text:
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 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: 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)
 * 1) A number of traveller-oriented topics are missing or could be expanded in broader detail for the benefit of the travellers:
 * 2) Advice on how to book hotels, how to use travel agents and intermediaries, how one should
 * 3) Other hotel services (porters, ironing/laundries, luggage storage, housekeeping, concierge, TV/payTV, WiFi/Internet, fitness, wellness and spa facilities)
 * 4) Regional differences - there are certain issues with hotels that are specific to a region and should be discussed for the benefit of the travellers
 * 5) Hotels vs other accomodation options - some general advice for travellers to get to know and choose their options better
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) 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.

 * 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 [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Hotels&diff=2597474&oldid=2597241 this] was a constructive revision to my [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Hotels&diff=prev&oldid=2597241 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 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 [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Hotels&type=revision&diff=2780975&oldid=2780514 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)
 * ✅ --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. 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)

title: Talk:Hotels


text:
Talk:Hot springs

long list of hot springs?
Does it really make sense to have this long list of places with hot springs? The topic article is useful, but it seems to me the long list makes the article too bulky. Wouldn't a category hot springs with a link on this page serve this purpose better? I realize this isn't perfect either as the category wouldn't categorize by country, which would be rather annoying as well, I must say. Any thoughts? (WT-en) Charles 20:02, 4 November 2006 (EST)
 * I think there will come a time when it makes sense to split the listings into sub-pages by continent or country or whatever, with pointers and overview material in this article. However, I don't think we're there yet.  There are far larger articles out there than this one.  In my opinion it's useful to have the country information somewhere, as a "Hmmm ... never thought of that..." thought-provoker; this seems like as good a place as any, until the list really does get too unwieldy.  As for the idea of a category, Wikivoyage has generally not used categories as extensively as Wikipedia, etc., although that may be starting to change.  Once WT-wide category use is more accepted, this might be a good solution, but let's let the tide shift first.  (Incidentally, we should do lunch some time, seeing we're both from the same place.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:17, 5 November 2006 (EST)

vfd discussion
This article is presently the subject of a vote-for-deletion discussion. In my opinion the idea of presenting information on hot springs is a valid travel topic and could benefit travelers, but serious work is going to be needed to make the article useful. Please help; lacking some development, it's gonna go away soon. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:26, 6 March 2006 (EST)

 * Hot springs
 * rename or redirect to Hot Springs, Arkansas -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 11:00, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. This seems like a valid Travel topic, which is what it is currently set up as. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:04, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. I agree with Ryan.  It could use some work, though. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:10, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * Excuse me for replying to myself, but it occurs to me that the existence of named places called "Hot Springs" (or some close variant) should cause this page to be renamed, albeit not deleted. There are at least four places in the United States called "Hot Springs" plus who knows how many more in other English-speaking countries.  Maybe rename it "Hot springs (travel topic)" and set up a disambiguation page?  One of those US places is Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, which still goes by its original name of Hot Springs on some maps, and which I plan to start on soon. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:41, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * See Talk:Travel topics for a discussion. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:49, 5 March 2006 (EST)
 * I suspect that one reason why Tom recommended a deletion was that the article as written when he nominated it was, to be blunt, terrible. I have started a rewrite to bring it more into conformity with our standards (not to mention make it more useful) as a travel topic.  Before a yea-or-nay decision is made, I suggest dropping by there and seeing whether the framework could develop into something worth keeping (and of course, helping write it if it is). -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:21, 6 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep. It looks like a valid travel topic. (It was not Tom who recommended deletion. It was some anonymous user who concluded, plausibly, that it might not fit our goals.) Disambiguate in some way to take care of all those places named "Hot Springs" --(WT-en) Ravikiran 09:27, 6 March 2006 (EST)
 * Thanks for clearing Tom's name. :-) I think by now it is clear that there is a consensus for leaving this one, or at most, redirecting/disambiguating it.  I've taken the liberty of removing the VFD header from the article. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:22, 7 March 2006 (EST)

Disambig

 * Why could we not move this back to Thermal Park or move to Hot Spring Thermal Parks, we could then use Hot Springs or Hot springs as a disambig page for the various "Hot Springs" and have a pointer there back to this page.
 * Hot Spring Thermal Parks
 * Hot Springs (Arkansas)
 * Hot Springs (Montana)
 * Hot Springs (North Carolina)
 * Hot Springs (South Dakota)
 * Hot Springs (Virginia)
 * Hot Springs National Park
 * Lava Hot Springs -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 14:44, 8 March 2006 (EST)

 * What about moving this page to Hot Springs (topic)? Hot springs seems a more obvious title for this article than "Thermal park" or "Hot spring thermal parks". -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:07, 8 March 2006 (EST)

 * "Thermal park" would be a mistake, in my opinion, as it would fail to cover a lot of hot-spring territory that's particularly interesting to the Wikivoyageer, because it's not well covered in conventional travel guides: "wild" hot springs that haven't been developed into a "park" and are sometimes really out in the boonies, hence give a sense of local color that no commercial "thermal park" can match. (Note that in my straw-man outline, I call this one out specifically.)  If there is to be a move/rename, Hot springs (topic) looks right. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:53, 8 March 2006 (EST)

