Talk:Bed and breakfast

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why the edit Gaimhreadhan?

The more I read about Wikipedia and realize its power the more I respect folks for working with it. I do, however, disagree with your removing my additions on 1 August. Not wishing to sound upset by any means, as I am still learning... Why did you remove it. I thought it might be a bit wordy and wanted to go back to edit it, but I still believe the basic information to be relevant. I am involved in the B&B industry Gnew18 02:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, G will not be able to reply to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gaimhreadhan#Condolences
 W. Frank talk ✉  22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish to remove CAIK

CAIK does not appear to have a website and is not anything more than a discussion group that does get together every so often. IT is not a formal organization with an association as it were behind it. While it is probably helpful for the innkeepers involved it does not really belong here as a resource.

Fine by me.
If you could remember to sign your comments using four tildes: ~~~~ , we'd be grateful - I'm very prone to forget this myself, too...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 00:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selling a bed and breakfast turn key

Turnkey Contacts

I need to know the definition of turn-key when selling a Bed and Breakfast. Just what is to be left behind when selling a Bed and Breakfast turnkey? I have received three different answers so one more would help.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.230.86 (talk • contribs) .

You probably won't get an answer here. You may have better luck at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. --GraemeL (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A real estate deal and selling a business is always subject to negotiation. Therefore, before you sign the contract you must negotiate what will be included in the sales price. I don't believe you will find that turnkey is legally defined. If I were buying the business I would state that the sellers can only take their clothes and maybe their transportation. You might ask them to list what items they will be taking. If they want to take a lot of things, then my offer would reflect the cost of replacing the needed items. You definitely need to keep the phone number and name of the going concern and the customer list. Photograph and video tape the business to identify missing items later. Also compare what other owners would include in their sales price.

If you have already sign the contract without clarification of what will be included, then you are depending on the sellers to be gracious and leave you with everything needed to help you succeed. If the previous owners help with the financing, they may be more inclined to leave you with more items.

Call the Professional Association of Innkeepers International www.paii.org and ask for a list of Vendor Members who handle this stuff. They are a good resource. My guess is that your three different answers are all correct. I am in the industry and I assume that many "deals" differ with turn key ... Gnew18 00:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Regarding External links on this article: Please see Wikpedia's External links guideline:

"Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." (emphasis added)

Note that anyone who can find their way to Wikipedia can also Google "Bed and breakfast". However, if editors really feel that we need to help our readers find commercial establishments, see

"Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{Directory request}} on the article's talk page." (ibid.)

Also note from this article's history, that every time a few links are added, they are immediately joined by half a dozen more. I would propose that we have no links at all, for the reasons given, or at most a dmoz link, if we really think that our readers are too feeble to find their way to Google results.

