Talk:Grand old hotels Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

Should we attempt to give a more concrete definition to "grand old"? I'd say 100 years old and still a five-star as rated by the government should be the minimum criteria. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:48, 16 April 2006 (EDT)

Maybe. I think that would knock out the Queens in Kandy, which one site I saw rated 3-star. (WT-en) Pashley 08:50, 16 April 2006 (EDT)

Yeah, some of the grand ol' are great just cause of their slight shabbiness! I'd hate to exclude them... and the age limit would exclude some of the 75-100 year olders like the Waldorf Astoria. Or maybe that's intentional? (WT-en) Majnoona 09:17, 16 April 2006 (EDT)

That's why I'm trying to find the proper limit to sort out the wheat from the chaff here, we don't want the list to become too huge... how about over 75 years old and must have been a 5-star? 202.156.2.43 11:10, 16 April 2006 (EDT)

Have we decided to be on this list that the hotel has to have been five stars? The Cincinnatian Hotel is a grand hotel, however, I do not think it has ever been rated five stars. It's currently four stars. (WT-en) Sapphire 22:20, 18 April 2006 (EDT)

How about we drop the five star and just state "luxury hotel" instead. The hotel must be suitably grand to qualify... (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:01, 19 April 2006 (EDT)

I'd say it has to have once been the place to stay in the city, where "once" refers to some time before World War II and "the place" implies that there will usually be only one of these per city. (WT-en) Pashley 05:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

I actually like Pashley's definition the best so far, but I'd like to add an (arbitrary) time limit too. Must have been opened before World War II? (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:59, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

That would exclude the Grand Hotel in Taipei, which is currently on the list although its web site says it was opened in 1952. I'm not all sure it should be excluded, though. Anyone know it well enough to comment? (WT-en) Pashley 08:29, 21 February 2008 (EST)

I'd say keep the definition, but keep the Grand Hotel Taipei as a rare exception to the rule. It was built at the very start of the ROC's political life and most definitely serves the purpose of Taiwan's "grand old hotel." And I've been there, and can say the experience was marvelous. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:45, 21 February 2008 (EST)

What is the best format for location names here?

I would not make the country a link because it seems irrelevant here, so for example I'd have:

• Luxor, Egypt —

Current format always makes the country a link.

Also, I'd include country only if it seems likely the reader won't know it, so I'd have:

• Hong Kong —
• Tokyo—
• Taipei —

because it seems silly to tell people Tokyo is in Japan, and unnecessarily controversial to say Taipei is in China. I want to keep the listings simple. Current format always has country.

What do others think? (WT-en) Pashley 22:17, 18 April 2006 (EDT)

I'd like to keep the countries for consistency. Not everybody knows where Taipei is ("it's the capital of Tailand, right?") (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:01, 19 April 2006 (EDT)

OK, I put some countries back in. But I still don't think they should be links. Anyone care to comment before I "fix" that? (WT-en) Pashley 05:18, 3 May 2006 (EDT) Jani and Andrew,

I do not now recall whether I unlinked the countries back then. Most are currently linked & I still want to unlink them. Any comments? Pashley (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

No comment after many years or several days depending which question above you count from. I have started making the changes. Pashley (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

New Note to Jani and Andrew,

Seems to me that “the Wikivoyage vision is a project to create a complete, up-to-date, and reliable world-wide travel guide, with a destination guides and other articles written and edited by people from around the globe to share their ideas, values, and knowledge to enrich the context of the website.” Therefore, I see no reason why two persons feel the right to change or delete valuable contributions without justified criteria. Please re-read your own recently dated notes where you state the hotels included in the Grand Old Hotels must have been opened before WWII, not over 75 years old to qualify hereby re-copy.

I'd say it has to have once been the place to stay in the city, where "once" refers to some time before World War II and "the place" implies that there will usually be only one of these per city. Pashley 05:15, 3 May 2006 (EDT) I actually like Pashley's definition the best so far, but I'd like to add an (arbitrary) time limit too. Must have been opened before World War II? Jpatokal 02:59, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

Now, you both email me that the hotels feature in this article need to be famous and over 75 years old to qualify: The Hacienda Chichen meets this new standard of yours; however a new requirement and criteria you both choose tomorrow may be the reason you delete or block other peoples inputs.

