Talk:Hostel

Hostels - needs splitting off from Youth Hostel

Because of the confusion in useage the article talks about Hostels as in bail hostel then Hostels as in Youth Hostel, then goes on to distinguish between them by calling one Youth Hostels - so why can't there be a separate page for Youth Hostels, with cross references if required?

Hostel - ambiguity required

Any link to Hostel comes straight to the youth hostels, though e.g. english-dictionary.us mentions:

• 1. An inn.
• 2. A small, unendowed college in Oxford or Cambridge.
• 3. inexpensive supervised lodging especially for youths on bicycling trips

and Merriam-Webster on hostel:

• 1 : INN
• 2 a chiefly British : a supervised institutional residence
• _ b : a supervised lodging for usually young travelers -- called also youth hostel

while Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary basically ends up with:

• hostel
  • 1. a large house where people can stay free or cheaply: e.g. a student hostel. Compare hotel.
  • 2. UK (US shelter) a building where people with no home can live for a short time: e.g. a hostel for the homeless, a Salvation Army hostel
• youth hostel

After realizing which meanings can coincide, it remains clear that several Wikipedia articles are required, at least one should leave the possibility open. For instance while in article Mechelen describing House De Beyaert as a 15th century hostel for pilgrims, I intended linking hostel towards an appropriate type (unless I would create an article specifically for the pilgrim type provided I would have enough material and time); finding a destination for the link just showing 20th century youth hostels, is ludicrous.

It seems to me, before naming an article, one should at least look up the meanings of a word in a few decent dictionaries and in case several meanings are given though not all of them described in the article, a disambiguity page should be created as well as (stub) articles for those meanings that are not at full lenght described in an ordinary dictionary (thus here for each of the three meanings). If one is slightly lazier, simply name your entry like 'hostel (youth hostel)' and direct any links straight to it, but do create a disambiguity page so anyone in my present position could create one or more of the other articles while being aware of the already existing article(s).

The problem of doing so now, is that all existing links would go to the disambiguity page.

User:213.224.87.185 2006-05-24 14:00 (UTC)

Removal of External Links

This list of links reads like a bad pop up ad. Most of these should be removed. Comment indercutting individual hostels. We should not be supporting this. (3 are owned by the same company!!) Thanks! ∴ here…♠ 00:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

feb 2006 deletions

On 7 february Orrd deleted a large chunk of the article, saying it's confusing. Any reason? DirkvdM 08:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Orrd, please reply. Neither large nor small chunks should be deleted from an article unless the reason is obvious. If the text is confusing, it should be made clearer and/or rearranged, possibly after a discussion here. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the correct way to reply to a discussion page, so please pardon my reply format if it's incorrect. The recently added paragraph has information that is only relevent to the New Zealand / Australia area, and even then the information presented is mostly incorrect or misleading. "In the 1960's and 1970's a new breed of travellers arose, not so much focused on going to the outdoors but to other (often distant) countries to meet new cultures and people, which included other travellers." I don't think I would say a new breed of travellers arose, but aside from that, hostels before this time had included city and countryside hostels, and there never was an emphasis on "going to the outdoors." "So in New Zealand and Australia a new type of hostel arose, called Backpacker's Hostels (or Backpacker's for short), which did not have curfews, daytime lockouts or chores. This concept quickly spread all over the world." There are several problems here. Independent hostels have existed all over the world for a long time, so again this is New Zealand / Australia centric (unless the author can point to evidence that independent hostels began in that region, but I've never heard that claim before). Also neither backpackers nor youth hostels should be capitalized, but the way the terms are used are also incorrect. There was a time when the term "hostel" was exclusively used for Hostelling International (HI) hostels. They tried to enforce exclusive use of the term, but after they lost a number of court cases, this is no longer the case. Today a hostel may be HI or independent. A hostel can also be referred to as a "backpacker", but that term is mostly only used in Australia and New Zealand (as is already explained at the top of the page), and in any case the terms are entirely interchangeable. Australia's HI organization (YHA) uses all of these terms interchangeably, including "backpacker hostel" (see http://www.yha.com.au/hostels/search/state.cfm?stateid=7 for example). And on the other side, independent hostels/backpackers also use the terms interchangeably (for example Sydney has at least 12 establishments that are not HI, but refer to themselves as hostels; examples include Kangaroo City Resort Hostel, Big Hostel, and Manly Travellers Hostel). The rest of the paragraph enforces stereotypes about the differences between HI and independent hostels. Some of the claims are debatable but sometimes true, but others are completely baseless (I've never heard anyone claim that HI hostels aren't intent on encouraging international travellers to learn about new cultures). In any case, if we want to discuss these perceived differences, they should be presented differently, and if anything that topic would probably fit better on the Hostelling International page. --User:orrd 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation was meant to indicate that it's a specific thing as opposed to the general term 'hostel'. The main point is that there are two types of hostel, Youth Hostels and what I termed 'Backpackers' Hostels' (not 'Backpacker's Hostels', I believe, but I'm not sure). You use the term 'Independent hostels', but that is misleading because it presents Youth Hostels as the norm. Historically that's correct, but today's reality is that the Youth Hostels are the exception. I've travelled the world and what I call Backpackers' are the norm. Only in the USA are youth hostels more dominant (at least they were ten years ago). Just think of it. The article says there are 4000 Youth Hostels worldwide. How may hostels might there be in total? Hundreds per country. And there are a few hundred countries. So that makes for at least tens of thousands of hostels. Also, there are several hostel organisations, though I don't think any of them are as big as th YHA. By the way, the 'original' Backpackers' Hostel is somewhere in Sydney, I believe. And that started the rise of the independent movement. I'm not sure, but I think that before that there were few independent hostels.

