Talk:Motel

message: Curiously, in Brazil, Motel has another conotation. The term is used for Hotels that host suite rooms for couples. I heard some people reffering to these kinds of hotels (or Motels) as Hotels-by-the-hour or 1-hour hotel. The nicest Motels in Brazil have huge suites (some of them can have 400 or 600 square metters) with Jacuzi, dance floor, sauna, steam rooms and even retractable ceeling.
--Pinnecco 18:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same here in Taiwan, for many of the motels (especially high-end designer motels) are commonly used as hourly hotels. They have very huge room, some of them even have 2-story room with a mini waterfall or small swimming pool inside. Although they do offer a 12-hour long stay to motorists, most of the customers who go to this kind of motels see them as love-hotels which are very popular in Japan.--SElefant 16:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motel (Brazil) 

message: This article has started to acquire links to various motel chains.  If all chains in all nations are linked here this article will become mainly a linkfarm (and there would be no principled basis for limiting such links to the US and Canada).  To avoid that it would be best to eliminate links to specific chains or brands, and allow links only to sites or pages which deal with the general subject.  Kablammo 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brands and spam 

message: what is the difference between a motel, a hotel and a resort?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.150.36 (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Motels are a kind of hotel which is inexpensive, basic amenities, placed on long roads between cities, and usually has a certain floor plan (as described in the article). A resort is on the other end of the scale: large, with many amenities, usually located in big tourist spots. (This is from a USA point of view; apparently the distinction is different in other countries.) 64.81.245.109 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between a motel, a hotel and a resort 

message: can we say motel to Dabhas (indian style food place)...jitendra bhatt, india, delhi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.59.66 (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something about food in India 

message: I saw nothing about the entire world, just the united states.  I came here to learn about motels across the world, and what cultures they have.  I already know what american hotels are like, seeing as I've been in several.Wikimann1234 (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that with the comments about that this article is very US-skewed. Of course, what complicates the situation is that, as I understand it, the motel is very much an institution which has arisen in the USA. What I am thinking of doing is to take the specifically US-oriented material within the article, and collecting this in a sub-section dealing with Motels in the USA. I'd appreciate feedback, pro or con, on this. 124.185.78.196 (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, i disagree with that. Motel is, de facto, american creation. I would fix (or remove) section "Timeline of motels in the United States", expaned History with more data, and Architecture with more international motel styles, and that would be it, i think. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: International motels is what I was looking for. Main type of accomodation in a lot of places, though sometimes they share the trade with backpackers. Having a room with a kitchen instead of just a bed means you can save money\ensure you can get the food you like.  118.208.74.99 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy expansion 

message: K7L just moved the article from  to . I strongly object to that, and I have submitted a request to revert the move. If K7L wants to create a separate article about  and thinks it could be adequately distinct from the  article, I don't necessarily object to that. But it should not be done by destroying the edit history of the  article. I also suspect that the content of an article about  might contain a lot of unnecessary duplication, but I'm willing to see what might be proposed. One would think that after the recent fuss and page protection, it would be obvious that an article move would be controversial and should have been formally proposed and discussed prior to being performed. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The  of the article to Motel and motels in the United States was proposed as far back as November 4, 2013 and received no response and no objections. Most of what's here was dumped here by an IP back in 2012 and sourced to one book, "The Motel in America (The Road and American Culture)" [Professor John A. Jakle, Professor Keith A. Sculle, Professor Jefferson S. Rogers]  and is WP:UNDUE country-specific information which, if we need it at all, needs to be split out because of its size (53 kilobytes of a total 71 kilobyte page pre-split, much of it info about individual US chains - many defunct - segregation in the Confederate south, the Route 66 Corridor Preservation program and other topics irrelevant to motels in general outside one region of one country). This should not have been submitted as a "non-controversial request" if it reverts something which was already opened for comment and only received silence. K7L (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the request to revert the undiscussed move was not submitted as a "non-controversial request". It was submitted under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves", as you can see here. In regard to the other remarks, I refer back to what I said before. I did not actually oppose the creation of an article about . (Although I suspect that it might result in a lot of unnecessary duplication, I'm willing to see what article content is proposed for that; hopefully it would not just be a redundant copy of the existing  article.) What I objected to was the action of moving the  article to that name. Moving the current article to that name is obviously controversial and should not have been done (without being discussed first). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the split 100 percent, but Canada should have been included with the US.  Canadian and American motels are identical, and both are an ocean apart from European motels.  But this would have meant that the new article could have used either British or American English, which would have meant that the ridiculous language feud would have also followed to the new article.  I'm all for improving the project, but obvious improvements which are intentionally avoided lead me to direct the article's creator to... Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.  Canada must go into the US motel article.  If not, why not?  Be honest now.  Magnolia677 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed my mind.  Splitting the article is a bad idea.  The new article should be deleted and whatever was added to it merged back into the motel article.  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