Thus, I politely request you respect and allow people’s valuable contributions to enrich the text of Wikivoyage information. Like you, we do have something of value to share that indeed qualifies the article’s intented information and data. Be advice that The Hacienda Chichen is a 16th Century Colonial Landmark, of great importance in Mexico and Yucatan’s Spanish Conquest History. Spaniards built this feudal state complex, known as an Hacienda, with original Maya carved stones taken from Chichen Itza, the most important and powerful Maya site, as a sign to the Maya people that the Spanish Kings now had the power over the Maya civilization, political affairs and religion. (First “unique” historic data). Then, in the late 19th Century, the Hacienda Chichen became “the place to stay” for explores when visiting the Maya Temples of Chichen Itza. A few years later, the Hacienda Chichen became the headquaters of the Carnigie Institute’s Maya Expedition, under the direction of archaeologist S. Morley. By then, the Hacienda Chichen had become the place to stay for scholars, visitors and diplomatic personalities interested in the study and reconstroction efforts of the Maya temples. The Hacienda Chichen was bought in the early 1930s by Mexico’s Pioneer of Tourism, Mr. Fernando Barbachano Peon to converted in a hotel open to the general public. Today, The Hacienda Chichen has a serene elegance and unique ambiance reflecting the Colonial simple decor of Yucatan. Many original Maya Temples and Old Chichen (under current recostruction by INAH) archaeological site are part of this protected private property. Please visit the hotel’s website to read about the Geo-Tourism program stablished in the property, along with a strong commitment to reforest and protect a private Maya Jungle Reserve that houses many endanger endemic animal species, flora and the natural habitat to protect our Bird Refuge. If this information does not meet your criteria, I am sure it will find many Wikivoyage visitors' approval and recognition. So please let me know if you can kindly agree not to delete my contribution. After all Jani acknowledge that everybody is equal on Wikivoyage and to keep the talk in this page.... (Herre)

> Greetings, > > Yes, I saw your message. Basically, my view is that the list should be > limited to famous hotels that have been operating for a long time -- the > issue is, has Hacienda Chichen been operating *as a hotel* for 100 or > even 75 years? But everybody is equal on Wikivoyage, let's continue > this discussion on the Talk page... > > Cheers, > -jani

Kindly honor our request to return the text entered July 9th, 2006 for The Hacienda Chichen Resort, which according to your own expressed definition of grand old hotel criteria, the hotel is well qualified. Hacienda Chichen Resort is a 16th Century Colonial landmark, built during the Spanish Conquest of Mexico with ancient Maya temple stones from Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. The hotel is rated as a five star hotel by the government and many members of the Tourist Industry. You will find Hacienda Chichen Resort featured in many art books and magazines. Since travel websites can place incorrect star rating, do check and judge thoroughly our website and guests comments at www.haciendachichen.com

Hacienda Chichen is not just and "old building" as you stated in your reverting note. The hotel deserves inclusion in this article; so kindly reconsider your position and honor our request to return the text entered July 9th, 2006. [User:Herre]

I'm sure it's a fine hotel and that it's in an old building. However, I think that a grand old hotel must have been in operation for a long time (75+ years), and I don't think Hacienda Chichen qualifies for this. Other opinions welcome. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:59, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

Agreed, unless the Hacienda Chichen (Sorry for calling it "Chicken") has been in operation longer than 75 years I don't think it counts. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 03:07, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

