Talk:Hotels.com
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hotels.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | Hotels.com (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 1 December 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Vfd
[edit]On 25 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hotels.com for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 02:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Current Ad Campaign
[edit]Their current ad campaign is "Hotels.com euphoria".
Citations Needed
[edit]Reverted to this version from the vandalized rant but this article is very POV and needs to be cleaned up and cited properly. Gordie 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
your right its just an advertsiing page... Thundernlightning 19:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Keep in mind the website for Hotels.com lists 800 numbers under the hotels but those numbers go to Hotels.com and not the hotel. You can google the hotel name with the city after it on google maps to get the hotel number. Many times the hotel rate is the same or cheaper than Hotels.com.
Full Disclosure
[edit]I am an employee of Expedia Inc. working for hotels.com in the UK. I have submitted the information about the company today in good faith. I have tried to avoid primary source citations and hope I have adhered to WP:NPOV. I also hereby disclose COI as per WP:COI guidelines (see also my user profile). I recognise that hotels.com has no ownership of the content of this article, and will encourage my colleagues to respect this fact. --gilgongo (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's not too bad. One day I will get around to trimming some of the excess ("is notable in its industry for having a loyalty scheme" is only suitable on the company website). Look at the categories at the bottom to see that a red link has been introduced. "References" needs two equals on each side, and only one blank line between sections. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was using the word "notable" mean that no other web sites in that sector have such a scheme. Perhaps a bit elliptical. I'll try re-casting it. --gilgongo (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have not considered the issue in detail, but the general rule is that an article is not based on extracts from the company website. If no reliable secondary sources have felt an issue sufficiently significant to comment on it, neither should the article. It's ok to mention something that editors believe is significant, but it is overdoing it to describe it as anything like notable (unless verified). Also, the separate section may not be warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I hope that none of the wording in the article is from the website (would that the word "notable" were enough for the PR team!). The loyalty scheme is in fact a strategic play against dis-intermediation by Google. It is difficult to implement so others in that part of industry have been unable to do it. As an analogy, if hotels.com were a species of animal, I assume it would be encyclopaedic to give special mention to a feature that animal had (night vision, vegetarianism) that other members of its species did not. This is the reason I have not, for example, mentioned the "price match guarantee" feature, since other sites also have that, but have mentioned the Hotel Price Index, which is similarly unique. That said, I take your point about the verification. I shall see if I can get a secondary source for it (NB I have left the "primary sources" tag intact) --gilgongo (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm replying without seeing what recent edits have occurred, so my comment is just on the principle. While a minor issue, a word like "notable" in an article has to be backed by a secondary source (see link above). An editor may know that something is notable, and the company may claim that something is notable, but neither is enough for Wikipedia (the first is WP:OR while I think it's WP:SPS for the second). Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I hope that none of the wording in the article is from the website (would that the word "notable" were enough for the PR team!). The loyalty scheme is in fact a strategic play against dis-intermediation by Google. It is difficult to implement so others in that part of industry have been unable to do it. As an analogy, if hotels.com were a species of animal, I assume it would be encyclopaedic to give special mention to a feature that animal had (night vision, vegetarianism) that other members of its species did not. This is the reason I have not, for example, mentioned the "price match guarantee" feature, since other sites also have that, but have mentioned the Hotel Price Index, which is similarly unique. That said, I take your point about the verification. I shall see if I can get a secondary source for it (NB I have left the "primary sources" tag intact) --gilgongo (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have not considered the issue in detail, but the general rule is that an article is not based on extracts from the company website. If no reliable secondary sources have felt an issue sufficiently significant to comment on it, neither should the article. It's ok to mention something that editors believe is significant, but it is overdoing it to describe it as anything like notable (unless verified). Also, the separate section may not be warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was using the word "notable" mean that no other web sites in that sector have such a scheme. Perhaps a bit elliptical. I'll try re-casting it. --gilgongo (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Primary sources tag
[edit]I've removed this now as most of the sources are secondary now, and those that remain as primary seem uncontentious --gilgongo (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hotels.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122142738/http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/Smith_v_Hotels_com.php to http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/Smith_v_Hotels_com.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hotels.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120909104249/http://www.savingmoneyexpert.com.au/travel/your-welcome-hotel-coms-new-loyalty-rewards-program-really-rewards to http://www.savingmoneyexpert.com.au/travel/your-welcome-hotel-coms-new-loyalty-rewards-program-really-rewards
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)