The comparison between the types of travellers to the two types of hostels is indeed rather POV and could go. Or maybe it should be changed to something more neutral. because there is a strong difference between the two types of clientele.

And may I add that your edit was rather rude, just deleting a large chunk of the info, almost half of the article. DirkvdM 10:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for reverting your edits and I'll try to find as much of a compromise here as I can (comments from third parties are welcome as well!). I don't think you would disagree that you have a strong bias against HI hostels. I happen to prefer non-HI hostels as well, but we need to keep Wikipedia articles free of bias. Regardless of the ratio of HI hostels, the commonly used term for non-HI hostels is "independent". But we could also use the term non-HI hostels if you prefer. (Incidentally, estimates range from 6000-8000 total hostels worldwide depending on the source, so about half of all hostels are HI.)

This is what I propose to correct the problems with the new changes. The section of the article discussing HI needs to be returned to the main part of the text where it was before it was moved since it doesn't belong in the History subsection since the organization obviously still exists today. As part of the text describing HI, we can add some of your points about differences between HI and non-HI hostels as long as they are factual points. In the history section, we can note that while at one time hostels were exclusively part of the HI organization, independent hostels are now at least as numerous as HI hostels and they are growing in popularity. --User:orrd 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The total number of hostels surprises me. My estimate seems to make sense. Anyway, the general term is 'hostel' I'd say. After all the Youth Hostels are called Youth Hostels to signify they're a specific kind of hostel. Putting something in the 'History' section doesn't mean it doesn't exist any more. That section is just to describe what happened in the past. But I renamed it anyway because that seems more convenient with the present text. Oh, and another thing. I wonder if we should also mention YMCA's. They're not really hostels, but often used for the same purpose. And school facilities are also sometimes used, especially campuses out of school season (though I once slept in a school sports hall in Karamea in New Zealand). As to any bias by me, I do prefer non-Youth Hostels, but I wasn't aware of a bias in my writing. The thing about outdoors vs cultures is not written as a sharp distinction; it says "not so much focused on...". Of course people who stay at backpackers' also visit the outdoors (with me being a prime example of that), bot it seems like the best way to distinguish between the two (in the 60's and 70's, that is). I added a phrase, but that doesn't seem to help much. The 'going outdoors' thing was something typical of the early Youth Hostels and the early 20th century atitude, which included that, was still very much part of Youth Hostels. And sticking to the facts would make for a very dull article because most of what is written now is based on personal experience, I'm sure. Oh, and there's a place in Sydney called The Original Backpackers Lodge (in Kings Cross), but I can't find them in the Lonely Planet. DirkvdM 08:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The term backpackers or backpackers hostel is only used in Australia and New Zealand. The term youth hostel used to be exlusive to HI, but is now used all over the world to refer to hostels whether they are HI or independent. I can site more examples and references, but that shouldn't still be necessary at this point. The article is now missing the History section entirely (although the history of hoselling is now confusingly misplaced under "Types of hostels". The article is simply falling further and further into a jumbled mess of mostly misinformation and it barely resembles what it was a few weeks ago and it needs to be reverted and we can add back some of your edits from there where valid and appropriate.

