Jump to content

Talk:The Beverly Hills Hotel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

The image Image:Hotelcalifornia.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

The recent move here from just "Beverly Hills Hotel" is correct. The Hotel has always been very particular about the fact that it's name begins with "The". Aside from status in the local community, this is because it was originally called The Hotel at Beverly Hills, your stopping point between Los Angeles and the sea according to ads it placed in 1915, when it was surrounded by bean fields. EmilEikS (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new move today is incorrect and controversial, as having disregarded this section on the talk page. Please reverse it, and request and discuss here before moving, or we'll be moving this article back and forth every other month forever. Let's get consensus on this! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Opposed, page not moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hills Hotel → The Beverly Hills Hotel —

  • Support - that is the only correct name of the hotel (see article and photos) and this article was so named, which was well motivated above on the talk page, until just recently, when it was moved without discussion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose: standard naming convention is to omit definite/indefinite article. --emerson7 19:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: WP:DEFINITE says to avoid the definite article "unless they are part of a proper name" (The New York Times being a prime example). However, nowhere in the article are any references that support the assertion that it's "the only correct name of the hotel". (If some were provided, I might be swayed.) Also, the title of the hotel's official website omits the "The", which implies ambivalence. Kevin Forsyth (talk)
When wishing to vote here, why not look
  • above at the entry which clearly explains that this is "part of a proper name" just like The New York Times;
  • at the photos of the hotel's signs in the article and by following the link to Commons;
  • at the logo on the website (not just the link here) and text there such as "Special features include the palm-lined pool and cabanas, The Beverly Hills Hotel Spa..." and "The 21 bungalows at The Beverly Hills Hotel are like..." and "From the moment you enter your room at The Beverly Hills Hotel, you will..." and "On the doorstep to some of the world's best shopping, The Beverly Hills Hotel is close to...";
  • the article's text where this is also explained;
????
What could be clearer? A letter from the General Manager of The Beverly Hills Hotel? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, the <title> tag of the hotel's homepage only says "Beverly Hills Hotel", and http://www.thebeverlyhillshotel.com redirects to http://www.beverlyhillshotel.com, not the other way around. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm merely saying the hotel website is not a consistent supporter of your assertion. Also, by the way, this is not a vote. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are strictly technical reasons for that - anyone know more than me about website addresses? - and that the content of their website clearly shows the name of the hotel. And as long as people contribute with "support" or "oppose" I will continue to consider this a "vote", if I may be permitted to do so even by Mr. Forsyth, regardless of what may be trendy lingo here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a lesson might be taken from the entire westin chain of hotels that ostentatiously use "the" in their titles...all of which are excluded by wikipedia style guidelines. --emerson7 16:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very good lesson, I think, the Westin ("westin"?) chain. This is one of the world's most famous hotels, built in 1912, and it's logotype, including the "The", has been notable for many decades. Locals just call it "The Hotel". SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm.....that's a very good entry for a paragraph in the article...but not at all a good reason to alter standing polcy. --emerson7 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another classic building named like this: [1]. 217.211.177.13 (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't all the big signs with "The" and The Hotel's own logo matter at all here? Even be decisive re: this being a "proper name" according to WP:DEFINITE?

The hotel's own signs, logotype and consistent website text are much more relevant than that Google search. We should show how ignorant we are by naming an establishment here according to what many people incorrectly call it, or according to what it's name actually is? SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologize about "ignorant" above. I meant that in the context "We should show how arbitrarily we ignore... etc?". SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cite tags

[edit]

Re: the 11 (!) cite tags recently added to (and as I see it grossly littering) this relatively small article, I have written to the editor who added them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gay controversy

[edit]

The issue has been seriously clouded now by new vague text making it impossible for most readers to understand why LGBT advocates and some celebrities have protested at all. The pros and cons (for Beverly Hills) of Sharia Law are not common knowledge. This needs to be made clearer again. If nobody else fixes that, I will be taking a rather severe ax to the section so that it at least makes sense. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Room rates

[edit]

