Talk:Motel 6

message: In Eureka California the prices have remained rather low, but you run a risk of being beaten by security officers and police, 150 days incarceration on trumped up charges because "your kind can't stay here" - and sad to sat you weren't aware that you were one of "those kind". So ask yourself what are you saving?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.250.213 (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's notable.  Most hotels—chains or otherwise—hike their prices depending on tourist seasons.  Yeah, Motel 6 is supposed to be cheap, but nowadays they're similar to other budget hotels and they're not going to pass up on a buck. ;-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Just a comment:  I stayed in one in Las Vegas, a block off the strip.  "In-season" the rate was $99.99 a night.  Apparently, I was "off-season", it was about $40.00 a night.Rt66lt 03:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Price hikes

message: MSTCrow - please either cite a factual inaccuracy in the Camp Nama reference, or make a case that it has categorically less cultural import than, say, an offhand mention by Bart Simpson or Sandra Day O'Connor.  I maintain that the inclusion here is not superfluous, and not POV; to cite an analogous example, one could imagine (though it hasn't been added yet) a link to the well-known Hanoi Hilton in an appropriate subsection of the Hilton Hotels page, and I would think it highly unlikely that a neutral observer would consider this to be POV.
:While not seeing anything wrong with it being mentioned, I myself wonder if it qualifies as "Popular Culture" Leoroc 03:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A facility at which prisoner abuses allegedly occurred is not a "torture facility." That's plainly editorializing for the writer's POV. NCdave (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural References

message: Anyone know?  Seems like a natural thing to have in the article, assuming there is a reason. ~ CZeke 10:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article.  Originally they charged USD$6 a night. Now I guess it should be Motel 39.95. — Frecklefoot | Talk 12:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @CZeke 2001:4430:D0D9:68E0:0:0:275:8932 (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 6? 

message: Article says that most Motel 6 locations are located on or near interstates. I have not seen every location, but I can guarantee that they are not located **on** the interstate. If you have to get **off** the interstate to get to the motel, it cannot be **on** it -- 67.42.107.14 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you're a native English speaker (I suspect you are not), but the word "on" can also mean "covering." It does not have to mean "positioned on the upper surface of" which is what you are reading into it. Hanxu9 (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sleeping on the Interstate? 

message: I am questioning how neutral this article is.  It reads more like an advertisement then an actual reference article.  Comments like "sunny Ft. Lauderdale", "Mouse Ears" and "good cause" tend to make it read more like a PR release.  Am I alone in thinking this article needs a re-write?  Or am I just over-sensitive?  Mushrom (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just deleted one sentence that reads like an advertisement or PR release. NCdave (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Thats not a dead link and it is a link referring to the police thing you deleted. Why would you delete it in a separate edit and then lie on the reason? BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somethings fishy.