I would, of course, make an exception of the sort of link that External links are really meant for, that is, a page discussing, say, the history of such establishments. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like more of the B&B history. Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Do (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the guidance that: "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."
The reason to add external links is that they are helpful to most readers who, whether they are academic researchers or simply looking for a Bed and Breakfast to stay in, will probably welcome two or three external links to comprehensive, free, up-to-date and easy-to-use directories.
In this regard I would choose to emphasise the primary guidance contained at Wikpedia's External links guideline:
"Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article"
and, immediately below this encapsulation:-
"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article. These links belong in an External links section near the bottom of the article."
Looking at the history of spasm link deletions of some `contributors' to the Bed and Breakfast page (and other pages), it is obvious that some `contributors' may not be aware that the guidance on External Links has recently changed.
The primary difficulty with googling Bed and Breakfast is one of the raisons d'être for Wikipedia: search engine results are often way too verbose, unauthoritative and not as useful as those HUMAN editors can provide.
I have no desire to create or maintain a long list: my suggestion would be for two or three external links that cover the globe of B&B possibilities.
Please remember that ALL Bed and Breakfast establishments are ‘commercial’ and any external links will also inevitably be ‘commercial’ in that restricted sense.
My vote would go to privatestay.com.
Not because I have a commercial interest in privatestay.com (although some of my clients may - I'm an attorney specialising in intellectual property), but because it is reasonably comprehensive, well programmed and presented, free of charge to both on-line users and B&B's that wish to be listed and the most comprehensive up-to-date source I have discovered. If there is a more comprehensive up-to-date source in existence then I would very much welcome its' nomination here so that it can replace one (and preferably both) of the two external links I keep re-instating.
Although privatestay.com is reasonably comprehensive as far as Europe and Australasia goes it is weak for N. America so I would welcome a suggestion for (preferably one) link to cover that area...
I concur that there is a risk of (and a strong commercial incentive to) having the current one or two links proliferate like noxious weeds. But rather than throw the baby out with the bath water and have no links at all, is there no process by which two or three links can be chosen on objective criteria and then locked down?Gaimhreadhan 12:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (St Andrews Day)[reply]
Thank you for adding the DMOZ link, though I still question even its neccessity. I have removed the other directories. Looking at the many articles on Wikipedia that deal with things one might buy, I note that they have been kept clear of any External links to commercial sites or directories thereof other than DMOZ: see, for example, Mobile phone, Home entertainment, Laptop, SUV, Portable media player, Digital audio player, Compact Disc player, Home computer. See especially the External links sections in Hotel, Motel, Resort and Vacation rental, none of which have any directory links. (Note that I have edited none of these articles.) I conclude that ordinary Wikipedia practice calls for at most a DMOZ link.
Finally, I have to ask-- Gaimhreadhan, what, exactly, is your interest in this? I note that you have precisely two edits to articles other than Bed and Breakfast; is it possible that your interest in this issue is colored by self-interest? -- Mwanner | Talk 14:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am an attorney and don't have too much spare time with two small children to look after. The first two Wikipedia articles I ‘edited’ had glaring (and misleading) spelling mistakes. I made a few similar minor corrections and additions to this B&B article and added one external link that I believed to be helpful. (The external link I added was to a Directory which, at the time I added the link, I was not connected with but had found very useful. Subsequently I have made some bug reports to that Directory). I was then quite surprised to find that the helpful external links (which I had not authored) were summarily removed (contrary to the clear guidance about arbitrary and sweeping and unreasoned changes).
The conclusion of Mwanner is directly contrary to the `nutshell advice' provided by Wikipedia: "Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article. These links belong in an External links section near the bottom of the article."
I've now joined DMOZ as an editor so I better declare an interest before I consider adding a DMOZ link to the article...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objective Choice of External Links

According to the relevant Wikipedia article, DMOZ recently suffered a catastrophic failure, and I have pointed this out in the external links that I have re-instated this morning.

I clarify that I have no commercial interest in DMOZ, privatestay.com or Bedandbreakfast.com other than the probability that some of their programmers, shareholders, officers and contributors may have been or currently are private clients.

My interest in all this is, presumably, identical to most users of Wikipedia: to have a useful, accurate and growing resource.

Finally, may I say that I am disappointed that nobody has commented upon my suggestion that "rather than throw the baby out with the bath water and have no links at all, is there no process by which two or three links can be chosen on objective criteria and then locked down?" Gaimhreadhan 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the text prominently displayed near the beginning (just after the bit you are fond of quoting), namely
Important points to remember
1. Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
2. Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. (emphasis added)
As for the baby/bathwater notion, I believe that the "baby" here is the article itself; the "bathwater" is the external links section. I would be perfectly happy to dispose of the latter altogether, keeping what matters. See Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory.
Lastly, I'm awfully interested in that rather tortured phrasing of yours-- "I have no commercial interest in DMOZ, privatestay.com or Bedandbreakfast.com other than the probability that some of their programmers, shareholders, officers and contributors may have been or currently are private clients." In other words, then, your interests are not quite "presumably, identical to most users of Wikipedia", especially seeing that, unlike most users of Wikipedia, you appear to have no interest in any article but this one. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances can be deceptive. I may well develop an interest in contributing more if it doesn't prove to be a waste of my time and that of others.
Is it your opinion that my other very minor contributions to five other articles are unhelpful?
If it were not for my lack of time and the approach you have shown me I might have developed an interest in contributing to other articles.
I'm not a fast typist.
Is there a way we can discuss this voice? (At my expense and in your time zone).
If not, cordial greetings and please see my response in Talk
Gaimhreadhan 16:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for missing your six quite helpful edits to five other articles, four of them made since my November 30 comment about your (then) two edits. I don't mean to belittle your work here-- merely to point out that your claim to be no more interested in this issue than any other Wikipedian appears to be spurious. If you are indeed a slow typist, you are spending quite an inordinate amount of time on these discussions. I am not especially interested in a voice conversation on this matter. I think the place to go with this, if you wish to pursue it, is Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. I may take it to Wikipedia_talk:Spam.
Despite your reiteration of the assertion on my Talk page that I am opposed to all external links, the fact is that I have added many external links to Wikipedia's pages. I am opposed to links that have commercial intent, and the directories you are adding are all to pages that have commercial intent.
That is simply a factual error on your part.
I have only ever originally added two external links. One to DMOZ - is that a site with commercial intent?
And one link to privatestay.com which site is free of charge to both visitors and contributors.
Gaimhreadhan 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I think that we should follow the example of the Hotel, Motel, Resort and Vacation rental articles, and have no External links on this page, unless one can find a page that is not trying to sell something. I note that you have chosen not to address this point. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is because I do not wish to provide you with a hit-list of articles that have useful external links that conform to Wikipedia guidelines that you would equally pointlessly excise.
Gaimhreadhan 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno-- seems only fair-- I've provided you with a list of articles that you can supply with useful directory links. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DMOZ is a free, open-content directory run by volunteers. There is no commercial interest there.
From the Social Contract:
We license our content as free with attribution back to the ODP. We will make the most comprehensive, user-friendly directory possible, so the content and taxonomy will be widely used and distributed. We will do our best to list web sites in a fair and impartial manner, and consider all user requests and suggestions for improvement.
If you wanted to add a dmoz link, this would be the one to add: {{dmoz|Recreation/Travel/Lodging/Bed_and_Breakfast/}}