Incidentally, the Original Backpackers Lodge (www.originalbackpackers.com.au) isn't anywhere close to being the oldest independent hostel in the world. It opened in 1980, making it fairly old as far as hostels go (and the oldest hostel in Sydney), but that's it. --User:orrd 23:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hostel are a form of inexpensive hotels - they existed long before Hostel International or "Youth Hostels". Webster's records an instance from 1913 which is certainly not the oldest use. Rmhermen 01:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course the type of accommodation, with shared rooms for independent travellers, existed long before the 20th century. But I thought the term 'hostel' was introduced by the Youth Hostels. The term 'backpackers' ' isn't exclusive to Australasia, but I might have gone too far in claiming that is is used as a generic term. Still, there's no need to completely revert to a previous version and start all over again. Just adjust what's here now whereever needed. DirkvdM 07:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after quite a bit of work and research I made some careful changes to the current version that hopefully should be a reasonable compromise. First, the term "private hostel" was already being used in the article to refer to non-HI hostels, and I think that's an appropriate term to use and it avoids the implications that DirkvdM sees in the term "independent hostel". I was very careful to preserve every bit of existing text as long it wasn't factually incorrect, and the the only text I have removed is a portion of the additions from the 28 January 2006 edit. Please understand that I considered every sentence of the January 28 edit and only removed parts which were incorrect or misleading. I had originally assumed at least parts of it were correct so I actually hadn't planned on removing as much as I actually did. But I did some additional research and I found that more of the text than I had originally suspected was actually incorrect. If necessary I can quote each sentence of the section that was removed and I can explain why the information given is incorrect, but I'm hoping this won't be necessary. I will recommend these URLs that I found useful in my research for reference to the history of hostelling, types of hostels, and the mission of HI: http://www.hostelsclub.com/article-en-25.html http://english.bjta.gov.cn/lylx/zzy/1.htm http://www.hostelinfo.com http://www.hihostels.ca/English/mission.html --User:orrd 09:14 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You call those careful changes? You removed about half the article. If anything is misleading, improve on it, don't throw it all out the window. Add rather than delete (or something along those lines) is a Wikipedia policy. DirkvdM 09:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The text I removed was only from one edit (which *you* made) that added factually false information. Please take the time to read the links I cited, or do your own research. If you have references to support any of your claims please list credible references. Meanwhile, I give up. I don't see the point in continuing a battle over edits since no one else seems to be paying any attention to this article anyway or else I wouldn't be the only one here pointing out what's wrong with your 28 January 2006 changes. User:orrd 09:39 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in those pages that contradicts anything I wrote, so I don't get your point. Anyway, they're only about Youth Hostels, a rather limited view. Actually, they partly are or come over as undercover ads fro Youth Hostelling. DirkvdM 05:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Without looking too deeply into the details of these edits, I would say most of this comes down to verifiability. Dirk, find some concrete published sources to support what you want in the article, and cite them. I have never followed an add not delete principle (source?), but reliable sources remains a central to the entire philosophy behind the project. There are many articles warrenting large cuts due to unverifiable content, this one included. ∴ here…♠ 07:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you got me there. Original Research. But I suspect that most of the article would have to be deleted on those grounds. What about "The main benefit of a hostel is that one gets to meet other travellers from all over the world." Is there a source for that? And does one need a source for it? And even if one finds a source. it's still POV (I, for one, don't agree with it and I am a seasoned traveller - meeting others is a big bonus but the cost really is the main benefit because at hotel prices I wouldn't have been able to do most of my travels). I picked just one sentence, but would one have to source everything? A policy of 'no OR at all' would completely cripple Wikipedia. On OR and POV we have to walk a thin line.

