Talk:Hospitality point of sale systems

Lack of reference sources.

It may be observed that this article lacks sourced information. The primary reason for this is because the only information I came across is from propriatary sources. I did a websearch and came on a lot of product specific data but very little in the way of neutral information. I will continue looking however. Piercetp 04:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete

I don't believe this article needs to exist. It is a stub at best, and I don't see why it exists outside of the regular Point of Sale article. Timneu22 (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Hospitality is a totally different technology. Particularly because resturaunts, and espcially fast food resturaunts require very efficient systems. The current resturaunt environment involves technology found nowhere else. For instance, the coexistance of wireless technology with display monitoring systems for Kitchen Video Systems (KVS) and Drive Through (DT) is unique to this system. Most other forms of retail systems do not use these. I believe this article should remain. Piercetp (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

This article should be merged with point of sale. There really isn't much of a difference between the two articles. Also, both are short, so it will be better to have one article with relevant content. I disagree with the previous section's statement that "POS" and "hospitality POS" are totally different. Some companies have POS in Burger King, Ruby Tuesday, and even Ritz Carltons. There is no need to split up the two.

Further, just by the nature of the title of this article, people will think this is a great place to add hyperlinks to startups and other non-notable POS vendors. I'd like to see one article maintained well; not two separately. Timneu22 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Major disagreement. There is a difference, certainly as far as industry is concerned. You find product in Hospitality systems not found elsewhere. For example, wireless communication systems are unknown in any other environment. I want to add to my argument, the very nature of the fast food industry requires that high speed systems be used. This includes technology to monitor orders in real time and divide orders up by specific menu items. Its common for a lot of clients to demand seperate monitoring systems from front counter and drive through orders. Additionally, the rigorous demands of this industry requires enhanced durability not commonly found elsewhere. Piercetp (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually most modern super markets utilize a hand held, portable scanner that allows the customer to scan their order as they shop. The cashier just has to tell the unit to upload its data at the POS station (usually via bluetooth or wi-fi) and download the transaction and total it. They use this at most Royal Ahold chains in the US. They also use Symbol inventory control devices to track inventory, again using wi-fi or a proprietary wireless protocol. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Hospitality POS systems do have different functions than retail POS systems. While both utilize a database to keep track of inventory, cash etc, the HPOS does more. It helps route internal traffic to its appropriate make station, track speed of service, as well as route orders to the appropriate expediter station. HPOS systems are designed to specifically be utilized by the cashier in such a way that requires input. Trust me, the cash register at most restaurants is very difficult to master, taking several days just to understand the intricacies; this is contrary to the old myth of morons behind the counter just saying "you want fries with that?" On the flip side, most RPOS systems use an entirely different interface; it is designed to process merchandise orders quickly with little or no input from the cashier. Almost all RPOS systems just require the cashier to swipe a product across a scanner and hit half a dozen buttons at the end of the transaction, the first one being "total" and the others being credit or cash. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not convinced. You still haven't really explained why this cannot be a section of the other. Timneu22 (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • How about for the same reason car and truck are not in the same article, both are automobiles but are different due to their application. Second the POS article also is actually about POP, not POS. POP is point of purchase, which is the combination of advertising, the physical location and the POS system itself. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Separate article

Considering this article is entirely unsourced (completely original research), I see no case that this article should exist separately from point of sale. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

But point of sale sucks too. Why not combine them and then make an effort to make it good?Timneu22 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that was my point.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. I misread your statement! Let's do it, then. Timneu22 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The article was very thoroughly sourced. The problem is that any attempts to quote valid sources were deleted because they were from propriatary sources. I strongly disagree with merging these articles. I believe it should stay as it is. If you can find product-neutral sources to add to this article, than please do so.Piercetp (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)