This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hotels.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

Hotels.com (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which was archived on 1 December 2021. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Inkian Jason (talk · contribs) has been paid by Beutler Ink on behalf of Expedia Group.

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)

Their current ad campaign is "Hotels.com euphoria".

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello! On behalf of Expedia Group, I'd like to submit a few suggestions for improving this Wikipedia article as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I've disclosed my conflict of interest at the top of the Talk page and on my user profile. I generally avoid direct editing and seek assistance from other editors to review and implement proposed changes appropriately.

To start, I'd like to offer a correction for the Hotel Price Index section. The Hotel Price Index is published annually, not "twice-yearly", per Travel + Leisure. Therefore, I suggest removing "twice-yearly" and "for the previous six months", in order to make the text more accurate. Travel + Leisure specifically says the report is annual, if editors prefer to note the frequency.

I can address questions or concerns here or on my user Talk page. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I removed both mentions. No need for the source as it is better to keep the intricate details off anyway. If you can do me a favor and find a source for the last sentence of that section ("The Hotel Price Index is published both digitally.......) and add it. No need to request its addition you are free to do so direct. I did not tag the sentence but it will need sourced. CNMall41 (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this request and updating the article. I'll see what I can do about the section's last sentence. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: I am unable to find a reliable source verifying the sentence starting with "The Hotel Price Index is published both digitally...", if you prefer to remove. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Next, I'd like to propose adding mention of a partnership with a notable football club: Arsenal F.C.

I propose adding the following text and source to the article:

• In 2023, Hotels.com became a multi-year sponsor of Arsenal's men's and women's teams.^[1]

I think the claim is in line with similar text in the Advertising section, so I'd suggest placement there. As always, thanks in advance for updating the entry appropriately. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Placed in the advertising section with a little cleanup CNMall41 (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Inkian Jason:, I will let someone else take a look at your last request. In the meantime, I remove the controversy section per WP:NOCRIT. The information is still there but slightly re-worded, but it is under history section. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Inkian Jason (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Inkian Jason:, I just tagged for now. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

I'd like to address the Loyalty program section, which is overly detailed and appears to be sourced to Hotels.com's official website and a non-notable blog. I'd like to propose replacing this content with the following brief summary of the loyalty program, per Travel + Leisure:

• In 2023, Expedia Group launched One Key, the loyalty program for Expedia, Hotels.com, and Vrbo, allowing members to earn OneKeyCash redeemable across the three brands.^[1]

The proposed replacement text keeps mention of the launch date and clarifies how the loyalty program is connected to Expedia Group's other brands Expedia and Vrbo. There are other sources verifying the claim, if editors prefer a different outlet. Happy to address any questions or concerns here or on my Talk page.

Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I've implemented the additional information. Though the first text is sourced to the official website I kept this as it appeared relevant. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

Since a couple edit requests have been reviewed (thanks again!), I'd like to propose a few additional content additions to this article. Following are four updates about features, based on journalistic sources:

1. In 2023, Hotels.com began using Expedia Group's trip planner and other generative AI-powered tools.^[1]

Not done for now I'm not sure how relevant this is to include? Feels like a subtle advert for the company including AI. If there's something notable about the tools then I'd reconsider. Encoded  Talk 💬 20:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hotels.com displays total room rates including all fees and taxes.^[2]

Not done for now I'm not sure how relevant this is to include? I'm not sure how it works around the world but in the UK where I'm from this is the norm for all websites so feels strange to include. Encoded  Talk 💬 20:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hotels.com also offers member-only discounts for customers enrolled in the membership program, as well as price alerts and "VIP Access" properties offering additional rewards.^[3][4]

 Done Put in "loyalty program" section. Encoded  Talk 💬 20:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The annual 'Unpack' report is a travel trend guide based on data from Expedia, Hotels.com, and Vrbo, as well as global research.^[5][6]

 Done Put in new "publications" section. Encoded  Talk 💬 20:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above, I'm requesting help from editors to review and implement these proposed additions appropriately. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I'd also like to flag some inaccurate content in the article's Infobox and Introduction. Hotels.com is owned by Expedia Group, which is based on Seattle. Confusingly, the article mentions this but also says Hotels.com is operated by Dallas-based Hotels.com LP. In order to make the article accurate and up to date, I propose these changes:

• In the Infobox, change Headquarters from "Dallas, Texas, U.S." to "Seattle, Washington, U.S.".
• In the Introduction, removed the last sentence "The company is operated by Hotels.com LP, a limited partnership subsidiary located in Dallas, Texas, in the United States."
• Also in the Introduction, change the opening sentence from "Hotels.com, L.P. is a global website for booking hotel rooms online and by telephone." to "Hotels.com is a global website for booking hotel rooms. It is owned by Expedia Group, which is based in Seattle, Washington."

I don't think these proposed text changes are particularly contentious, but I avoid direct editing given my COI. I'm asking others to review and update the article appropriately. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aloneinthewild Thanks for reviewing this request and updating the article. Are you interested in reviewing any of the other requests posted to this Talk page? Either way, thanks again for your help! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can help, the one below is above my experience and I will leave to someone more knowledgeable on US law Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I'd like to address the following problematic sentence in the History section:

• In 2007, the company was found in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act in a lawsuit regarding accessibility for customers with mobility disabilities.^[1]

This is not factually accurate. I don't know if BigClassAction.com is a reliable source, but either way this sentence makes a statement about 2007 based on a source published in 2005. I would like to propose replacing this sentence and source with the following:

• In 2009, as part of a settlement for a lawsuit filed in California, Expedia Group agreed to add hotel accessibility data to its websites to help users find accommodations that meet disability needs.^[1]

If Plaintiff Magazine is not a preferred source, there's additional coverage here and here. The purpose of my request is to identify factually inaccurate text that's not representative of journalistic sourcing. Given my COI, I'm asking other editors to review and update this language appropriately. As always, I'm happy to address any questions or concerns here or on my Talk page. Thanks again for your help, Inkian Jason (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Hi, regardless of the sourcing for this the tone feels like a cleanup for the company's image. There's some additional sources online [1] [2] [3]. I can't access the website (I assume) due to not being located in the USA, but does searching for the case number on Alameda courts display anything? I think that rewording it more along the lines of the mention in Timeline of disability rights in the United States may be more appropriate. Thanks, Encoded  Talk 💬 19:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]