 * Hi Bill, are we going to move this to Hot springs (topic)? Do you want me to do it or are you going to do it? Do you prefer this to be the "Most famous" with a Hot Springs (disambiguation)? We just have a lot of Hot springs. :) Thanks! --(WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 08:08, 31 March 2006 (EST)

 * I don't see a consensus for moving it, nor do I see a zillion places named Hot Springs suddenly sprouting pages. Remember, furthermore, that the capitalization quirks of MediaWiki are such that the software draws a distinction between "Hot Springs" (as is usual for place names) and "Hot springs".  What I would therefore suggest, as in your first idea above, is to set up a disambiguation page "Hot Springs" -- capital "S" -- that routes people either here or to the appropriate town/park, and then some language at the top of this article aiming people to that one if they're looking for a town rather than a topic.  Let me take a crack at that. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 08:56, 31 March 2006 (EST)

 * Update: the disambiguation page is set up. Have a look and see if it addresses your concern.  Incidentally, I will be in Hot Springs, SD a bit later in the year and will add content for it, if someone hasn't beaten me to the punch. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:23, 31 March 2006 (EST)

 * That's okay Bill, I was just thinking that a "actual destination" would be better for hot springs in lieu of a topic as this is a travel guide that focuses on destinations, but we will go with this, provided you are comfortable with it. Thanks! -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 12:33, 31 March 2006 (EST)

 * Fine by me; subject closed and matter resolved, as far as I'm concerned. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:17, 31 March 2006 (EST)

Don't expand this section
A few parts of the article If you know the standards and regulations in other countries, please expand this section. I think this stuff should be shunted off into the country article in question instead. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:40, 6 November 2006 (EST)
 * I disagree. On of the primary points of this topic is to provide cross-cutting information on hot springs that allows a concise comparison of the way things are world-wide, so that travelers become aware, as a matter of principle, that things abroad may not be as they are at home.  This is exactly the right place for standards and regulations in view of that.  Furthermore, hot-spring rules and regulations are awfully trivial stuff to put into most destination articles. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:23, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Naturism: Yea or Nay?
The following sentence was added on May 24, 2006: "Local etiquette varies from spring to spring and country to country, but a general rule is that naturists are less tolerant of clothed bathers than the other way around." I have spent a lot of time at a lot of hot springs and I don't think this is an accurate statement. In fact, I think the opposite is true. I have never heard of a naturist demanding that someone take off their clothes, cause a scene about it, or call the police to harass the clothed bathers (indeed, they cannot); on the other hand, clothed bathers can and do call the police in to harass naturists and will cause a stink about someone not wearing clothes. The very terms indicate this, 'clothing optional' vs. 'clothing required'. I'm not sure the statement belongs in the article at all, seeming somewhat subjective, but if it is retained I think it should be changed to reflect the reality that clothed bathers are less tolerant of naturists than the other way around. If clothed bathers were indeed more tolerant of naturists then there would be no such thing as "clothing required" designations. --(WT-en) Drayke 04:19, 15 November 2006 (EST)
 * Please plunge forward and edit the article. There's nothing wrong with being 'subjective' but it's important to be fair. I think that the statement would be more fair to say that it's important to recognize the local etiquette as clothed bathers may be upset be nude bathing or nude bathers upset by clothing (which some think can disturb the natural balance of minerals in the water because of detergents, etc). It really doesn't have to be one or the other, or a matter of intolerance, just local preference. When in Rome... is always good advice! (Or, as I once heard a traveller say "if no one else is jay walking in a miniskirt, don't!"). (WT-en) Maj 21:17, 15 November 2006 (EST)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Hot springs


text:
Talk:Hot Springs (Arkansas)

Hot Springs National Park is literally located in downtown Hot Springs. There is going to be some bleed over in discussion of the city of Hot Springs and Hot Springs National Park.

 * Since that is the case, I don't think it's appropriate to have two separate articles. I would recommend merging Hot Springs National Park into this article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:38, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't have an account or anything - I'm just a Hot Springs resident - so I don't know if my opinion counts but I agree that the 2 articles should be merged.

Oaklawn
Oaklawn Park - not Oakland

Hot Springs (Arkansas)
It is Oaklawn Park (not Oakland)

title: Talk:Hot Springs (Arkansas)


text:
Talk:Hot Springs National Park

I moved Garvin Woodland Gardens to the "Hot Springs" page since it is in the city of Hot Springs.

I'm not sure how to handle this. Hot Springs National Park is a part of the national park system As an urban park, the boundaries between the park and the city of Hot Springs are permeable. If you were walking downtown, you really would be unaware when you entered the reservation and when you left.