About the 'add rather than delete' thing. I haven't found where I read that, but I have found something more interresting. It turns out I am an eventualist. More specifically, I think short articles (especially stubs) should be given room to expand, to give others an incentive to get things right. So don't delete edits here but try to get it right. Your deletions would revert the article to a stub. You bloody deletionist, you! :) DirkvdM 09:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I really wanted to just walk away from this but here I am again posting a reply. About what you said about the links being "undercover ads for Youth Hostelling". Ok, well first we've covered that "youth hostel" and "youth hostelling" don't just refer to HI hostels (that's one of the key problems with your changes to the article). "Hostel" and "youth hostel" used to be exclusive terms to HI hostels, but they are now generic terms used for all hostels (which also called "backpackers" in Australia and New Zealand, whether they're HI affiliated or not). Hostelling International is a nonprofit group. It may be true that HI hostels are often boring with lots of rules and many are frequently overrun with schoolkids, but I don't think they have any hidden agendas or "undercover ads".

Here are the reasons I cited those links:

http://www.hostelsclub.com/article-en-25.html (HostelsClub is a for-profit booking site for mostly non-HI youth hostels) Even the first hostel started in 1907 became a place where "young people of all countries could be provided with suitable meeting places where they could get to know each other" contradicts your statement that this purpose for hostels started when "in the 1960's and 1970's a new breed of travellers arose".

http://english.bjta.gov.cn/lylx/zzy/1.htm and http://www.hihostels.ca/English/mission.html These two links are from HI sources and they contradict your statement that HI hostels cater "to school kids (sometimes through school trips) and parents with their children, whereas the Backpackers' are more for travellers intent on learning new cultures". HI in fact exists for the purpose to "enables young people of differing nationalities, cultures and social backgrounds to meet informally, share experiences, learn about themselves, each other and their surroundings."

http://www.hostelinfo.com This is an independent information page and it points out that "a little less than half of all the hostels in the world are HI members (the rest are called independent hostels)" which backs up my earlier points about porportions of hostels, and the terminology used to refer to them.

Those were just a few sites I found from a quick Google search. I could actually go through every sentence of the 28 January 2006 changes and point out with references why the information isn't correct, but how much work do I have to do to prove the point that I know what I'm talking about and that the 28 January 2006 addition was almost entirely misinformation or not quite accurate. I think DirkvdM has good intentions and I think some of what he has added to the article is useful and meaningful, but much of it just isn't correct and there isn't any simple way to fix it without deleting parts that aren't accurate. Orrd 08:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been any further responses since my last reply, so I'm going to assume that DirkvdM has dropped his objections to fixing the innacuracies that were introduced with his 28 January 2006 changes. I don't want to do the work to fix the article only to have the same person revert it again so I'll give it another day or so before I make the changes to see if DirkvdM wants to offer any evidence to back up any of his claims for changing the proper "hostel"/"backpacker" terminology, capitalization, history, etc. I've provided numerous references illustrating the problems with the 28 January 2006 changes and so I won't make any changes that we haven't already discussed here and that myself and others have clearly shown needs to be fixed. And again, I welcome any other additional input from anyone else who has anything to add. But hopefully this should be the end of it. Orrd 01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Update... ok, I made only the terminology corrections as we've discussed here (sorry I forgot to login before I submitted the update). I think there are still some structural issues with the organization and ordering of information, but I limited by changes to fixing the terminology of backpacker/hostel terminology since at least that part I think we can agree needed to be corrected. Orrd 02:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Benefits and disadvantages