text: As a clear WP:POVFORK, that's the only result that is acceptable. oknazevad (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Oppose. There is a huge amount of excess, country-specific information which does not belong in the main article such as a lengthy description of the history of discrimination and Jim Crow segregation as it affected the traveller in the southern US (and just the southern US, pre Civil Rights movement). That content isn't motel-specific (the same complaints could be made about hotels, restaurants or just about any service essential to motorists in interstate commerce) but is US-specific. There's also a huge amount of excess detail about individual chains and organisations, some defunct, which only operated in the US. United Motor Courts? The American Hotel and Motel Association? Alamo Plaza Hotel Courts? The United States Numbered Highway system and the Asian American Hotel Owners Association? All interesting trivia about the history of lodging in one specific country, but meaningless to providing an understanding of motels in general. The "tourist guest home" is a B&B-style operation, so is veering off-topic for any motel article. The American Magazine "camps of crime" diatribe, which they attribute to J. Edgar Hoover? That's specific to one country's government... if Hoover even wrote it (and all indications are Courtney Riley Cooper ghost-wrote this, with Hoover playing along during the initial backlash and backing off only after "cabin court" operators started complaining to their congresscritters). The Negro Motorist Green Book tells us more about the Jim Crow south than about motels per se. The long list of every film, video or theatrical production which ever mentioned a motel is plain WP:TRIVIA. All of this tells us little about motels in general. Much of it is the product of over-reliance on one WP:RS, a printed book entitled "Motel in America". Take a look at the main articles for hotel or inn, they're a very general overview, they touch on the main points without going into excessive detail about one narrow subtopic or one country, then leave the details to sub-articles. If the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program has subsidised nostalgic restoration of a few neon motels on one road in one country, great, note it in the article for that country - not in the main article on motel as it's not happening internationally and including it in the discussion of motels globally is actually misleading the reader. The fate of Amboy, California has more to do with Interstate 40 in California bypassing U.S. Route 66 than about motels specifically. Heck, why not create a proper Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program article instead of using motel as a WP:HATRACK; there's more to that programme than fixing up old motel signage? Dumping all of this into the main article yields a page where 5/7 of the text (about 53Kb of a 71Kb page) is country-specific history and trivia which does nothing to enhance our understanding of motels globally, and constitutes hugely WP:UNDUE weight to describing the fate of individual US motels ("40 Winks" in Ohio is a dump, "Alamo Plaza" in Baton Rouge is a dump, all of Aurora Avenue is a dump... this is getting really repetitive - but I'm sure that the reader will be greatly relieved that the Maples Motel family-owned in some obscure corner of Ohio is still business as usual). There's also way too much about some individual US chains which left the motel business to build hotels decades ago and never looked back. This has nothing to do with POV, it's just excessive detail which should never have been dumped back into the main article as the upper-level page (below hotel as the top-level) should be a concise, informative global overview and not somewhere to dump fifty kilobytes of country-specific detail about any one country. Keep the main article as an overview, keep the WP:SPLITOUT country-level page for the lengthy country-specific detail. K7L (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is some unnecessary detail here, hypothetically, we can just delete it (and it will remain safely accessible in the history if it's desirable to use for some purpose later). We don't need to couple together the idea of removing things from this article with the idea of creating the other one. We don't necessarily need an article about Minor details about motels in the United States, and we also don't need an article about Motels in the United States if it will just duplicate much of the content of the Motel article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and try... but don't be surprised if the next edit or the next revert war dumps all of the WP:TRIVIA and the WP:UNDUE coverage of individual US motels and chains back into the main article. I've been trying to bring the amount of irrelevant excess detail down for years, but even small changes only meet repeatedly with arbitrary reversions. Certainly this page shouldn't be a WP:HATRACK for in-depth analysis of racial segregation in the United States if that issue is not motel-specific (indeed, it pre-dates the appearance of the word "motel" in dictionaries in the 1950s) but is specific to one region or one country. Segregation is a valid topic... for some other, country-specific article. Not this one. The lists of individual motels in The Simpsons, Cars (film) and the like are just trivia and likely should have been removed and not re-inserted in this article. At the current time, 5/7ths of the article seems to be either country-specific detail, overcoverage or trivia. I'd hate to think what this article would look like in terms of Wikipedia:Systemic bias if a book "The Motel in Latvia" existed and was over-relied upon the way "The Motel in America" seems to have been summarized and dumped here as huge blobs of text about individual US chains marketing and franchising. K7L (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-consensus article move 