Here are some things to consider. With the exception of the camp grounds, all of the hotels are outside the park. Getting in is the same as getting into the city of Hot Springs. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Tristan1961 (talk • contribs)

 * What about the other way around? Maybe Hot Springs the city should be merged here. The Eat/Sleep/Buy sections would be easy. Garvan Woodland Gardens actually does list its address on the website as "Hot Springs National Park". The Park is more than just the bathhouses in the city (although that is certainly the most well-known aspect); it encompasses a large portion of wilderness around the city, with hikes and camping. Do travelers really visit the city for anything besides the National Park? The repeated mentions of the "race track" in the city article is a bit silly to me... it's not even an especially nice or famous one. Besides a few weird chamber of commerce-esque listings on the city page, it would actually be pretty easy to merge it here, imo. (WT-en) Army of me 18:42, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Hot Springs National Park


text:
Talk:Huay Xai

Update February 2008:

1. Slow boat ferry from Huay Xai to LP. It cost 900Baht at 2 stalls near Laos immigration including tuk tuk transfer to ferry pier. It cost 850 Baht at BAP Guest House (also include tuk tuk transfer to pier). It is really packed inside slow boad for the first day ride (depart at 12:30 arrive Pak Beng at 18:30 almost dark). Even more packed the next day (0930 - 1810) because the boat is much smaller.

2. Guest House booking for Pak Beng: Because of the huge number of backpacker doing this trip (more than 100 packpackers for only one slow boat per day, excuding chartered boats down the Mekong, there are Guest House mafia charging 300 baht for a 200 baht room (fan room, toilet inside, no TV, no breakfast)on the boat before your boat depart on the 1st day. It seems many tourist paid for the booking service in order to secure a room for the night.

3. If you have the time, try to sail upstream instead, much less travelers in the same boat and you can really enjoy more.

Cafe Moooo
Will the anonymous person who deleted this please explain why?(WT-en) Shep 04:44, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Huay Xai


text:
Talk:Houghton Lake

Picture
i have this really awesome pic of the sunset off long point, but i have no idea whatsoever how to get it on the page. please help. thx. -luvKitty

 * Two steps: go to Special:Upload and upload it to the wiki. Then, go to Houghton Lake and add [[Image: name of file]], where name of file is the name of the file (like "houghton_lake_at_sunset.jpg" or something). More info at Project:How to add an image. --(WT-en) Evan 21:38, 9 December 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Houghton Lake


text:
Talk:Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux

VFD Discussion
A seemingly unnecessary region article. We already have articles on two of the towns (Houma and Thibodaux), the Acadiana region, and even some of the parishes within it. I would delete this, or at most, redirect it to Acadiana. (WT-en) Eco84 09:13, 12 December 2011 (EST)

 * I would recommend redirecting both this article and Thibodaux to Houma. It's more useful for travelers to just subsume the surrounding areas under Houma (most people refer to the whole area as Houma, anyway--if I'm not mistaken). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:37, 19 December 2011 (EST)

 * Merge to Houma per Peter. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:19, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Result: Merge tag added. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:32, 5 February 2012 (EST)

title: Talk:Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux


text:
Talk:Housestead

vfd discussion
Housesteads is a Roman fort and associated settlement a few kilometres out of Hexham. I believe it is adequately mentioned on the Hexham page, and as an attraction, I feel it is not deserving of an article of its own. (WT-en) Water 14:20, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
 * It's not whether it "deserves" an article, it's whether it meets the criteria for one. Can you sleep there?  If so, it's separate enough to have its own article.  If not, treating it as a section of Hexham seems right, but would probably best be accomplished via a redirect rather than a deletion, since Housesteads is a place name that crops up in various places. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:37, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
 * No; you can't sleep there: it consists of a museum, a shop, a café, some ruins and that's about it. When I said 'deserves', I had in fact read the criteria and concluded that it did not fulfil them: I probably should have made my meaning clearer. I shall create a redirect from both the s-less and correct versions of the name to Hexham, then. 62.252.224.13 15:50, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
 * The above comment was me: the software logged me out for some reason. (WT-en) Water 15:52, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Hexham. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:33, 2 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Redirect. --(WT-en) Evan 15:09, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Looks like there's a consensus on this one. Any reason not to go ahead and pronounce it redirected and resolved? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:11, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Housestead


text:
Talk:Houston

Article name
Shouldn't the article name be Houston? Even if there are more than one Houston, I'd think Houston, Texas would fall into the same category of Paris as the "most well-known". Unless anyone disagrees I'd like to move the article back. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 23:40, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)

That is a great idea. Houston is massive and the other "Houstons" are quite small in comparison.

Links removed from main page.
''The following links were removed from the main page because they do not follow the external link guidelines. However they may be useful reading when adding to the article itself. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 20:10, 13 Nov 2005 (EST)''

 * Houston Travel Guide - http://www.houstontravelguide.com
 * Downtown Houston Guide - http://www.downtownhouston.com

More links added and removed from the main page listed below.... -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 12:35, 12 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Houston Chronicle - Houston's major daily newspaper.
 * Houston Press - Houston's weekly free alternative newspaper, with info about local events in the arts and other happenings.
 * Hater Magazine - Bush Hates Black People, info about Houtson Urban music and culture
 * Downtown Houston
 * off the kuff
 * Lopez@Large

Nit Picking
NoDo? Does anybody actually call it that? That's the warehouse district, right? I don't frequent that area too much, but I have never heard that term used by anybody. And I don't think that anybody actually calls the (Asian) Bellaire "New Chinatown." I think Two Rows deserves a mention in the local beers section. How about Shiner, though ? Is that close enough?