Page protection

Hi, I saw Gaimhreadhan's request for page-protection at WP:RFPP. I just wanted to intervene and add my personal view on the issue. I believe the external links are fine. There's no advertising, and it appears to be helpful to other users who may need information on bed and breakfast places. Just my opinion, though. I'm still fully protecting the page, and you guys let me know when you reach a consensus/decision. Nishkid64 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Like your colours! Brightens the place up a bit...
I would like to propose that the asymmetric capitalisation of the Bed and breakfast article be changed to Bed and BreakfastGaimhreadhan

Proposal to aid consensus

I would also like to make the following concrete proposals for external links on the renamed Bed and Breakfast article:

1) Reinstate the DMOZ external link

2) Reach agreement in principle to having ONE authoritative, global and up-to-date external link for at least as long as DMOZ is broken.

3) Reach agreement in principle to having the minimum number of regional directory links if the consensus is that ONE authoritative, global and up-to-date external link does not yet exist and for at least as long as DMOZ is broken.

4) Try and reach a consensus here as to which external link(s) conform to (2) and (3) above.

5) If and when a consensus has been reached, submit that consensus to Nishkid64 so that he can incorporate those two or three external links in the protected page if he deems it appropriate.

6) Explore whether it is technically possible to then open up the article for normal editing but retain the protection only on the external links section. Gaimhreadhan 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final position prior to mediation

OK, now that we have a cease-fire, I thought it might make sense to put together a joint final position, with the (faint) hope that we might actually come to an agreement that way, and (more realistically) that we will at least provide whatever mediators we call on with a more concise statement of positions, so they don't have to wade through all of our diatribes at each other. So, as simply as possible, my position is as follows:

  1. WP:EL states that "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" are "Links normally to be avoided".
  2. One of the directories that you want to link to ([1]) clearly takes payment for its services from the websites that it lists, and is therefore itself a commercial entity. Further, it provides links directly to commercial entities ([2]) where one can book a room online.
  3. Another of the directories that you want to link to ([3]) provides far fewer direct web links, but still presumably is in business to profit directly from its listings ([4]). At least it nowhere states that it is a non-profit enterprise.
  4. The DMOZ link-- while DMOZ is a non-profit entity, a DMOZ directory of Bed and Breakfasts is, neccessarily, a directory of commercial web-pages, and thus merely passes the reader through to links that would be otherwise prohibited.
  5. Finally, given that our articles on Hotel, Motel, Resort and Vacation rental, have no directory links, the precedent exists for excluding External links in similar articles.

Forgive me for not responding to your points above; I am not at all ready to concede the principles that they call for. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Two major quibbles: It is yourself and similar zealots that have made many articles arid and less practically helpful by deleting all external links - so please do not cite those self-same articles as precedent - you have simply worn people down and into resigned submission.

I think we should attempt to reach consensus on my concrete principles first; if we can't it will be inevitably fruitless to attempt to discuss specific external links later.

A minor quibble: It is not myself that originally proposed www.bedandbreakfast.com as an external link. I am rather neutral about it and merely repaired your (perceived) link sabotage spasms.


