Template talk:Infobox hotel

message: While hotel ratings have commonly been rated both officially and un-officially using stars to denote the quality of a hotel property, may I also suggest adding another optional field for the Diamonds rating system. Diamonds are, arguably, used just as widespread as the stars system is. The diamonds and stars system are the most internationally well-known rating systems for hotels. In some countries, diamonds may be the preferred rating system whereas the stars are strictly a voluntary system. In addition, the diamond rating system also has considerable notierity via its extensive use through international AAA organizations. As this would also be an optional field that wouldn't be displayed unless a value is entered, I don't think it would hurt. Any thoughts? Luke! 05:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite concerned with the diamond/star section of this infobox.  First, most of the time I see this infobox used, there is an assertion that the hotel has x stars or diamonds, without any source whatsoever (nothing in the article either), directly contrary to WP:V.  At a minimum, the star/diamond references need to be removed where there is no source.  But, more fundamentally, even in cases where there is a source, I wonder how encyclopedic this information is.  There is no international standard, and standards differ even within countries and among organizations.  The inclusion of stars and diamonds in the infobox gives rise to considerable reliability, neutrality, self promotion and spam concerns. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings: Stars vs. Diamonds

message: Would it be possible to include a field for the manager of a hotel?-- Matthew Edwards 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are General Managers generally notable enough for a field? Luke! 05:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *There may be exceptions, but I don't think these are generally notable at all. Ohconfucius 08:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Manager/Manager 

message: This duplicate template is up for deletion. People who watch this page might be interested. The nomination can be found here. Is there a need or the will to integrate the style features of the other template into this one? Thanks Woodym555 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Infobox Hotel 

message: I propose the removal of the "Stars" (numeric) field from this template. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or directory, and the star ratings are usually unsourced within the article, or at best gleaned from a single (unnamed) source, such as AAA or the Mobil Travel Guide, or one of the myriad of other bodies, official and unofficial, which issue star-type ratings.  As Skeezix1000 notes above, " There is no international standard, and standards differ even within countries and among organizations. The inclusion of stars and diamonds in the infobox gives rise to considerable reliability, neutrality, self promotion and spam concerns." --MCB (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, with the similar "Diamonds" field to be removed also.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objection, and three weeks having passed, I removed the fields. -- MCB (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that's great.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It is doubtful that star or diamond awards constitute "statistics".  It doesn't really matter, however, because information of any kind that gives rise to the concerns set out above is usually not permitted on Wikipedia, and there is certainly no "all statistics are acceptable" rule.  And,  "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" is in fact found at WP:NOT.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Diligent Terrier, hotel star ratings are not in any way "statistics". They are completely subjective, inconsistent quality ratings which are in many cases simply self-awarded. They do not meet Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability, reliable sourcing, and neutral point of view, and do not belong in articles (or infoboxes). Number of rooms, floor area, date opened, etc., are statistics. Star ratings are unverifiable opinion.   --MCB (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't "content" anything.  In any event, you clearly need to read the guidelines and essays that you quote more closely, because you also appear to have misconstrued WP:CANVAS.A word of advice -- other editors will take you a lot more seriously if you stick to the topic at hand, take the time to actually read the applicable guidelines, and refrain from making silly accusations.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure, diamond ratings are nothing more than statistics, and yes, they are subjective, but so are Nobel Peace Prize awards and they are displayed in infoboxes.  - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you persist in calling star ratings "statistics". Statistics are verifiable, unambiguously factual, and (properly) cited to reliable sources. (Nobel Prizes are notable facts; they are awarded by an official body responsible for the awards, and are reported by reliable secondary sources like newspapers and television news.) As Skeezix1000 noted above, "There is no international standard [for star ratings], and standards differ even within countries and among organizations. The inclusion of stars and diamonds in the infobox gives rise to considerable reliability, neutrality, self promotion and spam concerns." --MCB (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilligent - First, as MCB points out, stars/diamonds are not statistics.  Second, stars/diamonds (self-awarded, or awarded by a multitude of different bodies, all with differing standards and motivations) are not comparable in any way to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.  And, third, the mention of Nobel Peace Prizes in infoboxes does not give rise to the list of concerns raised above.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: This discussion is just going in circles.  I'm not going to continue to discuss a point with someone who obviously can't be bothered reading, or understanding, any of the comments above.  Suffice it to say, there is no consensus at this time to include star or diamond ratings in the infobox.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Michelin stars are definitely notable facts, are verifiable, and are widely discussed in reliable sources; they definitely belong in Wikipedia. But they are sufficiently rare (as a percentage of all restaurants, even ones with articles) that I'd say the place to put them is in the article body, not in an infobox. They are more of a notable award than a simple rating, and it's probably not useful to make something an infobox field where it will only be populated in a tiny percentage of articles with the infobox. --MCB (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove "Stars" field 