 * go for it!. (WT-en) Majnoona 14:37, 24 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Oh the warehouse district. I've lived in Houston all my live and never heard "nodo" outside of WT.  And shiner is a texas institution. (WT-en) Jordanmills 15:26, 24 April 2006 (EDT)

 * yeah I've never heard the term "NoHo" either, just "warehouse district." Also, the term "Bellaire Chinatown" seems to be much more common than "New Chinatown."

 * Never heard NoHo or NoDo, lived in Houston all my life. Also, I thought Two Rows was in Dallas.  I do know for a fact Shiner is its own town in Texas - if I'm not mistaken it's closer to San Antonio.  And three "downtowns?"  You'll never anyone refer to these areas as anything but Downtown, Uptown (a.k.a. Galleria), and "The Medical Center."

 * I renamed it. I've never heard of "nodo", saw little contrary input.  Also rewriting the "three downtowns" stuff. (WT-en) Jordanmills 00:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Never heard of "NoHo" or "NoDo" either. Unless it's colloquially known locally and by everyone who know the Houston area like the back of the hand better to leave that term out otherwise it's going to be confusing to read. (WT-en) Anyone150 21:11, 30 June 2019 (PDT)

Bus charter
I removed the link for the bus charter service; I think that's outside the range of information for the typical travel guide. --(WT-en) Evan 17:32, 4 December 2006 (EST)

 * It looks like spam spewed all over a bunch of pages. (WT-en) Jordanmills 14:58, 5 December 2006 (EST)

 * That was also spewed in the "Bus Travel in the United States" article too. Don't know to delete from over there or leave it. Anyone150 21:05, 30 June 2019 (EST)

Drink section
So I added a couple more bars. We're getting a good long list here, maybe more than should be in a section. But they all seem to lend their own personality to the city, and I can't think of any that should be cut. Should any, and if so, which? (WT-en) Jordanmills 22:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

 * We tend to like the number 9 around here, so that's about the # of listings we aim for in each section... looks like this one's still fine :)  – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 02:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

 * I thought we went for 7 +/- 2? I guess I have seven there now, leaving room for more.  (WT-en) Jordanmills 11:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Why does this city still not have the huge city template? It already has the districts listed there. I think a city this big deserves way more than 9 places in its Drink section. (WT-en) Texugo 04:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

 * 'Cause I only have so much time, and it would take some thought to break it apart. At any rate, Houston doesn't translate as well to districts as most other cities.  There's very little "community feel" to anything smaller than the city as a whole.  For example, ALL the museums are in the museum district, while there is very little shopping there.  I'm not sure how well it would translate. (WT-en) Jordanmills 11:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Obviously nothing is set in stone... what I meant was that we would wait for the 7 + 2 before actually needing to delete anything... and even then I think it's open to discussion, since a place like Houston that maybe doesn't need to be split into districts will still be big enough to possibly warrant more than 9 drink or eat listings... the idea with Huge Cities is that when broken into disticts you've got 9 for each section in each district... and even 9 for each subcategory (budget, mid-range, splurge)... basically though, I think if something is good and the traveler should know about it, then we should put it there regardless of a pesky # rule :)  – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 13:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Districtification
I'm going ahead and giving a shot at districtifying the city. As (WT-en) Jordanmills pointed out last year, not every district may have a full load of stuff for every section, but the hotel listings and the see and do sections are already getting too much for a single page, and there are certainly a whole lot more restaurants that could be recommended if we break it up. For now, I went ahead with the districts more or less as they were laid out in the District section before, but I want to suggest that Katy and The Woodlands get their own separate articles, and that we combine Clear Lake with Friendswood to make a single article. Also I have flipflopped a lot on what to call the Med Center/Rice/Museum District article and would appreciate some input from locals. The Houston Chronicle seems to vaguely refer to it as "Inside the Loop" but I don't know exactly what areas that includes or if it is actually common parlance there. Please comment on my work so far. (WT-en) Texugo 02:09, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * I'm starting to think that this was a bad idea. I   mean look, it's empty (districts)and there is like NO pictures!!!!  No one really seeems to be doing anything with it anywasy, its' like an abandoned project!  this is sad!  if your going to do this, at least know that you need to FUFILL it !!!!  Keeep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:11, 3 November 2008 (EST).
 * I do not really like your patronizing attitude. My contributions were obviously in good faith, arising out of a real need-- Yes some of the districts have little to no information, but several of them have quite a bit (e.g. Downtown, Med Center, Uptown, Montrose, River Oaks), and the main article still contains a lot of listings that will go toward filling up the rather empty ones. The article as it stood before was extremely long beyond the point of needing districtification. I stopped work on it because I wanted comments and possibly help from someone who lives there. I don't live there, which means I don't have any pictures (which is not top-priority anyway), and locating which district a listing goes in is time-consuming google-maps work. You are welcome to contribute to that work, and I could accept even a little nudge to see if I have time for it, but you shouldn't criticize me for not having done it all myself. Wiki works by contributing what you can when you can, not by staking out a claim and assuming responsibility for finishing an article. And I find outright laughable any suggestion that a city of this size doesn't need districtification. (WT-en) Texugo 00:31, 4 November 2008 (EST)
 * Hey, 'Tex, I'm sorry if I made you feel bad. I know it's a lot of work and you don't even liivve there!  I could try a little bit...with helping move stuff, etc.  Anyways, don't expect much because I am mostly doin' western Canadian cities, as well I will soon be starting up Austin...I mean that one's in bad shape too, no offense, but there is like no info in the districts.  My point is just that if you aren't or you know no one else will complete/work on it lots, to me, there is little-to-no point in districting it.  You need people to work on it.  To me, if you are the one districting it, unless you specifically know someone else will, you should be responsible for putting in the work.  I am sorry if that does make you feel bad.  I will try to help some.  I see you do try, and it's hard when you live in Japan, ;).  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 12:23, 4 November 2008 (EST).
 * (WT-en) ee, it doesn't make me feel bad at all, because your attitude is completely and utterly wrong. It does piss me off a little though. Taking an article a few steps towards being a star does not in any way oblige the contributor to go all the way-- the only responsibility that comes along with making a contribution is of ensuring that the addition is accurate and legal. Neither is it necessary to assemble a team of contributors for work on a destination before contributing-- that is the spirit of Plunge forward. For you to go around telling long-time heavy contributors that they are leaving jobs unfinished, that they haven't contributed enough, well, that is just plain offensive. So contribute here, or don't. But please try to be a little more sensitive and appreciate the work that has been done, rather than chastise people for not doing enough. (WT-en) Texugo 23:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)
 * ok you know uhm im sorry. yur pounts are verrrry valid.  keepsmiling,(WT-en) ee talk 00:33, 5 November 2008 (EST)
 * Apology accepted. (WT-en) Texugo 00:37, 5 November 2008 (EST)
 * Oy, I really feel bad. I am sorry!  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 10:22, 5 November 2008 (EST).