Herre, no one is trying to arbitrarily lock this hotel out of being featured here. The problem is that when this page was started, the people who created it had an intuitive understanding of the kind of hotels they were talking about, and assumed that other people would have the same understanding, so they didn't define it very carefully. What's happening now is that they're trying to explain the idea more clearly and precisely. Picking an age limit for it is just an attempt to help people understand what kind of place a "grand old hotel" would be. For one thing, being listed here as a "grand old hotel" isn't an honor or even an endorsement. Most of these places are (quite frankly) living on their past glory, priced higher than they deserve to be, and showing their age. What certain people find appealing about them is the nostalgia of what they (used to) represent: an era when the sun didn't set on the British Empire, the upper-class travelled the world on luxurious steamships, and there was really only one place in each major city of the world where a person of proper social standing (e.g. a Rockefeller, a Saxe-Coburg) would consider staying, where they could live in the manner to which they were accustomed back home, and they could count on someone at the bar knowing how to make a proper martini. Chichen Itza – in the jungle, far from any "important" trading port – is more the kind of place an explorer of that era – not an aristocrat or industrialist – would have visited. Your own description of the hotel's history backs that up: Andrew Carnegie didn't sleep here; his archaeologist did. (Note: This isn't an insult; the archaeologist is the kind of person I'd rather to meet at the hotel bar.) And it sounds like it'd be more appealing to people because it's a remote and exotic but classy tropical resort rather than being promoted as the Yucatan's version of an urban Victorian mansion like the Savoy. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:29, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

Hmm. Actually, after reading Herre's detailed history, I would now be OK with keeping the hotel here. True, it's not quite what we had in mind, but it certainly does seem to have a history and has been around for a while. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:24, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

I actually started this page. The two hotels I was mainly thinking of were Raffles and the Winter Palace in Luxor, the latter mainly because of the archeologists who stayed there. The discovery of King Tut's tomb was first announced on the bulletin board in their lobby. As for Raffles, aristocrats and millionaires probably stayed there, but it is Kipling and Noel Coward that impress me. (WT-en) Pashley 22:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Does the Cosmopolitan (ex-Metropolitan, opened in 1928) really qualify as a grand old hotel? It's in horrible shape now and never seemed to be quite on a par with the Al Gezira Palace (=Marriott) or Mena Oberoi to begin with. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:09, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

I believe there's also a hotel from this category which are on a central square in Athens and Brussels, but I can't remember their names now. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:21, 16 February 2007 (EST)

I just deleted this entry:

• Seoul, South Korea - Lotte Hotel [1] <-- opened 78/79 - does it qualify for this list? -->

It does not seem to me to belong here. Might be quite a nice hotel, maybe even grand, but not a grand old hotel. (WT-en) Pashley 22:17, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

The Westin Chosun, est. 1914, fits the bill better, methinks. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:52, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

Phonecia was glorious, but I've heard it's gone downhill a bit since Le Meridian sold it ... Can anyone say anything about this having experienced it both before and after? It would be sad to see it fall into ruin.

I believe there are two substantial omissions from your current list: The Imperial Hotel in Delhi and the Metropole in Hanoi. Both are glorious colonial era hotels with much character.

Well add them then!--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:08, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

I took this out:

• Victoria - The Oak Bay Beach Hotel

Web search shows it is new. Pashley (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Hotel Ukraina in Moscow and the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal are not exactly that old. I have already removed the latter since it was only opened in 1958. However, I do recognise that it is historically significant for being Canada's last grand railway hotel, so if the consensus is to make an exception because of this, I'm happy to have it added back in. Similarly, the Hotel Ukraina was only opened in 1957, but I am aware of its history of being personally commissioned by Stalin as a luxury hotel for the capital, so it is also historically significant and iconic. So should we keep both these hotels off the list, or should we make exceptions for them like we did for the Grand Hotel Taipei? The dog2 (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd keep both, the QE because we have a list of the railway hotels & this belongs on it. Pashley (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, sure. Go ahead and restore it then. Maybe we should add Tokyo's Hotel Okura to the list as an exception since it's a historically significant 1950s hotel. The dog2 (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I restored the QE. Did not add Ukrainia or Okura since I don't know those regions. Pashley (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Re: This claim about the Parker House Hotel in Boston, opened in 1855:

"The oldest continuously operating hotel in the USA"

The Beekman Arms in Rhinebeck, New York, claims to be the oldest operating inn in the U.S., and probably is the oldest continuously operating one, having been established in 1766. Do we really consider inns and hotels clearly different in kind? The Beekman Arms is basically a hotel with a restaurant in all but name. I think the claim about the Parker House Hotel should be edited. I also wonder whether the Beekman Arms and other classic inns with more than a few rooms (the Beekman has 23) do or don't belong in this article. I could see the argument for exclusion, as part of the grandness of a grand hotel is its size. But anyway, your views on "oldest"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's almost a year and no-one has addressed this. I am going to delete the claim within 24 hours unless someone objects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added "Claims to be". Pashley (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I forgot all about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Would it be beneficial to add wikidata and perhaps maps to the hotels? In that way we could display them similar to port cities in the article Ferries in the Mediterranean (but perhaps a bit more structured).

