Template talk:Infobox hotel

Ratings: Stars vs. Diamonds
While hotel ratings have commonly been rated both officially and un-officially using stars to denote the quality of a hotel property, may I also suggest adding another optional field for the Diamonds rating system. Diamonds are, arguably, used just as widespread as the stars system is. The diamonds and stars system are the most internationally well-known rating systems for hotels. In some countries, diamonds may be the preferred rating system whereas the stars are strictly a voluntary system. In addition, the diamond rating system also has considerable notierity via its extensive use through international AAA organizations. As this would also be an optional field that wouldn't be displayed unless a value is entered, I don't think it would hurt. Any thoughts? Luke! 05:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try and change the box to accommodate this. Ohconfucius 08:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite concerned with the diamond/star section of this infobox. First, most of the time I see this infobox used, there is an assertion that the hotel has x stars or diamonds, without any source whatsoever (nothing in the article either), directly contrary to WP:V.  At a minimum, the star/diamond references need to be removed where there is no source.  But, more fundamentally, even in cases where there is a source, I wonder how encyclopedic this information is.  There is no international standard, and standards differ even within countries and among organizations.  The inclusion of stars and diamonds in the infobox gives rise to considerable reliability, neutrality, self promotion and spam concerns. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

General Manager/Manager
Would it be possible to include a field for the manager of a hotel?-- Matthew Edwards 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are General Managers generally notable enough for a field? Luke! 05:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be exceptions, but I don't think these are generally notable at all. Ohconfucius 08:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia, however, can display statistics, so it does belong. "WP:Not a travel guide" isn't an excuse on this one, especially when it's not even at WP:NOT, even though I wouldn't try to argue that Wikipedia is a travel guide. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is doubtful that star or diamond awards constitute "statistics". It doesn't really matter, however, because information of any kind that gives rise to the concerns set out above is usually not permitted on Wikipedia, and there is certainly no "all statistics are acceptable" rule.  And,  "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" is in fact found at WP:NOT.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Diligent Terrier, hotel star ratings are not in any way "statistics". They are completely subjective, inconsistent quality ratings which are in many cases simply self-awarded. They do not meet Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability, reliable sourcing, and neutral point of view, and do not belong in articles (or infoboxes). Number of rooms, floor area, date opened, etc., are statistics. Star ratings are unverifiable opinion.  --MCB (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Before I take up this discussion, do you contend that this is not canvassing? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


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

Diligent Terrier, letting another editor know that someone else has undone a change they made after consensus on a talk page is hardly "canvassing". (In any case, I had already seen the change, since I watch the template page.) It would be better if you just stated your point of view in a straightforward manner. --MCB (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


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

Both stars and diamonds are given by a third party, as are Nobel prizes awards. News organizations cover both. Diamonds are given by the American Automobile Association. - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is just going in circles. I'm not going to continue to discuss a point with someone who obviously can't be bothered reading, or understanding, any of the comments above.  Suffice it to say, there is no consensus at this time to include star or diamond ratings in the infobox.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While I do see the inherent problems, some third-party rating systems are better or more notable than others. I don't disagree with removing these 'stars' or 'diamonds' from the infoboxes, cause they are now fairly meaningless and the system is quite abused in guide books and is debased. However, if we were to talk about the catering world, certainly the Michelin star is notable and appears to be highly coveted, but not entirely free of controversy. I have no position on this as yet, but who amongst you would feel if one be justified in having a restaurant infobox with number of Michelin stars as a field? Ohconfucius (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Michelin stars are definitely notable facts, are verifiable, and are widely discussed in reliable sources; they definitely belong in Wikipedia. But they are sufficiently rare (as a percentage of all restaurants, even ones with articles) that I'd say the place to put them is in the article body, not in an infobox. They are more of a notable award than a simple rating, and it's probably not useful to make something an infobox field where it will only be populated in a tiny percentage of articles with the infobox. --MCB (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

About the merge with template:infobox building
At TfD, it has been concluded that this template is to be merged with Infobox building. Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_20. I have done some research on how to do it.

Parameters not yet addressed in :

Parameters mapped to : (Note:
 * name  = hotel_name Means: param present but with different name
 * image = = Means: param with same name)



So, there are 37 params to be mapped. 20 are same named, 7 are renamed, and 9 are not yet mappable and 1 is fixed (coord type=landmark). Now how to proceed?