I say jolly good job on districtifying. I'm a local and I'd like to offer my help on this article if I can (as soon as I'm done with Big Bend National Park and perhaps a few other small ones). First, there's a few things I'd like to throw out there: Hopefully more Houstonites will show up to help out. :) (WT-en) Army of me 18:32, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
 * As for the Med Center/Rice/Museum District conundrum, I've mostly heard Museum District but I think the others apply probably just as equally (I've also seen it called "South Main" in some travel books but I don't recall I've heard anyone local using that term), so that's a really tough call... Ideally more input from other locals is called for but IMHO it's fine as-is for now.
 * I agree Katy and the Woodlands probably need their own articles; as I'm sure they'll just keep continuing to grow and they do seem distinct (and distant) from Houston. I also wonder if some of the growing, southern regions (Pearland/Sugarland/etc) might eventually need an article, although I don't think there is anything currently there for travelers except perhaps a few well regarded restaurants (and I seem to recall there is an observatory somewhere down there although I could be wrong).
 * Then there's the north... Aside from the Woodlands, we may want to consider the northern area encompassing Humble, Kingwood, Spring, Tomball, etc. I know in many ways it's off the beaten track, but there's a few reasons for it's own section, one of which being it would be a convenient place to stick hotel options near the airport. Also, it's home to the Houston Arboretum & Nature Center and Jesse Jones Park, two great places for anyone who enjoys hiking, nature, and all that jazz. I'm sure there's more there I'm overlooking as well.
 * Then there's east Houston. In my opinion, this would be a great catch-all for destinations that are scattered around a bit like Space Center Houston, the San Jacinto Monument, the Orange Show, the Port of Houston boat tour, and the Armand Bayou Nature Center (which is not currently listed). There's also restaurants like the original Ninfa's on Navigation and we could maybe mention facts like Pasadena/Gilley's was the setting for Urban Cowboy (maybe? I'm not sure if people care or not). Kemah could also be included but I noticed it already has its own article which is pretty filled so I guess that's okay.
 * Hey, sounds like you have some good ideas. Feel free to plunge forward and implement them. I'll try to keep an eye on this and give you feedback. (WT-en) Texugo 01:00, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Districtification (v2)
I may start on this soon. Possibly Midtown, too, unless we can actually find things to add to it. In fact, here's what I'm thinking:

 * Downtown - Keep (of course)
 * Med Center and Rice - Important of course, but as mentioned before, I think everyone agrees that a better name can be had (not that I have a better one at the moment). Also, let's be sure to mention this is where the Museum District is.
 * Uptown or The Galleria Area - keep (of course)

 * Warehouse District - I think this should just be integrated into Downtown since it's basically just a tiny subset and there's not a huge amount of things to put in the article (if much at all).
 * Montrose - A very important section, but would anyone be opposed to me renaming Montrose to the more inclusive "Neartown"? Of course, Montrose would still redirect to there and probably be mentioned in the article.
 * River Oaks - I'm pondering also if there is enough here for it ever to ever really justify a separate article. It's a famous residential area among Houstonians, but not exactly a tourist area. I'm not sure where to integrate though (if that were to occur)...
 * Midtown - I'm also pondering the same thing here. Is there enough for a separate article? Maybe it could just also be integrated into Downtown for now.
 * The Heights - Another famous residential area for Houstonians, but not sure if there's anything to see or do here...
 * Southwest Houston - Definitely does not need it's own article yet IMHO; these are just residential neighborhoods...
 * New Chinatown - Again, chock full of shopping and restaurants, but I don't know if there's anything to see/do or anywhere to sleep.

