Talk:InTown Suites

Untitled

Newport News???

I stayed at the location in Newport News one time, and it was so nice. They treated me well? Shaliya waya 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the pictures of the rooms I have posted just because you don't like them. Not only are they legit, accurate and show what the typical rooms look like. They support the pervious statements of drugs & crime. Posting of what you decide is a 'clean' room for your own personal satisfaction is actually not appropriate. I'm posting the facts. I have posted what actually takes place on any given day at any given location. If you like, you may (of course) post a picture of a clean room or the outside of the building if it happens to pertain or is related to the correct segment of the article. Which is what I did here. Thank You.

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo intown suites.gif

Image:Logo intown suites.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've explained the fair-use rationale Tatterfly 13:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

I have never heard of this company before, living on the other side of the country. However this article seems to be largely written by someone who has a beef against it. Maybe unhappy ex-employees or even owners of rival motels. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I will go ahead and remove the criticism section. That is only sourced by blogs and a few incidents reported in local media. There are complaints against the Hilton, and sometimes crimes committed there too. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the material yet again, I see that the IP frequently re-adds it after its removal. As structured, it is completely inappropriate following Wikipedia:Criticism. Content removed again, and the IP has been notified to discuss changes here. Keegan^talk 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I warned the user yesterday for 3RR, and ARV'ed today ... richi (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Temporary block in place on that IP. Thanks to User:Kralizec! ... richi (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The criticism is outright unfair. I have stayed many times at many Intown Suites locations, and they have always been excellent. Their rooms are just as immaculately clean as any other chain, and their staff are really nice. In fact, one location that knew me before waived my security deposit, and let me stay there without having to pay it. I think the reason why the blogs sound so negative is because the few unhappy souls are full of sourgrapes.Shaliya waya (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read our policy regarding personal experience. While that can be useful to identify problems with articles, you must cite a source for anything positive that you would put into the article. And that source must be reliable - that's why the criticism based on forums, personal postings at tripadvisor.com, and similar are being deleted - because there is no way to judge their reliability. (Plus, of course, the plural of anecdotes is not data.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not written about my personal experiences in this article. I just wanted to make a point to show how tripadvisor and similar reviews can be biased, and why they should not be used. A small number of statements in the criticism section were based on news articles, but these could just as easily happen at any chain. And there are two sides to everything. I am looking to trimming down this article myself.Shaliya waya (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if my statements could be taken as saying you had added something from your personal experience; you've not, and I was aware of that. As for "could happen with any chain", I think that is exercising your personal opinion a bit too much. It would be much better if you could find reliable information to add to the article, if you're looking for better balance. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable content

Citing reviews at TripAdvisor.com is unacceptable per WP:V and WP:RS; this content should be removed per Wikipedia:Libel.

Citing one court case, particularly one that was dismissed, is a violation of WP:NPOV - it gives undue space (in this case, any space) to something NOT found notable in newspapers or other secondary sources (which are the best indication of what is the appropriate level of coverage).

The StarTribune story that was cited is certainly okay; the problem is that there is no on-line version viewable without registration, so that others can verify what was posted. That doesn't make the source unacceptable - it still meets WP:RS criteria - but it does mean that any obvious bias by the editor using it as a source needs to be carefully reviewed. It would probably be helpful to post the relevant paragraphs (from which info is being taken) on this page. And to the extent that the story is about budget extended stay hotels in general, rather than Intown suites in particular, the information in the Wikipedia article needs to be relatively short and neutral. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing the court case is also an original research issue - since it's a primary source, it should not be introduced unless it's in support of something else that indicates notability. Companies get sued all the time; per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point; I missed that. Thanks ... richi (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing to press release

User:Tatterfly has been editing in a reference sourced to a PRWeb press release, apparently issued by a person who has created a criticism site regarding the hotel chain in question; I've removed it twice, as sourcing to a press release is not considered a reliable source. If there's some reference to this in the media, it might be includable, but at present, I don't feel it is. I invite other editors to discuss this. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Specifically, it's a primary source, which is by definition not WP:V ... richi (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

References needed

References are needed in this page. As it's currently worded it's more of an advertisement for In Town Suites rather than objective point of view which is the Wikipedia standard. I suggest discussion on either reworking this article or removing it all together.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on InTown Suites. 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/20110713050900/http://www.intownsuites.com/WhyInTownSuites.pdf to http://www.intownsuites.com/WhyInTownSuites.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715171952/http://files.remcosoftware.com/pdf/Case_Study_with_InTown.pdf to http://files.remcosoftware.com/pdf/Case_Study_with_InTown.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)