–LPfi (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Last summer I spent 4 nights in a hotel, and there was no housekeeping after I checked in due to Covid precautions. However this was a temporary exception. I have also stayed at hostels where there is no staff onsite, and you check in by putting your money and a details in an envelope and posting it in a box.

In many countries whether a place is a hotel or guesthouse is a naming choice by the management, without there being a any change in facilities. The only difference in hostels is that bedrooms may be shared. AlasdairW (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Controversies & boycotts

Several hotel chains are facing calls for boycotts, some owned by the Sultan of Brunei over harsh laws against homosexuality in that country, Ibis Hotels over mistreatment of mostly black mostly immigrant workers, perhaps more that I do not know of.

Should we mention these? Pashley (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You just did. I think it would be problematic to mention these in articlespace for the same reason we have Be fair#Political disputes. Because, think about it, we could also mention people boycotting Countries X, Y and Z for sincere political or moral reasons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We could mention that some hotels mistreat employees and that some people boycott some chains for these or other reasons, leaving it to the traveller to do the research on what boycotts are going on. This is of course something that concerns much more than hotels, and is discussed (I hope) in Ethical tourism. That article should perhaps be linked from Travel basics. I suppose a discussion is not needed in this article, unless there are specific issues with hotels – and if so, the general problems and the boycotts could also be mentioned. –LPfi (talk) 08:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that we could mention that generally. We could say "for various ethical reasons, including that they mistreat employees". Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)