A listing would look something like this:

• Alexandria - 31.200829.89841 Cecil Hotel

--Jonte-- (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata would be useful. Most of these hotels should have Wikipedia entries. But why does the link in the example, and the links in the listings in the article, go to the hotel's website? By instead linking the listing in the destination article, we avoid the need to update the link in two places as it changes (this page would mostly be forgotten, I think), and the traveller would get directly to our information on the hotel, including the updated external link:

• 31.200829.89842 Steigenberger Cecil Hotel (Alexandria; central location). One of Alexandria's two grand old hotels. The old wire-cage lift conjures period charm but it's basically a modern hotel.  

–LPfi (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Or, to keep closer to the current format:

* Alexandria – 31.200829.89843 Steigenberger Cecil Hotel. One of Alexandria's two grand old hotels. The old wire-cage lift conjures period charm but it's basically a modern hotel.  

–LPfi (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with LPfi. Many listings in this article currently link to the hotel web page, but it would be better to have them link to our listing in a destination article. If a grand old hotel is not listed there, it would be good to add a listing. Pashley (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I went through some sections, replacing the external link with one to the listing, sometimes amending the description. Finding the listing was sometimes difficult, as I had to guess in what district to find it, for towns I don't know. I gave up on one hotel (not listed? different name?) and made no try on Paris, where I assume there are several districts with grand old hotels.

This shows that we should do something about our advice on how to write articles on huge cities, and perhaps other types of articles. I have seen it before, with See and Do listings: the district isn't mentioned in the See or Do (in this case: Sleep) section, and the attraction isn't mentioned in the Districts sections. I think any attraction mentioned in the main article should have a link to the district where the listing is found, perhaps to the listing itself. Better district description would sometimes help, but that's not straight-forward and not a definitive solution.

–LPfi (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Map of Grand old hotels

I think that using {{sleep ...}} for all hotels is not such a good idea. After marker 99 all markers have 99. We should use colors, with these possibilities:

• 0111 black. 
• 0121 blue. 
• 0131 brown. 
• 0141 chocolate. 
• 0151 forestgreen (South America). 
• 0161 gold. 
• 0171 gray (Asia). 
• 0181 grey (Europe). 
• 0191 lime. 
• 0201 magenta. 
• 0211 maroon. 
• 0221 mediumaquamarine. 
• 0231 navy. 
• 0241 orange. 
• 0251 plum. 
• 0261 purple. 
• 0271 red. 
• 0281 royalblue. 
• 0291 silver (Africa). 
• 0301 steelblue (Oceania). 
• 0311 teal (North America). 

--FredTC (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's a problem when the number of listings is great, which probably wasn't anticipated. I think the number of listings is about 200, so 3–5 colours would be enough. Is there anything that could be told by the colours, or should we just use different colours by continent? What about age? –LPfi (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking about colors by continent. It is easy to implement by search/replace operations. FredTC (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's the simplest way. Perhaps that should be implemented right away, with more elaborate schemes considered later, if somebody has a good idea and wants to spend the time needed. I'd like similar colours, for a more harmonious map, especially as the colours in this case serves no real purpose. Also, if one wants to have some listings stand out later, then it is easier if other listings are more neutral. We could use blue, royalblue and steelblue for Europe, Africa and Asia, teal for the Americas (most listings are in the United States and Canada anyway, so little is gained by two colours) and mediumaquamarine for Oceania. –LPfi (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion:

• 10152 gray (Asia). 
• 10172 grey (Europe). 
• 10192 silver (Africa). 
• 10212 teal (North America). 
• 10232 forestgreen (South America). 
• 10252 steelblue (Oceania). 