message: Why does the "name" parameter of this "template:infobox hotel" place the name in italics?  am i missing something?--96.232.126.111 (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only italics, but I'm similarly confused why the name of the hotel appears in gold with a mauve background.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Any thoughts, anyone? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the italics and gilded text.  Designs like that are very subjective, and don't necessarily appeal to everyone (nor is gold text on a mauve background necessarily appropriate for every hotel article using this template). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good.  This template is eventually being merged with  per this discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting.  To be frank, when I made the change, it did occur to me to ask why we had a separate infobox just for hotels.  But I figured it was likely due to inertia, so it's nice to see that's not the case. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd use of italics

message: I seem to be getting into an unwanted editing conflict about adding a parameter about the Listed Building Status of a Hotel. I have been working on several articles of Historic Victorian and Edwardian Hotels within Norfolk, United Kingdom, many of which are listed as historic buildings. I added a parameter within the hotel info box so enabling there grade of listing to be added to the info box but have come up against some conflict concerning this. Some contributors seem to think that this is some sort of star or diamond rating and reflects the standard of the Hotel, which it is not! Listed building status within the UK is about protecting our heritage and is only given to building of outstanding historic or architectural value. I do not see a problem with Listed building status being included in the info box. The system in the UK is a regulated government body and is recognised nationally and many other countries also have similar government bodies. i.e.Sweden, Denmark, USA  stavros1  ♣  23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, no.  Many countries have infoboxes for historic buildings and  supports imbeding of these templates.  So the best solution to your request is probably to use  and embed  and the appropriate historic building template as needed.  This seems like extra work, but it provides uniformity of presentation for the readers.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was "editing conflict", it's because you initially were trying to insert a field for stars or diamonds, and you provided no meaningful explanation or edit summary when you switched to listed building status in the U.K. Without any context, I am not sure that it was fair for you to expect everyone to understand what you were doing (your patronizing note on my talk page was really unnecessary and unhelpful).  But thank you for this explanation, which is very helpful.  But I would have to agree with Vegaswikian - every country has historic designations (for example, Canada itself has dozens of different types, based on region and level of government), and we cannot possibly accomodate them all in this template.  There is a simple solution - use the  template, which was specifically designed to be embedded in templates such as Infobox hotel.  It allows you to add the official name, type, criteria, designation date, etc. for the historic site.  It supports the various grades and categories of U.K. listed buildings (as well as numerous other historic designations worldwide). As an example, I just added it to the Infobox hotel template at Château Laurier.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To give you an actual U.K. example, I added the designation list template to Cliftonville Hotel, Cromer (it is not clear to me that I used the correct reference number from the English Heritage website). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Stavros, can we now delete the listed building field?  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I have no objections. Thank you for the help and guidance in what has been a successful solution to this attribution problem  stavros1  ♣  07:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  Thanks to both of you for your help.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Listed Building Status

message: OK, from the past discussions I have rewritten this template.  I think everything except the coordinates are working.  The test version is at :User:Vegaswikian/Infobox hotel1.  The rewrite is embeddable so that once it goes into production, it will function as a subtemplate to  if used that way.  This will allow it to be used with  so that the additional parameters that are supported there can be displayed for the building much like  does today.  Please check this out and report any problems.  This would will basically solve the long standing support to merge this into  which was not done due to parameter overload.  Once this goes into production, all we need is a bot to update the articles to embed this into  and move the marked parameters into the main template. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done more testing and cleanup.  At this point, I believe that everything except the pushpin_map option is working.  Please give this a tryout to see if I have missed anything else.  Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: While the gurus complete their merge project, does anyone know how the headers of this template (such as LOCATION, ADDRESS, HOTEL CHAIN, COORDINATES, etc) can be set to appear left-justified. Left justification is the standard practice with templates. Besides, the current center-justify scheme of this template just doesn't cut it, visually speaking. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have figured out how to left-justify the displayed filed names. Any objections/comments before I proceed to standardize this? Mercy11 (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just promoted the version that was in test mode since April 30.  I think that fixed the problem you were asking about. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! it did! Mercy11 (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Line up