And as I proposed earlier, I'd like to add some catch-all categories for the rest of Houston (divided into thirds):

 * North Houston - the weird V-shape formed by everything roughly above 290 to the West, down to everything above the north loop of 610, and back up to 59 N in the East (and then following the contour of Beltway 8, so as to include Humble, Kingwood, etc.) - not including the Woodlands
 * West Houston - everything below 290 and sweeping counter-clockwise to 288 (of course, unless the area is already included in one of the articles above), but outside of 610 - not including Katy nor possibly Sugarland/Missouri City
 * East Houston - everything from 59-N sweeping down to 288 - not including Kemah nor possibly Baytown (is there much to do here?) or Clearlake (even though this would put the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center outside of Houston, and there is possibly not much else to do here?)

(Yep, there's no South Houston because Houston is bottom-heavy as far as attractions go and so is captured in West/East Houston). These areas are huge, I realize, but they only have a few attractions for travelers so I think it's justified and better than not mentioning them at all. Any opinions would be helpful. (WT-en) Army of me 23:35, 8 November 2009 (EST)
 * I also forgot to mention we should include the new (and excellent) clubs and restaurants of Washington Avenue, but I'm not sure where it would fit in. It's too small to be it's own article, but could maybe be included either in the Heights or Neartown/Montrose (even though it's technically neither; it's too new).

There IS in fact an offical South Houston and an official East Houston. Perhaps you should call the articles EASTERN HOUSTON and SOUTHERN HOUSTON instead. It gets ridiculous because there are things on the "East Houston" page that are clearly in Southeast Houston. Hobby Airport is a great example. There's no SOUTHEAST HOUSTON page, and it's a huge area. There are boundaries for it on Google Maps. Google maps is your friend. USE IT. There are plenty of labels and boundary markers on Google Maps nowadays. Whats so bad about overlap?! Florida is both in the Southern United States and the Eastern United States. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an issue, so why do you? --TakeTheTicket (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_United_States

The idea of combining Clear Lake and Friendswood into one page shows how unfamiliar you are with those areas. It is a STUPID idea for more than a few reasons. Friendswood is an official city with it's own schools and Police force, it shouldn't be combined with other places anymore than Houston should be. SECOND REASON: Clear Lake CITY is the second largest master planned community behind Kingwood and definitely deserves its own recognition. The Clear Lake AREA includes the communities of Clear Lake City, Clear Lake Shores, El Lago, Kemah, League City, Nassau Bay, Seabrook, Taylor Lake Village, and Webster. --TakeTheTicket (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This pattern of ignorance is getting dysfunctional. I'm sorry if certain parts of Houston are BORING TO YOU or lack attractions, but that doesn't mean that we ignore them or combine them with more exciting areas. Each section of Houston deserves it's own recognition for a variety of reasons. Refer to Google Maps or official city websites for boundary information. If a part of Houston has NEARBY attractions or restaurants, then why don't we label them as such? Why can't the page for Friendswood say that there are things to do NEARBY in Clear Lake and then only list restaurants/attractions that are near the Clear Lake/Friendswood border? --TakeTheTicket (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Whew, relax there, friend. If your worry is that the names are confusing—that the chosen district names for large areas of the city conflict with the names of specific neighborhoods, then we can just rename the articles. We shouldn't have an article for every neighborhood, though, because we want each individual page to be writable as a complete travel guide. That is, there should be meaningful content for each of the standard sections. Breaking the city into tons of neighborhood articles would make the guide harder to use for travelers. Take a look at Chicago, or Washington, D.C., for example. There are tons of neighborhoods, but they have been amalgamated into understandable chunks that make for good travel articles. --Peter Talk 01:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Er, yes, exactly what Peter said. The whole reason I shared my ideas in the first place is because 1) this seemed like an article that needed some help and where not a lot of work was being done, and 2) I don't know everything (obviously... and neither does anyone else) and was hoping to get input and help from others, people who know the areas further out. That's the reason some of my comments have question marks.

 * In this community (like with Wikipedia), you should assume our actions here are made in good faith - we're just trying to create the best travel guide we can. If you feel like something written here is an attack or insult on some place, please don't assume it's intentional. There's room for healthy debate, of course, but no need for name calling. And unlike Wikipedia, this place is not meant to be an exhaustive list of places and facts, and we don't necessarily write from a neutral point of view. Like Peter mentions (much more succinctly than me), this is a travel guide and every article needs to be geared towards helping travelers, nothing else. So we actually DO need to keep in mind which attractions and destinations are of interest to tourists. Take my hometown, for instance - Humble (Atascocita, to be exact). It's a pleasant place, with some decent places to eat and drink, and it is in fact a separate town from Houston... but there's just not enough there for travelers to justify Humble having it's own page - it's rightly integrated into the larger "North Houston" article.