--FredTC (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is a pretty cool idea, but the colors aren't as easily differentiated as I might hope they'd be. The teal for North America and steelblue for Oceania look particularly close when I see the map with pins for Cuba and Australia. Mrkstvns (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was using the remark by LPfi: "I'd like similar colours" for the suggestion above. However, the colors for N-America, S-America and Oceania are still quite stark contrasting with the gray, grey and silver for Europe, Africa and Asia. Would it be wrong (or even not allowed) to use wrong "type=" values that all result in the color of type=silver? In that case I would suggest "type=asia", "type=euro", etc. for such wrong "type=" values, what would make the wiki-code easy to understand when editing. Example: 20151 type=aisa.  --FredTC (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

My new suggestion:

• 20153 gray (Asia&Oceania). 
• 20173 grey (Africa&Europe). 
• 20193 silver (The Americas). 

This limits the number of colors to 3 color names and only 2 really different colors for the markers. The choice for areas is 3x a west to east area, each area north to south. It is a very simple search/replace edit, so I made the edit now. --FredTC (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:FredTC's last suggestion has been implemented & is mostly fine, but it seems likely to run into problems soon.

There are now over 90 numbered listings for Africa&Europe, plus enough that do not yet have numbers to push it over 99 if they get numbers. I think we need to make Africa a different colour immediately.

The Americas have over 50 numbered listings now & there are over 30 in the US that are likely to get numbers when someone gets around to formatting those listings. This may not become a problem, but I suggest we give the two continents different colours just to be safe.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happier with more distinct colours. Using both grey & gray seems crazy, though related colours for nearby continents would make sense. Perhaps gray & silver for Europe & Asia? Royal blue & steel blue for the two Americas? Something distinct from those -- red, green, black or purple -- for Africa & Oceania? Pashley (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

My idea is that we don't need colors, but solve the problem of not having marker numbers >99. Do we really have users who would say: "Oh look, that part of the map has all markers with the color 'Royal blue', so that must be North America"? I would be happier with having more names for the #808080 color (now used for do, gray and grey), like gray1, gray2 ... gray9, which would make all markers in this article the same color. --FredTC (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

For the time being, we could change Africa from "grey" to "gray", to avoid the 99-problem that is close to come now. --FredTC (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

After using the edit listing dialog, the wikicode is reformatted. The compact single line hotel listing then becomes a multi line listing in the wiki-source. This does not happen if we use the marker template for the listings. Should we switch to using marker? --FredTC (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is the multi-line listing a problem? The listing editor tries to format the listings in the standard way, to make them easily editable. Is this an exception, where we want a more compact format? Should we have two types of listings, where one is compact and the other not? Is the marker format the one to go for in the former cases? –LPfi (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is no problem for me, but I was thinking about mobile editors who have to scroll through up to 8x the amount of text lines. --FredTC (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think this is something that should be handled by a more general discussion. For me, finding the right field in the compact listings, often with fields in non-standard order, is difficult. One solution to limit scrolling is to have subsections by country as needed to keep the lists short. Is a nine-bullet list hard to handle on mobile? –LPfi (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I said, it is no problem for me (I never edit mobile). Having a === header for each country would limit the number of listings one sees in mobile edit, but that would not work for Canada and the US as it is now. Maybe a ==== header per state/province? I guess a nine-bullet list with each listing having 8 lines of text must be OK for mobile editors. FredTC (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I see it, we are making lists of these hotels, so we should obviously use the listing template which is designed for that. The marker template is designed for a different case, when something is mentioned in text but needs geo tagging so it will be marked on the map. Pashley (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the use of listing templates, but I have seen many edits where a marker was used where I expected a listing. So I had the impression that it is common practice to use both in the same list. It also happens often that a {{see ...}} is changed into a text containing a marker. And because I saw this way of editing, I thought that to prevent one listing that occupies just one line of text in wiki-sourcecode become eight lines of text, the use of markers could be better to maintain the list. --FredTC (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The companies that own these hotels prepend their names so it's "Mandarin Oriental Hyde Park London", "Sofitel Winter Palace", "Fairmont Chateau Laurier", etc. No doubt corporate marketers think that is a fine idea & it might be useful to travellers who have a loyalty card or just prefer a particular chain. WP is not entirely consistent, but often has the longer name as its article title. In speech, though, it is the "Hyde Park Hotel" or the "Winter Palace" & most people in Ottawa would just say "the Chateau".