I've pared down the sections into one. As written, the sections were full of unverifiable information, from "excellent way to make new friends in a foreign environment" to "the majority of guests are traditionally and overwhelmingly between the ages of 18 and 26." Deltabeignet 03:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:About#How_is_Wikipedia_different_from_a_paper_encyclopedia.3F

and

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper

I've restored a lot of the consensus material you've deleted plus the organisation into two sections. As for sources, much does not need sources as being self-evident to any one who has used hostels or common knowledge such as the fact that water is wet. ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 03:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I fear I gave the wrong impression. I combined the paragraphs for reasons of style, not to conserve space. Having separate pro and con sections is fine for larger articles, but here only serves to break the flow. More to the point, the old "the same way we know the sky is blue" rule should be used sparingly and only for the blatantly obvious; it's a slippery slope to personal and cultural bias. Only an expert who has visited hundreds of hostels across the world could adequately say what "most hostels" do or don't do. Is it acceptable to say, without a source, that hostels are generally less formal than hotels? Probably. Is it acceptable to say, without a source, that most hostels have a system for managing valuables? Probably not. Deltabeignet 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've visited hundreds of hostels in 112 different countries over more than 4 decades.

One of the difficulties with this article is distinguishing traveller's hostels (and particularly IYHF member Hostels) from long stay hostels). I shall retire in a few weeks and then I will hopefully find the time to expand and organise this article if nobody beats me to it. For now I can find nothing that is untrue therein but I do take your point about lacking citations - many of WP's non-academic articles have the same failing...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 10:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article written like it comes straight from a hostel catalog? There seems to be a lack of neutrality. The only viewpoint I get when I read this is "hostels are the greatest thing ever". I think that someone should discuss some of the drawbacks of hostels compared to regular hotels/motels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.115.17 (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have a huge focus on the "drawbacks" of hostels, then we should also add a section to Wikipedia's hotel article about the drawbacks of hotels. Hostels aren't for everyone, but many people prefer hostels to hotels. It's a different, more sociable way of travelling. The hostel industry has changed -- many hostels are spotlessly clean and very safe. Examples: [1], [2], [3] Let99 (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Youth Hostels

SOmething I've always wondered, but couldn't find in the article: Are older people permitted to stay in a youth hostel? Basejumper 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Youtube Link That does not belong it doesnt have relevance and is just advertisement for one hostel. Please no one put it back on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.37.172 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Most hostels do not have an age requirement but some may inquire about your age (and have flexibility). However I believe in Bavaria you must be under 26. Historian932 (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Disadvantages

"and many hostels offer private lockers (rarely)" that line doesn't actually make sense - I would edit it, but I don't know whether many hostels offer private lockers or if hostels rarely offer them 76.118.30.59 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Point of View

The following paragraph seems instructional. I don't know the technical wikipedia terminology or tag to place on it.

Noise can make sleeping difficult on occasions, whether from snoring, sexual activity, someone returning late or leaving early, or the close proximity of so many people. This can be easily solved by wearing earplugs when visiting noisier hostels, but only if you do not need to get up earlier than you would naturally wake up. The earplug option might not work in the event that you must be awakened by a noise alarm. In such a case, either asking someone to wake you up before you go to sleep (an option that might require socializing with other guests -- something that should be easy to do at a hostel) or the use of a vibrating alarm (a device that is kept in contact with the sleeping body, e.g. under a pillow) are viable solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegainTheTruth (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Specific sort of spam

Isn't anybody else upset by the fact that one certain hostel in Budapest does some sneaky advertising on this site? For months the caption on one of the pictures has reads "The (insert name) Hostel in Budapest". Everytime I come across it I change it, and everytime I do it somebody changes it back. Last time it was User Let99, justifying it as "credit to the photo". I much rather have the old picture of the messy rooms in hostels in Rome and Peru back (permanently!), they are far more realistic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.108.177 (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a "specific sort of spam" from a hostel in Budapest. I added that because I'm giving credit for use of the photo which I asked the hostel for permission to use. I wanted to update the photos of hostels to be more accurate for the improved state of hostels around the world. The messy dorm room photo isn't relevant to the hostel article any more than a photo of a cockroach in a cheap hotel would be for the hotel article. Many hostels are spotlessly clean (as you can see in the article's photos). The hostel industry is changing and is becoming highly professional. There are still bad, dirty hostels out there, but there are also bad, dirty hotels out there. By the way, criticising other users' edits without showing your username isn't right. Let99 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Trademarks

As far as I know, Jugendherberge is a trademark only in Germany. Terms like hostel and youth hostel are not trademarked anywhere. Even if someone tried to trademark them, it would not be enforceable because they are in common usage. I reworded the sentence to make it clear that only Jugendherberge is trademarked and only within a limited area. (AFAIK) Let99 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jugendherberge is no longer a trademark of Hostelling International in Germany. source Let99 (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

External Links

There is only one external link and it goes to DMOZ. DMOZ needs serious updating. I don't think it's a useful link for visitors. Let99 (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Photos

I think the photo of the former hostel in Rome doesn't work well in its current position because it's vertically aligned and there isn't much text next to it. Maybe we could replace it with a horizontally-aligned photo. Any objections? Let99 (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Red links are based on the following....