Apart from those quibbles, you are forgiven.


Now I think it might be instructive to go and look again at the first article I ever edited: Star Alliance

That article has pertinent external links to more than a score of commercial websites that seek to sell air transport services - principally those of the airline members of that alliance.

Do you seriously think that article would be improved by deleting all those external links?

And if not, please draw the distinction between the (commercial) topics of Airline Alliances and the (commercial) topics of Hosted Accommodation.

Finally, please excuse me if I do not reply for a few days - I have to travel to clients on the other side of the world... Gaimhreadhan 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Hotel was free of External links long before I first edited it, and I have never edited Motel or Resort, so it is not my "zealotry" that is responsible for their lack of links. And yes, I seriously think that they would be the worse for being cluttered with commercial links, as, apparently, do many other editors. Are you seriously proposing that links to commercial sites make our articles, what, richer? How so? The world is already so cluttered with commerce, I, for one, find Wikipedia's relative freedom from it to be one of its best features. In fact, I've always felt that freedom from commerce was precisely why Wikipedia "makes the web not suck".
Anyway, I didn't want to get into another lengthy exchange with you. I was hoping that you would put forth a final, concise statement of your position. Could you, please? And, preferably, without the name calling? There is plenty of time... -- Mwanner | Talk 02:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

I suggest moving the article to Bed and Breakfast (both Bed, Breakfast capitalised) to conform with Wikipedia naming conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W. Frank (talk • contribs) (but actually made by Gaimhreadhan, when logged into W. Frank's account by mistake on a shared workstation and a relatively new editor - sorry!)

Agreed; a quick Google search[5] seems to back up the idea that the proper name has both words capitalized. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous: POV

"In the British Isles where hotel prices are often outrageous". I agree they are outrageous compared with most of the rest of Europe, but this word is probably POV. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.139.18 (talk • contribs)

  • I noticed that too. When this page gets unlocked can someone change it. British Isles hotel prices are not outrageous in my eyes! Cls14 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

linking a bed and breakfast community site

I'm somewhat confused about the baby throw out with the bathwater on this specific topic. While there are no "commercial" link on hotel or motel in a link section, there are multiple links to specific hotels and those specific hotels all link to their commerical external site.

if i can wiki hotel, pop to "library hotel" via embedded link to wiki entry, then pop to the commercial site from there, why would the exclusion of such links be required here?

perhaps do what hotels does, or motels to a greatly lesser extent.

link to several rating, recommendation sites, set up a wiki stub or article on them, then allow the visiter who links bed & breakfasts to be able to get to external information on that lodging as the can for the library hotel, hilton hotel, motel6, etc..

Childhoodtrauma 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)childhood[reply]

I recently stumbled upon Bed & Breakfast Inns Online, which might be good for something like that. It seems to be a pretty general directory (and it's even international!). -Jacquismo 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal or Secularization and once exclusively the purview of religious institutions

Reasoning: There have been Justices of the Peace performing non-religious weddings for many many years. B&B's are just trying to stay competitive

Wildy USA-centric paragraph

Actually there are 20,000 B&B's / Country Inns in the US. Many are located in small towns with no discernible attraction. (Except the owners of the B & B's think there is...) One could say that the more profitable or successful or prominent B & B's are often located in destination towns as alternatives to Hotels and Motels. Very often, smaller B & B's are they are the only lodging in a small town.

...."in some smaller B&Bs they will be expected to be away from the B&B during the main part of the day. This arrangement, however, may not be inconvenient since many popular B&Bs are located in beach and mountain areas, such as Hawaii, New England, and Colorado where daytime recreation and tourism activities are popular."

OK, almost none of the B&Bs in the world are situated in the afforemention U.S. states, or even 'beach and mountain areas.' How about we phrase it "many B&Bs are located in areas which offer a range of tourist and recreation activities"?Mark76uk 22:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The North East Atlantic Archipelago

Is there any rational for using the term "The North East Atlantic Archipelago" rather than "British Isles". The term is well used and means essentially the same as "British Isles" (indeed the page redirects there). While I appreciate the Irish nationalists (and others) might dislike the alternative is not common, I do not see why a dispute needs to be raised in _this_ article.