message: OK, now that it seems most of the detritus accompanying this mess of a "move" attempt has been cleaned up, the issue would now seem to be what to do with the Motels in the United States spinoff article. As it looks mostly duplicative of this original, I'd suggest we plan on a merge, and conversion to a redirect as the plan of action, either under the umbrella of a WP:AfD request, or just as a "manual" cut-and-paste effort... Thoughts? --IJBall (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As a clear WP:POVFORK, that's the only result that is acceptable. oknazevad (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Oppose. There is a huge amount of excess, country-specific information which does not belong in the main article such as a lengthy description of the history of discrimination and Jim Crow segregation as it affected the traveller in the southern US (and just the southern US, pre Civil Rights movement). That content isn't motel-specific (the same complaints could be made about hotels, restaurants or just about any service essential to motorists in interstate commerce) but is US-specific. There's also a huge amount of excess detail about individual chains and organisations, some defunct, which only operated in the US. United Motor Courts? The American Hotel and Motel Association? Alamo Plaza Hotel Courts? The United States Numbered Highway system and the Asian American Hotel Owners Association? All interesting trivia about the history of lodging in one specific country, but meaningless to providing an understanding of motels in general. The "tourist guest home" is a B&B-style operation, so is veering off-topic for any motel article. The American Magazine "camps of crime" diatribe, which they attribute to J. Edgar Hoover? That's specific to one country's government... if Hoover even wrote it (and all indications are Courtney Riley Cooper ghost-wrote this, with Hoover playing along during the initial backlash and backing off only after "cabin court" operators started complaining to their congresscritters). The Negro Motorist Green Book tells us more about the Jim Crow south than about motels per se. The long list of every film, video or theatrical production which ever mentioned a motel is plain WP:TRIVIA. All of this tells us little about motels in general. Much of it is the product of over-reliance on one WP:RS, a printed book entitled "Motel in America". Take a look at the main articles for hotel or inn, they're a very general overview, they touch on the main points without going into excessive detail about one narrow subtopic or one country, then leave the details to sub-articles. If the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program has subsidised nostalgic restoration of a few neon motels on one road in one country, great, note it in the article for that country - not in the main article on motel as it's not happening internationally and including it in the discussion of motels globally is actually misleading the reader. The fate of Amboy, California has more to do with Interstate 40 in California bypassing U.S. Route 66 than about motels specifically. Heck, why not create a proper Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program article instead of using motel as a WP:HATRACK; there's more to that programme than fixing up old motel signage? Dumping all of this into the main article yields a page where 5/7 of the text (about 53Kb of a 71Kb page) is country-specific history and trivia which does nothing to enhance our understanding of motels globally, and constitutes hugely WP:UNDUE weight to describing the fate of individual US motels ("40 Winks" in Ohio is a dump, "Alamo Plaza" in Baton Rouge is a dump, all of Aurora Avenue is a dump... this is getting really repetitive - but I'm sure that the reader will be greatly relieved that the Maples Motel family-owned in some obscure corner of Ohio is still business as usual). There's also way too much about some individual US chains which left the motel business to build hotels decades ago and never looked back. This has nothing to do with POV, it's just excessive detail which should never have been dumped back into the main article as the upper-level page (below hotel as the top-level) should be a concise, informative global overview and not somewhere to dump fifty kilobytes of country-specific detail about any one country. Keep the main article as an overview, keep the WP:SPLITOUT country-level page for the lengthy country-specific detail. K7L (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is some unnecessary detail here, hypothetically, we can just delete it (and it will remain safely accessible in the history if it's desirable to use for some purpose later). We don't need to couple together the idea of removing things from this article with the idea of creating the other one. We don't necessarily need an article about Minor details about motels in the United States, and we also don't need an article about Motels in the United States if it will just duplicate much of the content of the Motel article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and try... but don't be surprised if the next edit or the next revert war dumps all of the WP:TRIVIA and the WP:UNDUE coverage of individual US motels and chains back into the main article. I've been trying to bring the amount of irrelevant excess detail down for years, but even small changes only meet repeatedly with arbitrary reversions. Certainly this page shouldn't be a WP:HATRACK for in-depth analysis of racial segregation in the United States if that issue is not motel-specific (indeed, it pre-dates the appearance of the word "motel" in dictionaries in the 1950s) but is specific to one region or one country. Segregation is a valid topic... for some other, country-specific article. Not this one. The lists of individual motels in The Simpsons, Cars (film) and the like are just trivia and likely should have been removed and not re-inserted in this article. At the current time, 5/7ths of the article seems to be either country-specific detail, overcoverage or trivia. I'd hate to think what this article would look like in terms of Wikipedia:Systemic bias if a book "The Motel in Latvia" existed and was over-relied upon the way "The Motel in America" seems to have been summarized and dumped here as huge blobs of text about individual US chains marketing and franchising. K7L (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Motels in the United States]] spinoff? 