• Chillis Backpackers Hostel - http://www.chillis.com.au/

--58.38.42.71 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+airport+pickup&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--58.38.42.71 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks aren't needed except where there is a good likelihood that an article on that topic will be created (see WP:REDLINK). Individual hostels would have to be notable to merit their own article. NtheP (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Boutique Hostels

"Boutique hostels" definitely aren't a "cross between a hostel and a bed & breakfast." The linked-to article doesn't say this. This section needs revision. Let99 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Boutique Hostels Part 2

The boutique hostel section was entirely deleted and then replaced by a user. Here are the reasons why I revereted most, but not all, of it:

The BudgetTravel.com article is inaccurate. For example, Mama Shelter isn't a hostel by any stretch of the imagination. This is the kind of arbitrary marketing that is making the phrase, "boutique hostels," meaningless. Same with the Hostelworld.com article. Daddy Longlegs, which they call a "boutique hostel," is a self-described "art hotel," not a hostel. When hostel booking engines do this it's an attempt to upsell hotel rooms to people who are looking for hostels because they make a higher commission on the bookings. Then journalists who don't know enough about the hostel industry to know what is going on pick up the stories and repeat the inaccuracies.

I think it's also inaccurate to refer to "the chain atmosphere made popular by brands such as Youth Hostelling International [HI]" because HI is made up of over 90 separate organizations and many of the organizations are very different from each other. Some HI hostels are indistinguishable from independent hostels, and may even be independently owned and operated. In those cases, HI sometimes just does some of the marketing.

Saying, "boutique hostels focus on unique designs and styles," is just repeating what was in the original, deleted section.

"Identifying the coupling of superior amenities with the social atmosphere desired during extended travel, London’s The Guardian calls Boutique Hostels a logical step and has created an interactive guide to recommended hostels around the world"

Self-described "boutique hostels" don't necessarily have superior amenities. An example is Travellers House in Lisbon, the #1 rated hostel in the world based on customer feedback by the largest hostel booking engine. It is frequently cited as a "boutique hostel." The accommodation is in dorms and the bathrooms are shared, just like a regular backpackers hostel. The amenities are not different from other hostels. The service is top-notch, but so is the service at many non-boutique hostels. Therefore the service isn't a distinguishing factor. The hostel is "boutique" because of the style of interior design. Another often-cited "boutique hostel" often gets bad reviews for their customer service; it's only their style of interior design that gets them the label of "boutique." A hostel with a designer interior makes a good story or marketing angle.

This blog post by a traveler calls a hostel a "boutique hostel" but the property's website doesn't refer to itself that way. It is a hostel with very nice looking interior design. It says: "there is wi-fi access, all-day free tea and coffee as well as use of ironing facilities, locks and hair dryers....the beds are super comfortable..." Many non-boutique hostels also offer those things. The distinguishing factor as mentioned by the blog post is that, "the landscaping and furnishings might give the impression of there being a swimming pool at the back of the building..." This could be described as a boutique hostels, but I'm not sure if this specific blog post is worth citing.

The Guardian interactive gallery is interesting, but it's based on arbitrary submissions by the business owners themselves. Some of them have fairly-low ratings based on customer feedback, and it doesn't say why certain hostels were picked over others.