 * 1) We first need to solve the mapping of the nine not mappable params. One could either add them to infobox building (not recommended), or make another solution (add generic usable rows to the infobox?, e.g. adding free to use "label70=" and "data70=" to the template?).
 * 2) For the renamed params, we'd need a translating template (keep infobox hotel?), or rename them in the articles (sweep). Changing the receiving tenmplate to accept alternative names is not recommended.
 * 3) Only the 20 same named params are OK for merging silently.

The Infobox building also accepts subtemplates as child (see for example Chrysler Building using ). That would require the infobox hotel to stay alive, and probably as a stand alone one too. We'd use it in the infobox building for specific hotel data. Note that the infobox building already accepts a location map with marker. As long as we don't want to change the too heavily for this (rightly so, see below), the merge looks impossible. Using some infobox hotel as a subtemplate might work, but that is not a merge and needs a good look at the template.
 * Alternative route
 * Conclusion for now

There are many more templates with the same situation: Category:Buildings and structures infobox templates. A Merge outcome could be applicable to many of them. They probably all have the same problems: different names, unmappable specific params, and generally intricate difficulties (e.g. with the map). to rethink the Merge outcome somehow, and try to get a general line for these situations. -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or redo the TfD discussion
 * I propose
 * Let's address the problematic ones.
 * logo              = For the logo ones, this is something that most modern buildings have and is in many cases as unique as the building and it a common way of identifying the building.  So migrating these three to the main template may be a long overdue update.
 * logo_width        =
 * logo_caption      =
 * coordinates_type  = (always "=landmark" in infobox building) ; I'm not convinced that this should always be landmark since not every building is a landmark in the way this is intended.  I don't think that forcing this to landmark for all hotels would be a problem.
 * chain             = (same as owner?, i.e. only one is used?) ; current_tenants would probably be a better fit.  Most of these buildings are owned by some LLC or other corporate entity and the hotel itself is the brand on the building and the operator.
 * closing_date      = Not sure. If you look at hotels, they move into a building and begin operations.  So what does closing date mean?  The date that the building ceases to function as a hotel?  The date the building ceases to function for a certain chain?  So this could be one that many be better dropped
 * developer         = owner?  Generally the person who develops the property is the first owner for all buildings.  It is interesting that this is not in the main template.  I'd vote that this does in fact belong there along with all of the other information about the buildings construction
 * operator          = (landlord?) ; I wonder how often it is used and it any damage would be done by dropping.  When the chain franchises, this is generally a small LLC type of thing and they are generally not going to be notable hence no article.  So replacing with landlord may not be an issue.
 * number_of_suites  = Can be added to room_count that would better respect the intent of WP:NOTTRAVEL
 * number_of_restaurants = Is this use constant with WP:NOTTRAVEL? If not removal is an option.
 * Does that help you?
 * Finally would it still make sense to add say 5 'other' parameters that could be made available for future use? Doing that would allow for unique features to be listed.  The downside is that anything could be added to the infobox.  But it provides for future flexibility what would allow future merges without having to modify the template code.  That is something positive.
 * Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Vegaswikian, this is why I am hesitating (and thinking). Your list is useful, and would 'only' require some work (discuss at infobox building, check all 800 transclusions for some param interpretation: a doable chewing. ;-)). OK so far. But the changes and mappings we are talking about show a big issue at ibox building: it is not intended nor suitable for extensive functional description. It's background is development, design & construction even renovation, but not its functional description or its occupying institute. This same issue we are meeting in old i'box building discussions, and in the  Category:Buildings and structures infobox templates sister templates. E.g.,  (40 such boxes by country), . Merging each of them may require dozens of extra fields -- most of them in the function (building usage, occupants, institute) range. This would make the template into practically useless, and I don't think I could neutralize opposing arguments. So, there is an intrinsic reason why  exists separately: it is originated from a buildings function.
 * A full covering solution could be to propose over at this separation: functional usage can & should have their own templates, and can be incorporated in the building box. See for example Chrysler building. -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the decision is to remove overlap and only retain the unique features in the building type specific template, that could be a reasonable compromise. As it is now, there is so much overlap in some cases that some editors think we should not use  in building articles even if the building type specific template only duplicates that one when used! Also this approach would provide a cleaner info box when the building has multiple purposes, say a casino and hotel or a hotel and condo or a multi use entertainment complex with several theaters sharing a building. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Where are we with this? I've proposed adding facilities] to infobox building; that would accept a value like "200 rooms". Also, I note discussion of coordinates type "landmark", above that will always be appropriate for hotels as its purpose is to set the zoom level on maps. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stalled for good reason. One cannot push Hotel parameters into, when dozens of other similar templates (building functions) are waiting for the same. The main infobox should accept or deny such changes. That is where the consensus is to be made. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which "dozens of other similar templates"? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See Category:Buildings and structures infobox templates for starters. -DePiep (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, those were not listed for a merge and discussed like this one was. However what you don't raise directly is why we have so many templates with the same information.  Do you want to make the point that these templates should remove all of the material include in infobox building and basically require that what remains in the main template only be there leaving these specialized templates for only the parameters that are unique?  If you are proposing that then I see that as reasonable.  This is currently done for many NRHP buildings and lighthouses.  However in those cases, there is template overlap as I recall. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since no-one is proposing to merge those articles with Infobox building (hence they are not "waiting for the same", as you claim above), I'm unable to determine why their existence is relevant to this issue; much less why you think it is a blocker to the merge. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not the issue. As I described: pushing a building's function template into infobox building (which is about the construction) couses an inherent problem (namely: what function-parameters should that construction template have). That should be answered first at Template talk:infobox building, i.e. on the pull side. -DePiep (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You made a claim, I asked you to substantiate it, which it seems you cannot. Presumably, as it's not the issue, we can now disregard your "dozens of other similar templates… waiting for the same" comment as irrelevant. If the issue is, as you claim, one of function vs. construction, then it seems that such a distinction exists only in your imagination, and you won't be able to substantiate that, also. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding. Since the TfD pushed a Merge, and the receiving side of the Merge was not invited, I say the TfD is invalid. The Merge was not announced at the receiving template. -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * re Pigsonthewing. Don't shove me a statement I didn't make, and then conclude your own preference. Just read & react to what I wrote myself. -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