I see room rates have been added now, but with no source. How are we going to keep that accurate as rates go up every year? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Beverly Hills Hotel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll finish this tomorrow JAGUAR  19:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]
  • "The Beverly Hills Hotel was established in May 1912, before there was even a city called Beverly Hills" - I'd rephrase the last part to something like The Beverly Hills Hotel was established in May 1912, before the establishment of Beverley Hills or before the construction of Beverley Hills? Or either something similar, or feel free to ignore
Seems to have been altered.♦ Dr. Blofeld
  • "In 1941, Hernando Courtright, the vice president of the Bank of America, purchased the hotel with friends including Irene Dunne, Loretta Young and Harry Warner" - did his friends also purchase/own stakes themselves?
 DoneThey made investments and together with Courtright, were the hotel's owners at the time. Clarified the text and added ref about it. We hope (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had bought up land in the foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains" - purchased?
 Done — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Burton Green, an oil tycoon and real estate developer, President of the Rodeo Land and Water Company" - should President be capitalised here? I see uses of "vice president" that isn't capitalised
  • "billing it as "“halfway between the Los Angeles and the sea"" - doubles quotes here
 Done — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a dinner invitation from "Pickfair".[10]Gloria Swanson" - space after citation - that is just too minor, I've done it myself!
  • "In 1942, Howard Hughes bought up half a dozen of the bungalows" - again, "purchased" would sound more formal here
 Done — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Owner Ben Silberstein’s died in 1979" - no need for apostrophe?
 Done — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The extensive gardens of the grounds, covering 12 acres" - convert to hectares too
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

On hold

[edit]

Another well written and well researched article. Those were all of the prose issues I could find, but otherwise this is looking great. JAGUAR  20:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: I believe the good Ssven2 has addressed the points. Thanks for the review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for addressing those issues. This article was in great shape as it was, but since they're all clarified, this is good to go now. JAGUAR  13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking of the location "Hollywood"

[edit]

In a lead sentence about the hotel being "closely associated with Hollywood film stars, rock stars and celebrities", an editor has linked the word "Hollywood" to the article Cinema of the United States. First, the article "Cinema of the United States" isn't about Hollywood. Also, rock stars aren't associated with American cinema. As well, it's ambiguous whether this article is referring to film stars living in Hollywood (which is close to where this hotel is located), or is referring to film stars who made it big in "Hollywood". The editor left an edit summary stating that "Hollywood is a metronym for American cinema. the location Hollywood is not particularly of note to this sentence." I think this editor meant to use the word "metonym", and I would strongly suspect that metonyms are words to watch. I would suggest instead the sentence be changed to "The Beverly Hills Hotel was frequented by celebrities and notable actors associated with the movie industry located in nearby Hollywood." Magnolia677 (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I bascially agree. And since "rock stars" usually were on the Hotel's Do Not Take List, it has never been known to host them. Producers, directors and other movie people as well as TV people should however be included. My suggestion would be "The Beverly Hills Hotel is known for having been frequented by notable people in movies and television, especially those associated with the industry synonymous with nearby Hollywood." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed

[edit]
1982 Front Desk staff, partly in uniform

Please reinstate this valuable gallery image which was removed for no apparent reason. It is my objective opinion that rare historical staff photos indeed are relevant to articles about famous hotels, no matter what the names are of individuals in them. As free images, these are few and far between. This one was specifically OK'd here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it among other other photas in other articles added by a person (SW writing above) with coi to the photo and a person in it. I can not see the importance of this photo here. It is a small part of the Staff. Nice private photo but not encyclopedic. I let to others to look and hope sw will do so too. Adville (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image had little relevance, per MOS:IMAGES. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I agree with Magnolia677 - the image doesn't add anything encyclopedic to the article. DrStrauss talk 08:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Beverly Hills Hotel. 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:

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) 19:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed room rates

[edit]

I rolled back 2 edits that added room rates, advertisement in my book. Was I right to do so? Do we allow room rates in hotel articles? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many rooms?

[edit]

The lead's "the hotel has 210 guest rooms and suites and 23 bungalows" is misleading. The bungalows can be rented whole or room by room, ergo there are hotel rooms separately available there too. We should have a total amount of units item. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beverly_Hills_Hotel&oldid=1210066818"