Talk:Ryokan

Move suggestion

This page should be moved to Ryokan (Japanese inn). Since "ryokan" already means "inn," the current title is redundant (like Starbucks with their "Chai tea" ("tea tea") latte). Exploding Boy 19:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Short is good. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying... but how about something like Ryokan (lodging)? The point is to distinguish it from Ryokan the person. Ryokan (Japanese inn) sounds like it's being distinguished from Chinese or German ryokans. (Actually, I'd really rather see this page on Ryokan and have a disambig link for the zen monk.) Bigpeteb 15:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ryokan (Japanese inn) sounds fine to me. In Japan the usage tends to usually only apply to a traditional Japanese Inn, and this is the standard translation in most, if not all, dictionaries. Thus, I will move this article now.--Shakujo 08:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryokan (lodging) did not make seem right. "Lodging" has a nuance similiar to Boarding house, which doesn't reflect the standard of accomodation you can get in some Ryokan.--Shakujo 08:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Minshuku

This could be a separate article, since they are different, plus Minshuku and Ryokan are usually compared to the western equivalents of Bed and Breakfast and Hotel in everyday Japanese usage.--Shakujo 08:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC) In addition, Minshuku do not always follow traditional japanese architecture, whereas even in modern Ryokan, they usually follow tradition in at least the interior decoration.--Shakujo 08:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kaiseki

While I do think the recent edits about kaiseki being served at ryokan were relevant, they were sloppy and added a lot of tangential content to the page. I think simply including a link to Wikipedia's already-very-complete page on kaiseki and a little explanatory text is a much more elegant solution. Bigpeteb 20:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your second sentence - but the point about guests expected to be on-time for meals is still relevant for this article. ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: recent edits

I wanted to justify/explain some changes I made in response to a recent edit (the edits by 202.173.112.251):

• Bathing areas are often segregated by sex, but not necessarily. And to be honest, if a ryokan is located anywhere near a hot spring, it's nearly guaranteed that it will use it for the baths.
• Ryokan do typically force you to buy the meals; I just reworded that idea a bit. It is true, and I think important, to remark that most (Japanese) visitors do visit ryokan specifically for the food. There used to be a reference on the page to that effect, but it was removed because it wasn't a great reference.
• Communal dining areas are really in two flavors: inexpensive ryokan may have a dining area for all guests, while classy ryokan typically have large meeting rooms so business travelers (or VIPs) can have a large meal together, or a meeting. In any case, it's not fair to say that only inexpensive ryokan have communal dining rooms.
• Minshuku are certainly not like classy hotels, but I dislike comparing them to "cheap" hotels. I think just saying "hotels" communicates the idea well enough.
• There was a little confusion on "bath" vs "bathroom" vs "toilet". Minshuku pretty much always have shared baths, but unlike ryokan, they also have shared toilets; most ryokan have shared baths but a toilet in each room.
• It's unfair to say that guests always have to lay out their own bedding. In the case of a minshuku that is spare rooms at someone's house, it's common for the bed to be Western-style, and already made up, just like at a B&B or hotel.

If you feel I've gotten something wrong here, please reply back. Bigpeteb 19:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between this and a Bed & Breakfast, or Boarding house?

Seems like they talk about very similar things... can somebody outline the differences? 2_of_8 (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ryokans are not similar to a boarding house in that ryokans are not long-term residences (which is what boarding houses tend to be). People usually stay at a ryokan for a few days at the most. As for being similar to a bed and breakfast, they do have similarities, but also differences. They tend to be cheaper than regular hotels, have more personal service, and a more home-like feel (all similarities with B&B). They tend to have both communal and private baths available(depending on the ryokan), and I've never heard of a B&B which offers communal baths. They offer both breakfast and dinner if you want it, and some offer bento services. Most ryokan don't actually have Western-style beds in them, but offer the more traditional futon on tatami accommodations. Ryokan are located almost anywhere (rural and urban locations), whereas most B&B are in more rural locations because they can't compete well with cheap hotels and motels. This is just off the top of my head. If you're thinking of trying to merge this article into the B&B article, that won't happen due to the very large amount of sourcing available for this topic. The article doesn't currently show that available sourcing, but it is there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 09:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Image of Ryokan

An edit warring is going on regarding the image of ryokan. I think the image of User:NotePC is better. The former image is quite inappropriate because there are "curtains", a "ventilation fan" and "table cover" which are nothing to do with the traditional Japanese room. It's like an inside of a cheap "apāto" in Japan. While new image shows Japanese traditional Tokonoma, Zaisu and Sudare although there is a bath room with glass door. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Phoenix7777 and support NotePC's choice. See also my comment at here. Oda Mari (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the false-positive revert, Huggle was picking it up as "removal of content" error. Probably the edit warring triggered a vandalism bot somewhere. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Phoenix7777 and support NotePC's choice in picture. I do how ever question his/her civility and usage of Japanese in the editing war, there is no need to resort to that kind of level over this matter and it only damaged his/her case. -- Dront (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)