I removed it because I believed it caused unnecessary confusion but it was reverted. Caffm8 21:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is.
If one clicks on the "History" tab at the top of the article, one can see any comments or explanations that the editor has made when summarising their edit.
In this case I was the editor that changed the wording back to what had been the consensus for some months. My edit summary was: "'British Isles' included in section heading, so no confusion (please see: British_Isles_naming_dispute)".
It's not just Irish Nationalists that are a wee bit (too?) sensitive about the term and in this case the sub-heading of "British Isles" should dispel any lingering confusion - as does the internal linking or re-direction of "The North East Atlantic Archipelago".
If, after reading the referenced article, you are still unclear as to the rationale for the use I can try and explain further, but I hope the article will explain the term. NEAA also includes "twiddly bits" like the Faeroes and the Channel Islands that are generally excluded from the ambit of the "British Isles". Thank you for your interest in making Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia!...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 23:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The North East Atlantic Archipelago" is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've seen on Wikipedia. Ever, basically. How many people even know what it means? "British Isles" makes perfect sense. This is an article about bed & breakfasts, not about disputed names. If you especially want to be clear, then say "in the UK, Ireland and surrounding area" - or something along these lines that actually makes sense. "North East Atlantic Archipelago" is pedantic nonsense and makes a farse of the encyclopedia. I'm not removing it myself because I don't want to get into a revert war - but it absolutely astonishes me that you or anyone else thinks it's a reasonable way to refer to the British Isles! Matt 21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-consensual changes

We are encouraged to be bold - but this does not mean that we should risk being incivil by neglecting to discuss the reasons to make many changes here first: please see Wikipedia:Consensus#Note_on_use_of_discussion_page this policy statement. This is particularly relevant where editors 'parachute' in and out of the article, do not cite any references for change (or only misleading ones in their edit summary) and make changes to consensual text that has no technical errors, does not breach policy or guidelines and that has endured for many months (and, therefore, constitutes the consensual position).

This article is currently written in commonwealth English and there need to be rational arguments advanced to change this. Consequently, unless logical reasons are advanced, I intend to modify some of the recent changes made earlier today in line with the above and as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 09:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endured for many months (and, therefore, constitutes the consensual position)?? That is nonsense. Wikipedia is in a constant state of flux, and the same goes for an article you may consider your "baby." If it reads badly to someone who has "parachuted in," as you put it (presumably referring to me), you can be fairly sure that there are problems, even if you don't see them. This article struck me as being poorly written (and it has nothing to do with British or Irish English) as well as unsourced and marred by advertising. I suggest you take a closer look before reverting edits.--Gilabrand 09:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that you are relatively new to Wikipedia and I would encourage you to take time to read and understand the references I have provided above, Sir.
I agree that it is largely unsourced. The remedy for this is to help provide them or, in extremis, to submit the article to the deletion process.
I examined all your edits for two hours before making changes and I almost never use the revert tool for edits made by conscientous editors such as yourself.
Perhaps we can discuss and agree text you think appropriate here first?
I agree that you have done some good work in removing (self) promotional material.
God bless!...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 09:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have little time to do the kind of research needed here. I am not really "new" to Wikipedia. I just parachute in and out...LOL. I'm not really sure how I ended up on this page, but the reason I removed the "practical advice" section is that an encyclopedia does not dispense "advice." If you think the information is worth saving, then change the heading and write a "descriptive" rather than a "prescriptive" paragraph. All the best, Gila (not sir...)--Gilabrand 09:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not realising you were a lady, Gila! May I ask you increment the indentation when you reply? (It makes threads easier to follow).
That is an ongoing problem that many editors have as regards finding the time to properly source their edits.
Thank you for explaining your thought processes. You might like to look at WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia and I will try and think about more descriptive language. Perhaps you can make a concrete proposal and example exactly the non-"prescriptive" paragraph you had in mind below so that we can then work as a team to improve our encyclopaedia? Thanks for discussing this!...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 10:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Thanks for adding this section, Gila!...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 12:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the "B&Bs around the world" section should be at the bottom, after all the technical aspects. What say you?--Gilabrand 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the B&B Association of Rome that has also has international listings by country. Do you think this should be added somewhere in the article? [[6]]--Gilabrand 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My introduction to Wikipedia last year was a bit of a baptism of fire regarding external links and you may be interested on the opinions expressed in sections above on this talk page, Gila.
It might be better to start a new section entitled Proposed external links and then wait seven days to see if there are any ojections...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read some of the stuff above. Amazing how these things get people so worked up. I've seen tons of links on other pages that are less related to the topic than this one. The most that can happen is that somebody deletes the link. Anyway, you seem to be the one in charge nowadays...--Gilabrand 14:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neither in charge nor an administrator, but I would appreciate it greatly if you would indent your comments (you just add an additional colon to each of your own paragraphs compared to the number of colons that the previous editor used in their comments), Gila.
However, if you ask my opinion, I strongly suspect that "the B&B Association of Rome" is neither non-profit nor more comprehensive than the links that were removed a long time ago. Personally I would prefer to add 2 or 3 links to reasonably comprehensive directories of B&B's that charge neither the webuser for viewing their directory nor B&B's for inclusion. However, as an editor in the Bed and Breakfast section of DMOZ, there is a conflict of interest and I would prefer for a consensus to arise...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the links provided by this Rome association, you get to the same link for the international association that now features in the separate section you entitled "USA" - which is smack in the middle of the article, rather than down below. The Israel link in the Rome association site takes you to an Israeli association of B&Bs with its own website (http://www.bnb.co.il/who.htm). There are no fees charged. Travelers contact the owner of the B&B directly.--Gilabrand 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my general position as expressed in the earliest sections of this article. However, rather than go back into the trenches, I strongly suggest that all and any proposals are added to the section immediately below first (entitled "Proposed new external links"). Then, if there are no objections after seven days, they can be added...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new external links