When will this TfD be implemented? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think this is probably the best solution:
 * rewrite the existing template so that it can be embed
 * manualy, or with bot assistance, replace the usage to be embed in infobox building moving over all paramaters supported by infobox building to that template
 * depreciate all of the paramaters shared with infobox building
 * sound reasonable? Note that there are under 1,400 uses of the template. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Listed Building Status
I seem to be getting into an unwanted editing conflict about adding a parameter about the Listed Building Status of a Hotel. I have been working on several articles of Historic Victorian and Edwardian Hotels within Norfolk, United Kingdom, many of which are listed as historic buildings. I added a parameter within the hotel info box so enabling there grade of listing to be added to the info box but have come up against some conflict concerning this. Some contributors seem to think that this is some sort of star or diamond rating and reflects the standard of the Hotel, which it is not! Listed building status within the UK is about protecting our heritage and is only given to building of outstanding historic or architectural value. I do not see a problem with Listed building status being included in the info box. The system in the UK is a regulated government body and is recognised nationally and many other countries also have similar government bodies. i.e.Sweden, Denmark, USA  stavros1  ♣  23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, no. Many countries have infoboxes for historic buildings and infobox building supports imbeding of these templates.  So the best solution to your request is probably to use infobox building and embed hotel and the appropriate historic building template as needed.  This seems like extra work, but it provides uniformity of presentation for the readers.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If there was "editing conflict", it's because you initially were trying to insert a field for stars or diamonds, and you provided no meaningful explanation or edit summary when you switched to listed building status in the U.K. Without any context, I am not sure that it was fair for you to expect everyone to understand what you were doing (your patronizing note on my talk page was really unnecessary and unhelpful). But thank you for this explanation, which is very helpful.  But I would have to agree with Vegaswikian - every country has historic designations (for example, Canada itself has dozens of different types, based on region and level of government), and we cannot possibly accomodate them all in this template.  There is a simple solution - use the designation list template, which was specifically designed to be embedded in templates such as Infobox hotel.  It allows you to add the official name, type, criteria, designation date, etc. for the historic site.  It supports the various grades and categories of U.K. listed buildings (as well as numerous other historic designations worldwide). As an example, I just added it to the Infobox hotel template at Château Laurier.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To give you an actual U.K. example, I added the designation list template to Cliftonville Hotel, Cromer (it is not clear to me that I used the correct reference number from the English Heritage website). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stavros, can we now delete the listed building field? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. Thank you for the help and guidance in what has been a successful solution to this attribution problem  stavros1  ♣  07:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks to both of you for your help.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Line up
While the gurus complete their merge project, does anyone know how the headers of this template (such as LOCATION, ADDRESS, HOTEL CHAIN, COORDINATES, etc) can be set to appear left-justified. Left justification is the standard practice with templates. Besides, the current center-justify scheme of this template just doesn't cut it, visually speaking. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have figured out how to left-justify the displayed filed names. Any objections/comments before I proceed to standardize this? Mercy11 (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just promoted the version that was in test mode since April 30. I think that fixed the problem you were asking about. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! it did! Mercy11 (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Map display problems