Which names should we use as titles for listings? I'd say "Hyde Park Hotel", "Winter Palace", "Chateau Laurier", etc. The longer names can be used as alt= text, if at all. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think we should ignore the chain names, unless they were used from the start (or if that's the name people use nowadays). We might mention the scheme somewhere in Understand, for readers not to get confused, but there is seldom any need for the chain name for recognising the Grand Hotel of some city. Those with loyalty cards should be told the chain in the content field of the main listing (in the destination article). –LPfi (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The content field seems like a good place. The focus of the articles is the historic nature of the hotels, not the current branding. Ground Zero (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

In a listing like this:

• 22.295292114.1715314 The Peninsula (Hong Kong, China).  

In this example there is an internal link at "name=" and an external link by using "url=". In that case the external link does not show up (could Pashley also have a look at this?). FredTC (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that is OK. The visible link is the one we want, to the listing in the destination article. There is no reason to delete the external link here, though it is not displayed; it is likely worth checking that the linked listing includes it.

Modifying the software to display both links would be possible, but I am not sure it is necessary & it certainly does not seem urgent. Pashley (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the following modification of the listing gives a better result.

• 22.295292114.1715315 The Peninsula (Hong Kong, China).  

I think modifying the software to display both, makes it hard to use in mobile view, unless a clickable symbol like would be used for access to the linked website. --FredTC (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think it was last year that the listing template was revamped, and the URL was no more shown for names with an internal link. There were some doubts about that but no protests. Do we need both links here? The website is available via the full listing in the destination article, and we probably want our readers to check what we have to say before they go to the hotel's site. The only problem I see (on desktop, at least) is that a need of updating the address might not be obvious for those who have watchlisted this article but not the destination one. –LPfi (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the current situation is fine; the important internal link is shown & we need not care that the external link is not. It belongs in the linked listing rather than here.

FredTC writes "I think the following modification of the listing gives a better result." I disagree rather vehemently. That hides the important link under directions= where I doubt many users will find it. Pashley (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I could not find statistics, but my guess is that 99% of the cases where the resulting text of a name= is clickable, you go to the website of that object and not to another Wikivoyage article. So, I think it is quite confusing for the average user that in the list in this article the links do not go to the website of the hotel. --FredTC (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

That has to do with the decision to keep the full listings in lowest-level destination articles. When people want to know more about the hotel they click the hotel name; the question is whether we want them to go to the hotel website or to our listing, and I think we want the latter. If the name links to the listing, as it does here, they might get surprised, but they won't get confused. If they want to, they can then click the name in the destination article to reach the hotel site. Linking a hotel with the link text "Hong Kong", on the other hand, is indeed confusing and obscure. We could have both links here, as we did before, but there was a conscious decision to restrict what we show in articles like this. –LPfi (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have been changing many of these to the format that makes the name a link to a listing in the destination article. The job is nowhere near done & I'm bored with it. Would anyone else care to pitch in? Some people have already, but it needs a lot of work. Pashley (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to delete the listing here since Jakarta/Central#Hotel Indonesia Kempinski says it was built for the 1962 Olympics. Other opinions? Is there another Jakarta hotel that might replace it here? Pashley (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I remember my parents and I stayed in a luxurious Dutch colonial hotel in Pematangsiantar in 1976. I don't remember the name and wonder if it's still there. By the way, we used to stay in the Hotel Majestic in Kuala Lumpur. It was closed in 1983 but was refurbished and reopened in 2012. I'm surprised it's not listed at Kuala Lumpur/Brickfields and Bangsar#Sleep, and wouldn't it be appropriate to list it here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Actually, per the photos on this page, the Hotel Majestic looks pretty different from the colonial-era hotel I stayed at in the mid 70s, so we shouldn't list it here. But it should be listed in that KL district article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is listed here & links to Kuala_Lumpur/Botanical_Garden#The_Majestic_Hotel. Pashley (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Since it's directly across the street from the old railway station, I would have expected it to be in the same article as the one about that station. I see I was confused by KL Sentral being mentioned correctly as the main railway station in Kuala Lumpur#Districts, whereas the old main railway station is not mentioned in that section. It looks like that station is covered in Kuala Lumpur/Old City Centre. Shall we add a mention of it in Kuala Lumpur#Districts? I'll try to remember to add a bit of history to the listing for the Hotel Majestic, as it played important roles in Malaysian history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, go ahead. The dog2 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Some of these hotels have a traditional names, as well as an international chain name. Do we need a policy for which name to use? A similar issue appears with sponsor-named stadiums. See Wikivoyage talk:Trademarks for a policy proposal. /Yvwv (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