news site for b&b owners (worldwide site) [[User_talk:rwrhallam| —Preceding undated comment added 10:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC). Accommodation for independent travellers (worldwide site)...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dmoz open directory project (worldwide site)...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B&Bs in Israel, booking directly with owners - User:Gilabrand16:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B&B Association of Rome, with international B&B links - User:Gilabrand16:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bed and Breakfasts in Belgium and Netherlands —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raeyos (talk • contribs) 18:55, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Objections to proposed new external links

Have you checked, Gila, to see if there are any sites in B&Bs in Israel, booking directly with owners and B&B Association of Rome, with international B&B links that are not also replicated in the two prior suggestions?

If there are,I would still see dangers in a national list proliferating - there is the potential for more than 100 external links if only one site per country is allowed. I think we should stick to Worldwide directories, and, if those are insufficiently helpful, a few Regional sites...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in thinking that the Israeli site is limited to establishments in the city of Jerusalem?...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked again, and you're right. It's an association for Jerusalem B&Bs, when we are aiming for international or national associations. There must be something more inclusive, but I'd have to go searching for it. --Gilabrand 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my DMOZ "job", I do this searching on a daily basis, and sysops and webmasters also submit to the DMOZ list for inclusion. I've yet to find anything that does a significantly better job than the too I've mentioned so my approach would be to ask other establishments to list on those two. (At DMOZ we often have a considerable backlog but at privatestay.com the B&B's can list themselves and instantaneously). Do you want to strike thru the Israeli and Roman proposals?...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK situation

Apart from general article cleanup, it might be worth mentioning the UK situation regarding the use of bed and breakfast for overnight accommodation for the homeless - a commonly exploitative arrangement due to the lack of tenancy rights. See Shelter (Bed and breakfast hotels). 86.161.33.49 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Chambre d'hôtes