Does anyone know how to get a map to display in this infobox? I have tried several things unssucessfully. There is also no actual example of this infobox using a map in this hotel infobox template documentation either (as you have with other infoboxes like the Template:Infobox forest ). So next I looked around at other hotel articles (some 10-15 as I recall) but none of them displayed a map either! The only hotels that did display a map were those that had a NRHP infobox with the hotel infobox embedded into the NRHP infobox - and in each case the map was the result of the NRHP infobox and not of the hotel subtemplate. My hotel article, Hotel Melia, is not a NRHP hotel and I am looking to get the infobox to display its map. Any help will be appreciated. Mercy11 (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the change I made did not break it. If memory serves I did not find an example when I was testing.  With the change, this template and NRHP both are based on infobox, so the code that works there should work here adjusting for different parameter names.  The map also works in infobox lighthouse. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Hurray to Vegaswikian for making it work at Hotel Meliá! Now perhaps we can get the location to display as a bed instead of a red dot - in much the same way that the maps for infobox mountain (peak) display as a red triangular peak (see HERE). Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hum,,, Now I tried the map into another hotel, Ponce Ramada Hotel, but somehow it doesn't appear very classy... Seems to me the map should follow the infobox displayed title, not preceed it. With the title following the map, as it is now, the entire infoboix doesn't look right. Is there a way to make the infobox title appear at the top? Mercy11 (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I think the position has been fixed. As far as the symbol, I think if you find a useable image it could work.  I know that there is the option to display a lighthouse also.  I'll let you do the digging on where that change is needed since I'm trying to finish other stuff. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Vegaswikian, the Ponce Ramada Hotel fix looks perfect,,,,,,,,,,, very pleasing to the eye,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the reading flow is just perfect now. Thank you for taking the time!
 * As for the "bed" symbol, I know Google Maps uses them; HERE is an example. But I am not sure it is legally possible (copyright law) to just yank it and use it in Wikipedia. I would like to know where the Wikipedia editors/programmers got the little lighthouse symbol from. Perhaps that would help. But I don't know where to start looking for that (I am not computer-programming inclined). Thanks for the other map fix. Whatever happens with the "bed", well fine; not a showstopper. To me they are nice little enhancements to attract new editors to Wikipedia, etc. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Vegas, I have uploaded a cute little bed symbol that could be used to point hotel locations in a map. It is found HERE >>>> Bed-icon-hi(large).png . Also available in medium and small sizes (thumbnail) as well as in SVG format. Can you use it to make the magic now happen? According to THIS page, the mark on the map can be any image file.  Also, here is the URL for the same bed icon above: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bed-icon-hi(large).png
 * Hope this helps! Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, look at Ponce Ramada Hotel. You probably want a different image with a clear background.  But it should be easier now to try different images.  Pushpin can be bed, red or green. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I started using 'bed' as the parameter for the special symbol. Perhaps this should be something better, like 'hotel'?  This needs to be resolved before this gets added to too many articles. Note that the commons library also had an image for a hostel. Apparently Wikivoyage uses File:SymbolHotel.svg. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree: a bed icon is not going to cut it because of resoltion problems. Perhaps a single capital "H" for hotel could be used? Possibly Green capital "H" might be best, since the Blue capital "H" seems to be developing as the universal (road) symbol for Hospital, and even a Red capital "H" might also be associated with hospitals for its red (read: blood) color. I am not a techie; just some thoughts. What do you think of these observations? Mercy11 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right now the template is using the same image as wikivoyger so unless there is a reason to change, it may be best to leave that. I think that just using the letter H could be confusing, but more comments would be helpful. If there are no objections, I'll change the coding to use hotel for the symbol from bed. It can be documented in a few weeks if no problems are reported.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand your message above. In any event, since the mountain infobox map comes out with a little triangle AND the name of the mountain next to it (like HERE), perhaps we should also put the name of the hotel next to the icon in infoboxes like HERE. What do you think? Mercy11 (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure given how all of the building infoboxes are used, that there would be support for adding the name since it is already at the top of the box. I'm sure you can figure out how to do that and then make a proposal and see if there would be consensus for that change. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeap, I agree! Mercy11 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)