 * Addressing some of your specific points -
 * I think you may have misread, I didn't suggest a "South Houston" page at all, just "East Houston". If no one objects to my idea (nothing is set in stone, of course), there would only be "North", "West", and "East" Houston, each covering roughly 1/3 of the city (see my original comments for specifics). As you know, Houston development has overwhelmingly been on a southwest-to-northwest axis (with some bleeding out to the west and north the last several decades), which is why I did it that way.
 * I think your idea of renaming the article "Eastern Houston" might be a good one. I was actually aware there are small, specific neighborhoods historically called "East" and "South" Houston (there's even a separate "North" Houston), but from my experience the vast majority of Houstonians - even news outlets - often use those terms to refer to larger, generic areas of the city, without any confusion. Also, we'd have to consider renaming the other sections to "Western Houston" and "Northern Houston". We could do it, they just seem a bit awkward imho. I am fully aware of Google Maps; it is very helpful but certainly not the be-all, end-all when it comes to this site.
 * Not sure what you are suggesting with your "overlap" comments. In general, we don't list duplicate attractions in two different districts within the same city (if that's what you mean). This is a wiki, but our guidelines are different from Wikipedia's.
 * I didn't mention Friendswood anywhere in my comments. For the record, I also didn't write any of the existing articles for Friendswood or other cities in that area, nor have I had a chance to look at them yet. They are probably due for an overhaul.
 * I think you may have misread, my comment was suggesting to not include Kemah, Baytown, or Clear Lake in any other articles (my comment was worded pretty awkwardly, so I'll take the blame there). Whether there is enough meaningful content in each of them to merit a separate article - I don't know, which is why I was asking. If not, they can be integrated into a larger district article (with an appropriate title); there's nothing wrong with that either.
 * Regarding your "NEARBY" suggestions - as Peter mentioned, it's not helpful to travelers to have a needlessly large amount of district articles. I'm not making a comment on Friendswood or Clear Lake per se; I haven't done enough research yet. My limited understanding of Friendswood is that it's mostly a residential area, but I could be entirely wrong. Usually "nearby" attractions are only mentioned in articles when those attractions don't fit in any other page (which doesn't sound like the case here).
 * Feel free to make changes in good faith if it'll make for a better travel article. There's always work still to be done...76.89.142.124 08:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC) (Army of me)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, the current banner is flat out better in almost every respect (including better composition and clearer image), so I'd vote to keep it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't be so strong in my opinion, but in general I see nothing better in the proposed banner. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Proposed Syced (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Map
Can we have a map that shows districts and borders of the city and also the light rail lines? Preferably dynamic? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

EaDo?
Do y'all think it might be time for EaDo to be added as a "district"? Lots going on there these days... Mrkstvns (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I lack the requisite knowledge to have an opinion about this, but you can help by stating where the boundaries would be and about how many overall listings (see, do buy, eat, drink, sleep) you'd expect there to be in the new article and articles for any districts that would be reduced in size when this one gets its own article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I propose that the area defined as EaDo for Wikivoyage be larger than what most locals call "EaDo". I think it makes sense for us to consider it as extending all the way eastward to the Loop, and then everything outside the Loop to be considered "East Houston" (as previously suggested by others).
 * The boundaries I propose for EaDo are:
 * East of I-69/US-59
 * South of I-10
 * North of I-45
 * West of I-610
 * The area includes BBVA Stadium (now Shell Stadium), the Ship Channel, the traditional Tex-Mex restaurants along Navigation (original Ninfas, el Tiempo Cantina, etc.), a number of craft breweries (8th Wonder, Equal Parts, True Anomaly), and a ton of new bars within a mile of the 69/59 overpass. I don't think there are any hotels in EaDo, but I'm sure they'll eventually come.
 * Thoughts? Mrkstvns (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Houston


text:
Talk:Houston/Clear Lake

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Comments
Clear Lake isn't a really a district of Houston. It's a lake near Houston, but not at all within the city limits. I think this should be a separate article. (WT-en) Jordanmills 20:06, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Some areas of Clear Lake include parts of the City of Houston and Pasadena. However, Friendswood and Pearland are NOT parts of Clear Lake. I have amended the article to reflect this information based on Clear Lake's Website: http://www.clearlakearea.com/communities.asp --TakeTheTicket (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Houston/Clear Lake


text:
Talk:Houston/Uptown

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Katy
I cut the listing for Katy Mills because it's FAR outside the scope of what anyone would consider the Galleria area to encompass. When an appropriate Katy page is added, here is the content that could be placed in its "Buy" area...
 * In the nearby city of Katy, about 25 miles west of downtown Houston.