To prevent the phrase "boutique hostels" from becoming entirely meaningless, the marketing language needs to be weeded through. In the blog posts and articles referenced, the word is not much more than a marketing angle, whereas with boutique hotels it is more clearly defined: "Boutique hotel is a term popularized in North America and the United Kingdom to describe intimate, usually luxurious or quirky hotel environments." Let99 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Citation about shagging room needs more validation

The sentence about "some hostels offering shagging rooms" is pretty thin on backup, if you follow the footnote/link there's simply one picture of a door with the sticker "Shagging Room" on it--besides the fact that this could be a joke, or not in a hostel, this hardly constitutes evidence that hostels in general have started to offer official rooms for sexual activity. As such I think the reference should be taken down.Historian932 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

United Sates

I would be interested in some discussion, or at least mention, in the entry as to why the hostel system never caught on in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.133.45 (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that in many U.S. states, you need a license to operate a hotel. But what about a hostel? 68.55.112.31 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No windows?

The first point in the section "Differences from hotels" is: "Hostels have no windows." And yet, look at the pictures in the article. Many of them contradict this statement. Does anyone have any input on this? Unary (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the assertion that "hostels have no windows" is just an artifact of the fact that anybody can edit Wikipedia. 68.55.112.31 (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Social hostel?

I must say that the segment about "Social hostels" confuses me... to my knowledge there is no such thing as a social hostel because all hostels are social, that's simply the definition of a hostel. They have common room(s), often a patio, sometimes a bar, and they encourage interaction between guests, and guests who stay there usually want to interact with other fellow travelers. This is what a hostel is... there's no social hostel. My suggestion, as a tourism professional, would be that this segment be deleted. It's simply not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ada83 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

All good hostels are social by nature. I removed that section. Let99 (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Flashpackers

The "flashpackers" section was not accurate. "Flashpackers" was a marketing term used back around 2006-2008 (news article), but the hype is now gone. The websites trumpeted by the journalist, flashpacker.com and flashpackerdiaries.com, are now neglected or offline. "Flashpackers" is about as meaningless at "boutique hostel". Most good, modern hostels have these "flashpacker" facilities, and the travelers who were seen as "flashpackers" (i.e., backpackers with expensive electronic gear) are now just the average backpackers with their tablet computers and smartphones. Many/most backpackers travel this way now. (See above for more information about boutique hostels.) Let99 (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfounded assertion: Mixed-gender rooms are less safe

I removed text that implied that mixed-gender hostel rooms are less safe than single-gender rooms. If anyone can back this up, please return it, with proper support. Otherwise it strikes me as simple prejudice. --tgeller (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Poorly Worded Statement

The sentence that starts with "Hostels are generally cheaper" is poorly worded. Cheaper than what? A reader might assume hotels, but this wording is insufficient. Spoodles (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Youth hostel vs Hostel

Among other characteristics, Youth hostels have a clear difference from regular Hostels: the age limit. However, almost nothing is said about this in the article. I strongly believe that Youth hostel should have again an article of its own, instead of redirecting to this article. Other wikis have done likewise. —capmo (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hostel. 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/20120503200659/http://www.hihostels.com/web/about.en.htm to http://www.hihostels.com/web/about.en.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120722082120/http://www.hostelmanagement.com/wiki/list-of-hostel-chains-1005813.html to http://www.hostelmanagement.com/wiki/list-of-hostel-chains-1005813.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912163034/http://www.tra.australia.com/content/documents/Snapshots/2008/BackPacker_07_FINAL.pdf to http://www.tra.australia.com/content/documents/Snapshots/2008/BackPacker_07_FINAL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728055706/http://www.staywyse.org/portal/page/portal/MenuSecSiteSTAYWYSE/MenuSubpageAnnual%20Industry%20Survey to http://www.staywyse.org/portal/page/portal/MenuSecSiteSTAYWYSE/MenuSubpageAnnual%20Industry%20Survey

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) 04:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This entire paragraph sounds like a madeup distinction that is being used to promote some specific organisations.

“Within the "traveler" category, another distinction can be drawn between hostels that are members of Hostelling International (HI), a UK-based, non-profit organisation encouraging outdoor activities and cultural exchange for the young (formerly the IYHA), and independently operated hostels. Backpackers' Hostels began in Australia and New Zealand and differ from hostels by being open during the day time, often abbreviated to just "Backpackers." In New Zealand, the BBH network was the first network of 'modern day' backpacker hostel, catering to independent travellers since 1985.[1]” --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)