Talk:Ritz Hotel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] bathrooms
I seem to remember hearing that the Savoy Hotel was the first in which every room had an ensuite bathroom Mintguy (T)
[edit] Move to Ritz Hotel?
It appears to me that "the Ritz Hotel" fails the "capitalised 'the' in running text" test, and should probably be moved to Ritz Hotel, as per the naming conventions. Anyone be strongly opposed? Alai 23:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Move to Ritz Hotel London?
The original is the Ritz Hotel Paris, at least according to the wikipedia entry on it. Strange that "Ritz Hotel" should link to a branch of the original, rather than the original, don't you think? Or if there is a good reason for it, maybe explain this in the article somewhere?
- Wikipedia goes for the "most common usuage" first. This is it.
[edit] "suspected vandlism"
On what grounds was the note that Gary Glitter visited the Ritz "suspected vandalism", because he is now a convict? Wikipedia assumes good faith and Glitter was a big star for many years, so to remove his name because of "suspected vandalism" is not really correct because there is no ground to suspect it is vandalism. If Adolf Hitler was among the people who were regular visitors at this hotel no one would remove his name for "bad taste" (a reason given previously for the removal of Glitters name). If Elton John, Paul McCartney or Elvis Presley’s names had been listed (all major pop stars too) I doubt anyone would be removing their names for "suspect vandalism". Glitter himself said in his 1991 autobiography he was a regular visitor to the Ritz. Wikipedia is not censored, so his name can not be removed for bad taste, or for "suspected" vandalism, when it is not in the context of being so. Thus, I have re-added his name. 74.65.39.59 02:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fire in its own section?
If the fire really was notable enough to include in this article (and it probably is, just), then surely it should be a footnote in the History section, not a subheading of its own. To give it its own section seems to be blatant recentism to me. Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ritz logo.gif
Image:Ritz logo.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