Name?
So should we move this to Houston/Galleria then? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:20, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

 * If the text is accurate, the move seems obvious. (WT-en) Pashley 08:06, 14 December 2009 (EST)

 * The text is not accurate. It's true most people call it the "Galleria area" or "Houston Galleria" due to the Galleria mall, being the focal point; however the the name "Uptown" was intended as a neutral replacement (sort of a PR move) since the name "Galleria" is actually owned by the mall people (or so I've heard). A simple web search will reveal both names are used regularly. Most tourist literature will actually refer to this area as "Uptown" (but also usually mention the informal "Galleria" name); you'll also notice the official neighborhood web page refers to it as "Uptown". (Hope that's enough) (WT-en) Army of me 19:06, 16 December 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Houston/Uptown


text:
Talk:Hovd

Phone numbers
The format of the phone numbers needs to be standardized. As I understand it, the country code is 976, the city code is 43, and the local number should be six digits? If so, all numbers should look like this: +976 43 345678. I presume that some numbers might use an alternative "city" code like 99. But some of the numbers in the article don't conform to this pattern at all, which makes them hard to decipher—I'm really not sure how I would fax to the number "(fax: 01 43 222260)," for example. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:25, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

updated phone, lodging
believe phone numbers are standardized now, and lodging section has been cleaned up. Not really possible to put in budget vs splurge, etc. listings for lodging as each place pretty much has each level of spending in its accommodations options...

title: Talk:Hovd


text:
Talk:Howland Island

Just saw the movie "Amelia", didn't realize it was the Coast Guard's fault that she couldn't find the island. ( The battery went dead in their radio direction finder, so they could not give her a compass bearing to fly in on) Her navigator, Noonan, couldn't get a celestial position due to poor visability...69.229.126.100 20:37, 24 October 2009 (EDT)S.W. Beam, USN (ret)

title: Talk:Howland Island


text:
Talk:Diamond rings in Antwerp

The rationale for this article
There are many places where one could buy a diamond ring, so I question this as a travel topic. Assuming that this article shouldn't simply be deleted, with a brief summary of key points put in the Antwerp guide, it will have to be edited to remove first person language. An alternative to merging and deleting this article is to turn it into a more general travel topic article on buying jewelry throughout the world. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 12:46, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Well first of all, Antwerp is THE diamond capital of the World and many people go there for the sole intention of buying a diamond ring. Second, I do not think one would even consider haggling in most jewellery shops in the Western World. One could eventually think of making a broader article on buying jewelleries in Jewish districts but I suppose that would be considered racist by some. (WT-en) Lemmiwinks 14:11, 22 December 2011 (EST)

 * First, the West doesn't encompass the whole world. Secondly, there are diamonds for sale in many other places, including New York, Amsterdam, and Tel Aviv. New York, which I'm most familiar with, has a famous Diamond District. Thirdly, I'm trying to think of another travel topic article that encompasses only one city; can anyone think of any? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)

 * Yep - the travel topic is How to buy a diamond ring. Any Antwerp specific stuff can be in the Buy section of that article  --(WT-en) Inas 14:30, 22 December 2011 (EST)--(WT-en) Inas 14:30, 22 December 2011 (EST)

 * For a long time there was an Electronics and entertainment shopping in Thailand article, which was later redirected to Thailand per the discussion at Talk:Electronics and entertainment shopping in Thailand, and I think that situation is analagous. In that case the concern was that the very specific subject matter didn't really match the type of articles present on Wikivoyage.  That seems to be a valid concern with this article as well, and the subject matter might be better handled via a more general "Jewelry shopping" article or as a few paragraphs in the buy section of the Antwerp article.

 * I appreciate the work that (WT-en) Lemmiwinks put into the article, but there is definitely a concern about this type of article setting a precedent that diverts from the standard Wikivoyage practice of starting with a broad subject and only becoming more specific as the broad article becomes too detailed - see Scuba diving for one example of how a broad topic was broken down over time to cover more specific sub-topics. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:04, 22 December 2011 (EST)

VFD Discussion
Page has vfd template, but I see no listing here. Article strikes me as borderline. Is it a legit travel topic or too far down a slippery slope? (WT-en) Pashley 19:27, 22 December 2011 (EST)

 * Merge to Antwerp. This seems like a questionable topic for a travel article and is one that will likely invite spam from jewelry shops. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:21, 24 January 2012 (EST)
 * Keep. I can see why you would question it, but since the diamond industry is so huge in Antwerp and buying them is such a primary tourist activity, I can't come up with a good reason why it can't be a travel topic. On the other hand, for those who are interested, it seems a good piece of advise. It sure needs some guarding to prevent spam, but that's true for many articles and shouldn't be a reason for deletion. We could just agree on the talk page that the article should contain no listings, or something. As an aside, I really think we should not welcome new contributors who are making good edits with a vfd. If such a nomination is needed, they should at least get a welcome and an explanation first. It seems that we just scared this one away :-( (WT-en) Justme 06:54, 25 January 2012 (EST)
 * Would anyone mind if this discussion is moved to Talk:How to buy a diamond ring in Antwerp? Based on existing discussion it sounds like at worst this would become a merge and is no longer a deletion candidate. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:19, 12 February 2012 (EST)
 * No objection here. (WT-en) Pashley 20:11, 12 February 2012 (EST)

Result: Kept (for now). -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:21, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

Naming
I find this so-called 'travel topic' highly questionable. But that aside, the naming is quite bad as well. I suggest it is moved to "Diamond rings in Antwerp" or possibly "Buying diamond rings in Antwerp". We are not a how-to guide, and titles like "How to ____" are not appropriate. If no one opposes, I will move to the former in a few days. JamesA  >talk 08:20, 27 September 2012 (CEST)

First person
you'll be glad to know that the first-person issue has been resolved, comfortably within the seven-year limit for dealing with such issues. ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thank you. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Diamond rings in Antwerp