message: K7L, I haven't had time to review all of the changes you are introducing to the article in the last hour or so, but I notice one type of change that I strongly object to. That is the major and obvious WP:ENGVAR changes. This has been discussed before. I see no justification for it. You replaced "freeways" with "motorways", introduced "favoured" and "car park", replaced "theaters" with "cineparks", replaced "automobile" with "motorcar", replaced "automobile tourists" with "motorists", replaced "restroom" with "water closet", replaced "travelers" with "travellers", added "modernisation", replaced "television" with "telly", and replaced "kilometers" with "kilometres". That is not appropriate. It is precisely the sort of behavior that was involved the recent edit warring dispute, as recorded at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive273#User:K7L reported by User:IJBall (Result: Page protected). Several editors (myself, oknazevad,  Chris the speller, IJBall) have all objected to that same type of editing, and its inappropriateness was confirmed by Swarm as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not this nonsense again. K7L has already been blocked by Swarm, but that still doesn't deal with the underlying POV-pushing. Frankly, if one were to remove from this article all the material that is now duplicated at the Motels in the United States article, this article would be left barely more than a stub. That tells me that this article is not appropriate for a split, and the only reason to do such is to create a clear WP:POVFORK. Yes, it was proposed months ago, but the fact that no one else acted upon it makes it clear to me that there was no consensus for such a split, mostly because anyone reading this talk page could see that the proposal was not in good faith and was clearly made to force an inappropriate ENGVAR change against policy and consensus. This is all so very clear by the attempt by K7L, again, to hijack this article to change the ENGVAR, as seen in the reverted edits. There is no good faith editing here, and frankly k7L should be topic banned from this article, as he's clearly shown no ability to act in good faith here or abide by consensus. oknazevad (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  My suggestion is if K7L pushes this one more time, we should move for an Article ban for K7L at Motels – two years of behavior, and now two blocks, makes it pretty clear that they're never going to give up tilting at this windmill. --IJBall (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only one block, actually. It will expire in a few hours. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, you're right – I thought K7L was blocked last time, but I guess it was just a warning, with the article protected. --IJBall (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New wholesale [[WP:ENGVAR]] changes 

message: Well, I went out and got a third opinion and that editor agreed that the "splitout" of Motels in the United States was justified, and this article should be trimmed (with any relevant material shifted to the "splitout" article). Honestly, I don't know where to start on that, but I thought I'd at least mention that this was the suggestion that was offered. So other editors may want to think about trimming this article, and shifting some of the content to Motels in the United States. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Splitout" 

message: Why is the architecture section written in the past tense? --Sm5574 (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Motels in the United States is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motels in the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
—BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Motels in the United States]] for deletion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Motel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201111320/http://corbinkytourism.com/sandersKFC.htm to http://www.corbinkytourism.com/sandersKFC.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305002516/http://www.kingventures.net/applfrm_motinn/restore_rehab.htm to http://www.kingventures.net/applfrm_motinn/restore_rehab.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501070538/http://www.225batonrouge.com/news/2007/oct/25/after-dark-it-gets-ugly/ to http://www.225batonrouge.com/news/2007/oct/25/after-dark-it-gets-ugly
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609113202/http://www.ontarioroadmaps.ca/index.php/official-ontario-maps/official-ontario-road-maps/29-official-ontario-road-maps/official-ontario-road-map/16-1930-1931-official-road-map-of-ontario to http://www.ontarioroadmaps.ca/index.php/official-ontario-maps/official-ontario-road-maps/29-official-ontario-road-maps/official-ontario-road-map/16-1930-1931-official-road-map-of-ontario
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120731105122/http://www.gastongazette.com/news/motel-26088-gastonia-health.html to http://www.gastongazette.com/news/motel-26088-gastonia-health.html
*Added  tag to http://bobjagendorf.smugmug.com/gallery/605032
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)