See also #Chain names above. Pashley (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hotel Reykjavík Grand can be considered for inclusion, but historic information is difficult to find. The hotel is certainly younger than World War II; but we could make an exception if it has proven legacy as a prestige hotel. Is there more to know about the hotel? /Yvwv (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Grand_old_hotels#Central_Europe lists "Grand Hotel Bohemia" & closest match in Prague articles is Prague/Old_Town_and_Josefov#Grand Hotel Praha. Are those the same hotel? Pashley (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hotel Indonesia, photographed at dusk; December 2014.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

No FoP in Indonesia. Do we want this photo? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Probably. It's a good photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The photo is not actually used on our page, only as it says above "or its Wikidata item". If it were used here, there are many other photos we could replace it with.

I want to oppose deletion anyway, but cannot find good grounds to. Pashley (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We can host it locally, but I don't see how it can be hosted at Commons. The current law was enacted before the photo was taken. I haven't studied the law and there may be some specific reason to allow it, but I doubt. –LPfi (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We now use File:Bunderan Hotel Indonesia Jakarta.JPG (showing the "Hotel Indonesia roundabout" according to the caption) in Jakarta/Central#Sleep. That image is probably safe, as the hotel isn't the main focus. There could be more images in the section, but hardly two showing the same hotel. –LPfi (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

LPfi, haven't we recently had this discussion? You are one of at least two admins who have been confused about how Wikivoyage treats fair use. Please reread Wikivoyage:Non-free content as soon as possible so that you don't make statements like this again. The whole point of fair use is that when it's important to do so, we host photos locally that are OK except that commercial freedom of panorama is not allowed, and we include a warning on the file page that commercial use is not allowed and if done, anyway, is at the sole risk of the user. If our policy were different, we would not be able to show any individual buildings in articles for modern cities like Abu Dhabi that have no freedom of panorama and would not be able to show landmark copyrighted public art in countries like the U.S., such as the Bean in Chicago! And Pashley, et al.: this photo is used in the Jakarta article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek, I am confused. Didn't I say we can host it? We can because of fair use rules. But to be able to do that it has to be in use, this article has plenty of images and the destination article (Jakarta/Central) already has another image of this hotel. I didn't check Jakarta. OK, it's there, and then fine, we can host it (I already downloaded it to be able to upload it locally without bothering the Commons folks). I checked the deletion discussion but trusted the Commons page on Indonesian FoP (raising objections for one or two others of the nominated images). So what have I done wrong or not been doing? –LPfi (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry; I misread your post. You are right: Commons cannot host these photos because Indonesia has a form of freedom of panorama that excludes commercial use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

[edit conflict] Ah, I said the other image is "safe". Was that the issue? It wasn't very relevant, because of the fair use provision; I just said it as a parenthetic comment, which it seems I should have kept unsaid or clarified.

[addition] So it was easy to misread my comment, and you now understood me correctly.