Oppose merge The French concept is quite different, always being located at the heart of a village. Let these two articles evolve separately and respect their cultural differences. Hadrianheugh (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger a good idea. Sorry I don't speak english very well but I think that the french "chambre d'hôtes" may be in a section of "bed and breakfast" as a national difference.Cardabelle (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. Per Cardabelle, could easily be accommodated as a national variant (as with the other countries variances listed). At the moment in fact the article has little independent value - focusing as it does on COMPARING chambre d'hôtes to B&Bs. A value which would more readily achieved as a subset of this article than it can as a standalone. Guliolopez (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question? -- What exactly is there to merge? Chambre d'hotes has been tagged as unreferenced since 2007. If it remains a distinct article it would be highly vulnerable to a nomination for deletion, on the grounds it does not comply with the verifiability policy and the policy prohibiting original research. If we were to merge that article here, I suggest there is really nothing that could be brought over, because every statement there is unreferenced. Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any unreferenced stuff would be "filtered" in the process of the merge. If that exercise results in a redirect and the addition of a one liner here ("Chambre d'hotes are a type of B&B") then so be it. It doesn't negate the merge proposal... Guliolopez (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah -- but are Chambre d'hotes are a type of B&B? Why should the unreferenced original research in the existing article be trusted? Geo Swan (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the Chambre d'hotes article is too poor to merge, then it is too poor to exist. If you wish to open an AfD request (to replace the merge request) I'd certainly have no objection. Guliolopez (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is too poor to merge, being unsupported by any references that might indicate that it is, essentially, the same subject matter as this article. However, a lack of references is usually not a reason to delete an article, its a reason to improve the article. I see no reason why it couldn't be. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree chambre d'hote is not a familiar term at all and this article should simply be deleted (yes I speak French but my keyboard doesn't). If nothing else the plural is a struggle in English, chambres d'hotes? SimonTrew (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked prod. If it's really desired to talk about French chambres d'hotes then I'll translate the French article as near as practical verbatim. It has three French references, one to the Walloon region of Belgium, and one to Quebec. But I think it's perfectly well covered by Bed and Breakfast as it stands. SimonTrew (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, perhaps I disbeyed protocol by marking prod? If so, no matter, I am sure the prod will be removed. I was translating some other French articles so decided to stop by at the French version of this one, which is *completely different*: see Talk:Chambre d'Hôtes for a fuller explanation. The French Gite article specifically *excludes* chambres d'hôtes as being gites, whereas the English Gite article includes it.
Oppose merge until the confusion in the three English articles (this one, chambre d'hotes and gite) are reconciled. SimonTrew (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's been no more feedback, I went ahead and did the merge, some bits into gite and some into B&B. SimonTrew (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New external link

This request was added to the wrong talk page (The user was following the request to discuss new ELs but the wrong address was given in the article) I've copied it here for viewing by others - X201 (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am keen to add an external link to the Bed_and_Breakfast section which currently has NO external links

www.stay-swaps.com is a new site which has an intention of allowing home owners to trade or swap accommodation and lodging principally bed and breakfast stays.

The site is believed to be unique and is built on principals of home exchange where home owners trade homes at the same time across country or international.

Under a trade of bed and breakfast each party to the trade would trade at different times so some degree of honesty is required.

the web site is free to register offered bed and breakfast stays and those sought, when and where, together with the number of people involved in the trade.

I consider the site and suitable description is sufficiently useful and unique to warrant inclusion in this section.

I welcome comments in support or opposition.

Websi7 (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy statistics

"Since 1879 the average per capita disposable income of Australians has been greater than that of New Zealanders"

I know my economic history, and Australian incomes didn't overtake those of NZ until well after the second world war, not until the 1960s - if not later. At the end of the 1800s, NZers had the highest incomes in the world, ahead of Britain, the USA or Australia.

I have changed the sentence to read "Since the 1960s the average per capita disposable income of Australians has been greater than that of New Zealanders"

121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a link so that it can be added as a citation? As it stands that whole section has a citation needed flag on it and will be deleted if no citations are forthcoming. - X201 (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B&B Directories

Can User:Travelegia please explain the addition of links to various B&B directories. Particularly in relationship to the following.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Associations

In case there are any questions or issues with the removal of the "Trade Association" subsections recently - it was done for several reasons:

  • Contents were universally US focused, and therefore had serious issues under WP:WORLDVIEW. (And were tagged as such for some months)
  • In most cases the listed associations were added for reasons of promotion (in many cases by accounts with apparent WP:COI/WP:SPA issues - the "bnb-network" for example was added by a user who does nothing else OTHER than add references/links to this commercial entity to the project)
  • In most cases the subject of each section had no references supporting notability and therefore had serious issues under WP:VER.
  • In some cases there were external links masquerading as "references" and therefore had serious issues under WP:LINKSPAM.
  • In most cases the wording of the sub-section represented thinly veiled promotion of the organisation. And therefore had serious issues under WP:ADVERT. (Suspect wording included: "members also benefit from a free website", "the network handles all aspects of the room (pricing, advertising, reservations, payment collection etc)". Such wording had little encyclopaedic value and served only as promotion.

The section is (now) much better served describing the concept of self-regulation and rating in general. Rather than dealing with the benefits/details of every single B&B trade association. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM and soapboxing

To the users (with apparent conflict of interest) who insist on using this encyclopedic article as an advocacy platform for the concept of B&Bs in general, or a specific B&B, B&B type, industry group or whatever, I have a simple message: STOP!. Wikipedia has very clear policies on SPAM and soapboxing. Put simply, Wikipedia articles should not be worded to promote advocacy for anything. As such, there is no place in this article for recently added advertising fluff like the following: "a Bed and Breakfast is much, much more", "(B&B's offer) a unique environment of hospitality", "(B&Bs allow enjoyment of a) visit to the fullest, and – perhaps most of all – to leave guests with a memorable visit that will encourage them to come back year after year." This form of commentary, uncited opinion pushing and SPAM fails several Wikipedia guidelines. So stop pushing these agendas and find another medium to promote your business or industry.

Further, editors who insist on including links to "their" B&B industry group or regulatory body I would add this: There are hundreds of such organisations, and this article is no place to list or link them. There is a longstanding agreement here that new links need to be discussed before being added - to specifically avoid this article becoming a spam-ridden linkfarm.

Wikipedia IS NOT A FREE PROMOTIONAL CHANNEL. (We're interested in objective and verifiable encyclopedic content. Not spam.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studies in Overview section

Three new studies that have been added today-- while helpful, do you think

  1. They should have their own section, perhaps nearer the foot of the article?
  2. Or they should be placed into their relevant countries?

They seem to be cluttering the article fairly early in, like before we get to find out what a B&B is we are bombarded with study results.

Suggestions? SimonTrew (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another one added today. Overview is getting bloated, and latest is almost a verbatim copy of the clickz.com article. I think these need to be pared down severely.
It's four times now I've had to go find the references, one for each of these quotes. It would be nice if people could actually add VERIFIABLE references (e.g. a URL at worst). SimonTrew (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. These quotes are not needed and should be paraphrased. Quotes are really only valid when quoting the words of an individual, and they should be shorter. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote style was my doing, as I wanted to separate the quotes out from other text-- perhaps not the right style, but I am sute you see the intent. Now I have split into subsections, the quote can perhaps be removed. However I concur that a lot of chaff can be removed here. After all, we have references.
Nevertheless, I am inclined to move them to their respective countries/regions, since the study findings necessarily are based on the different kinds of B&Bs found in different countries (as the article explains more deeply in subsequent sections). SimonTrew (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links are Further Reading

The External links section which some of you know and love so well (talk here passim) is now all book citations. At the risk of starting a new External links war, should we rename the section to Further Reading or Bibliography or some such (I prefer the former as being simpler)? SimonTrew (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except they're not Further reading. The article is about the subject of Bed & Breakfast. The books are for the most part a list of manuals on how to run a bed and breakfast. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a reading list or a "how to" guide. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why i asked the question rather than just change it. i'm inclined to agree with you though i still am a bit unsatisfied not sure why but if i pin it down i will get back to you. SimonTrew (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird article & odd claims about Aus / NZ B&B

This article seems like a clearing house for research on bed and breakfast choice worldwide. Is that necessary? Does it add to the understanding of what B&Bs are? A lot of the discussion and analysis feels very much like original research.

As well, I feel there's some dodgy use of numbers in the claim that New Zealand has more B&Bs than Australia based on the number listed on one particular website that itself doesn't seem hugely notable. For a scale of comparison, I checked the breakdown by state in Australia and South Australia apparently has 3 B&Bs, compared to NSW with 10, and the remaining 36 all located in Victoria. Now, it may turn out that there are twelve times as many B&Bs in Victoria than there are in South Australia but unless we have a more reliable method, I'm going to put on my skeptic's hat and say that the B&Bs listed on the site are not a random sample of all Australian B&Bs.

I suspect that the nature of B&Bs means that they more than any other accomodation type are going to be underrepresented on the internet.

Finally, speculation about the reasons that a given area has more B&Bs doesn't become acceptable on wikipedia just because your theory is supported by citable evidence - no original research means you can only present theories that have been published elsewhere. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

"Spain does not have a B&B culture like Great Britain."

This is true, we have hostales, hoteles, pensiones, and posadas.

B&B's which are intended for those tourists who only speak English and don't want to mix themselves with the "locals". And on top of that, Spaniards love to have dinner very late! At B&B's we'd have to go to bed with empty stomachs, good grief!

Furthermore, citation [5] is quite offensive and lacks scientific approach. Spaniards shake their heads of when they see people behaving like in their own country and not respecting the way of life of the hosting country.

So, why not mentioning that some British expats, or locals - who understand this market - open up B&B for English tourists who don't actually like to be abroad, but do it because of the weather? --217.154.84.2 (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bed & Breakfast (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bed_and_breakfast"