–LPfi (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's probably where I got confused about your views on fair use here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Of the three great hotels of Tokyo The Imperial Hotel and Hotel Okura are said to have been rebuilt (1970 and 2019) and Hotel New Otani to have been built 1964. They seem to be grand, but are they old grand hotels? Are they just made to "feel the same", which usually is an overstatement at best. If a grand old hotel is demolished and replaced with a new one, under what circumstances is the new one in scope? Do these hotels have the appeal of old grand hotels: "old fashioned fittings, the lack of the latest amenities, and a certain graceful agedness" (as we tell in the lead)? It seems unlikely for a hotel built 2019 (and as unlikely for those of the 1960s and 1970s, I think, as that was a time when the future was in focus, at least over here). –LPfi (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I haven't gone back to Hotel Okura since they rebuilt it, the original building did evoke a feel to being transported back to the days of Japan's Postwar economic boom. It would have been one of the places to stay for celebrities back in those days. The dog2 (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jpatokal: Any thoughts on this? The dog2 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to the hidden text, hotels built past World War II would only be included as cases of exception. How renowned is the concept of the "Three Great Hotels"? Do these hotels have a prestige and reputation beyond any business hotel? Tokyo already has a couple of other hotels which clear the age limit. /Yvwv (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not as familiar with the New Ohtani, but the Imperial Hotel and the Hotel Okura have a certain level of prestige attached to them that other hotels in Tokyo don't, much like the Grand Hotel in Taipei. @ChubbyWimbus, Hnishy63, JRHorse: You guys are familiar with Japan, so any thoughts on this? The dog2 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The New Otani was built for the 1964 Olympics if I recall correctly, and has been noted for hosting many different heads of state since its opening. However, timewise it definitely does not have as long as a history as the other two. I am not sure if the New Otani really belongs on this list. It would probably be better to list the hotels in Japan's Top 3, though I'm not sure whether or not that would be considered touting. Otherwise I'd remove the New Otani from Grand Old Hotels and leave the other two, perhaps referencing something to the likes of "two of the top three." JRHorse (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the first place, Western-style hotels were newcomers to Japan - ryokan is the traditional lodging, some of which date back to the 8th century. So "relatively grand and old in the area" is enough, I think. --Hnishy63 (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)"Reply

Due to earthquakes and WW2 bombing there are very few structures in Tokyo older than 100 years, but the gosanke (Imperial, Okura and New Otani) are indisputably Tokyo's grand old hotels just the same. It's also worth noting that while the building of the New Otani is comparatively new, it incorporates a 400-year-old garden from the samurai estate it's built on. Jpatokal (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Frank Lloyd Wright's Imperial Hotel was very famous, but the new hotel seems quite modern. If none of Japan's hotels actually meet the criteria to be considered true Grand Old Hotels, we don't have to force it. We could just state that Japan once had a few Grand Old Hotels but they were destroyed and the current versions are relatively modern (and include the garden information that JPatokal mentions above). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Imperial Hotel is Japan's oldest and grandest hotel, period, no forcing needed. I also don't think we need to fixate on the age of the physical building, it's much more about the continuity and importance of the hotel. Jpatokal (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Imperial Hotel is definitely not Japan's oldest hotel, but I think the descriptions there now read fine. My comment about "not forcing it" was in response to the concerns about age as part of the criteria for listings. If everyone accepts "continuity and importance" as the criteria rather than age, then there isn't much to question. The current descriptions also list the ages of the curren buildings for anyone whom age might matter. Seems alright to me, but if it conflicts with the criteria in the hidden text, it might be worth making the "continuity and importance" part clearer there. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jpatokal: Do you think the Rex Hotel and Caravelle Hotel in Ho Chi Minh City should be listed? They are not colonial hotels like the Majestic or the Continental, but both played important roles during the Vietnam War. The Rex was where the U.S. military held their daily press briefings, while the Caravelle housed the local bureaus of major American news channels, and the embassies of Australia and New Zealand. The dog2 (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had the same thought, but I'd say no: they're famous, but neither grand nor old. Probably worth an infobox in the HCMC Sleep section though. Jpatokal (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jpatokal: And have you been to the Hotel Grand Saigon recently? Would it be grand enough to be included on this list? Also, I was thinking if the Dalat Palace Hotel in Da Lat qualifies for listing. I don't know how grand it is today. The dog2 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

They would be good as entries to the Indochina Wars article. /Yvwv (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply