Talk:Hilton Worldwide/Archive 1

Archive 1

HHC is the not the largest hotel chain

This article needs to be changed as it suggests than HHC is the largest hotel chain in the world when Hilton Group holds that. It is therefore important to declare that HHC is simply hotels in the US & Canada therefore many facts on this page should be moved to Hilton Group.

^^ This is no longer relevant has HHC has now bought over Hilton International and there is no longer a distinction between the two companies. Thus Hilton Hotel Corporation is the largest hotel chain in the world (owning over 2600 properties across the entire Hilton Family of hotels)

The entry has the sentence, "On October 14, 2005 Hilton Hotels Corporation approached the British-based Hilton Group (FTSE:HG) with a possible sale of Hilton Group's hotel's business with a possible figure of $6.3US."

This is unclear, is this $6.3US Billion?

Trivia

Hilton becomes the first international hotel chain with the opening of the Caribe Hilton in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

what date was this?

Errors

The article is also missing a large chunk of history where Hilton acquired Promus brands. This gave them a second corporate office in Memphis, TN (the former Promus headquarters, which is still in operation today and contains many vital functions of HHC including their entire secured data center) and it also gave them the following brands: Doubletree, Embassy Suites, Hampton Inn, and Homewood Suites. The secondary corporate office in Memphis, TN hosts their franchise departments, provides support and vital functions for their franchised hotels, and deals with such primary corporate issues such as state taxes, sales, marketing, hotel IT support, in-house programming of proprietary applications, and Human Resources- just to name a few. The Memphis coporate office should not be ignored as it is a vital operational aspect of the company.

You may also want to include that the reservations offices are in Texas but the primary customer service department is also housed at the Memphis office.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.67.206 (talk • contribs)

Space Odyssey movie in Trivia section

What about famous orbital Hilton hotel form "2001" Space Odyssey movie in Trivia section :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.249.64.233 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

New subsection and racism in Norway

I added about controversy in Norway, Scandic Hotels and racism case. An Oslo hotel owned by the U.S.-based Hilton Hotel Corp. faced protests, a boycott and a police complaint this week after refusing to book rooms for a Cuban delegation because of the United States' trade embargo against Cuba. Norwegian law ensures that no one can be denied access based on their citizenship or ethnic origin. The 300,000-member Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees said it would boycott all Scandic hotels in Norway.We are already looking for other hotels for planned conferences," union deputy leader Anne Grethe Skaardal said Friday. "For us, it is unacceptable for the U.S. to dictate to the whole world." http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/16395787.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.156.60.40 (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

If this news item is encyclopedic, which is not established at this time, then it should be included in the best article for the topic. This is likely the article that discusses the 40 year boycott that apparently was behind this event, maybe United States embargo against Cuba. A possible brief mention in the article for the Scandic Hotels property that was involved might also be appropriate. But a detailed writeup here of material repeated elsewhere is not correct. Also equating racism to a boycott that is not based on race is inaccurate. Vegaswikian 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

True, future will show is this important or not. Maybe more opinions, should stay for a while - some weeks, or removed. or moved to other location? Problem with this trade embargo is that this happened in Norway which has it's own laws. People seems to equate this to racism because the only reason for refusing to book rooms was nationality of the quests.

"reads like an advertisement"

Added the

to the lead - someone in the know should fix a few paragraphs here. Asav (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the POV and ad template. Asav (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Name change

According to a press release issued today, the company will now be known as Hilton Worldwide. A motivated editor should take the time to document this change and make the appropriate updates. - Dravecky (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Hilton Changes Corporate Name and Logo" (Press release). Hotel Online. September 23, 2009.

Hilton Suites

There is no mention in the article of the Hilton Suites brand, which is also owned by Hilton and has various properties (Chicago, Orange CA, etc.) This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.94.69.130 (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Request: Corrections to the article's "History" section

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton, I have another request: for corrections to the article's "History" section. Each of these requests can be verified here (click on tabs for specific decades), which is already used as an inline citation in the article. I propose the following four wording changes:

1. First, it seems unnecessary to mention Conrad Hilton's ambition in an article providing an overview of the company. Can the text be reduced to the following?

Before: Hilton was founded by Conrad Hilton in 1919 with the purchase of the 40-room Mobley Hotel in Cisco, Texas. Over the following several years, Conrad purchased more hotels in Texas. While business was strong, he had greater ambition.

After: In 1919, Conrad Hilton purchased his first hotel, the 40-room Mobley Hotel in Cisco, Texas, and bought additional Texas hotels as years passed.

2. The article currently says that Hilton opened the first high-rise building in Dallas, which is not accurate. Also, there are currently grammatical errors and this much detail is not necessary for a company overview. I propose the following correction / update:

Before: In 1925, Hilton opened the first high-rise building in Dallas, Texas. The Dallas Hilton would become the first hotel to carry the Hilton name on its building (though the building is now not operated by Hilton Worldwide). Uniquely because air conditioning was not yet invented, elevators, laundry chutes, and other non-guest facilities were placed on the west side of the building - so no guest would face the western sunset.

After: In 1925, the Dallas Hilton became the first hotel to use the Hilton name.

3. The article is currently wrong about the year of establishment. Also, it is probably not necessary to mention the Roosevelt Hotel's television sets. This seems more appropriate for the article about the property, and not a company overview. I proposed the following correction / update:

Before: In 1943, Hilton purchased the Roosevelt Hotel and the Plaza Hotel in New York. This would create the first coast-to-coast hospitality company in the America. Then in 1947, he created the Hilton Hotels Corporation, leading the new company to be publicly listed on the New York Stock Exchange. In this same year, Hilton's Roosevelt Hotel would be the first ever in the world to offer television sets in all guest rooms.

After: In 1943, Hilton purchased the Roosevelt Hotel and the Plaza Hotel in New York, establishing the first hospitality company to span the contiguous United States. The company incorporated in 1946 as the Hilton Hotels Corporation, and subsequently began public trading of shares on the New York Stock Exchange.

4. Currently, the article reads as though Lady Hilton was a specific property, which is not true: it was a hotel concept that applied to various properties. I propose the following correction:

Before: In 1965, Hilton launched the Lady Hilton, the first hotel designed for women travelers. The hotel features women only floors and guest rooms, and had amenities only for women.

After: In 1965, Hilton launched Lady Hilton, the first hotel concept created specifically for women guests. To appeal to female travelers, a number of properties offered floors occupied by only women along with distinct amenities for their usage.

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: If the proposed revisions are already on http://www.hiltonworldwide.com/about/history you'll have to rewrite them in your own words. Wikipedia doesn't want to use copyrighted text. I know that Commons:Commons:OTRS (a verification system to allow previously copyrighted pictures to be relicensed for use on Wikipedia) helps with images but I don't think that is done with text. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Thank you for pointing this out. I would never knowingly plagiarize and think what happened here was that Hilton updated their website based on these drafted updates.

I think Request #1 is paraphrased enough. For Request #2 I think the first sentence is appropriate and actually I think we should remove the sentence about air conditioning. This seems more appropriate for a Wikipedia article about the building/property itself, not the company overview. I've struck out the second sentence above. For Request #3, I changed "This would create the first coast-to-coast hospitality company in the United States" to "This would create the first hospitality company spanning the contiguous United States". I also struck out and re-worded Request #4.

I hope this paraphrasing satisfies your concern. I went ahead and bolded the updated proposed text for the article. Would you be willing to update the article's history section with these revised corrections? Thanks again for your consideration. -Inkian Jason (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: I would avoid posting anything that is written exactly like what's on the Hilton website. Copyright is one of the things that is taken very seriously here. Also be sure to avoid closely paraphrasing when possible.

I'd contact the person who is writing the history pages on the Hilton website and ask him/her to not add sentences from Wikipedia until after the content is posted in the mainspace, and to state that the sentences came from Wikipedia. The license CC BY-SA 3.0 License /GFDL needs to be stated wherever this is done.

You can also ask him/her to, on that page, declare that "the content was written by Wikipedia user Inkian Jason and was released under the license CC BY-SA 3.0 License /GFDL" - If you wrote the content first, it should be credited to you.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Thanks for responding. I am actually working with Hilton to update this article, and the proposed language above paraphrases content currently viewable on their website. To clarify, I am not seeking attribution, I was just explaining why the language was similar before, and assuring editors that my intention was not to violate copyright rules. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the proposed wording needs additional work or not, but if you have specific concerns please let me know. Otherwise, I hope the language can be updated within the article. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: If you wrote the text, there don't need to be any changes to the text itself for copyright reasons. All Hilton needs to do is attribute the text to Wikipedia. Even if you personally do not need to attributed, the Wikimedia Foundation does ask for Wikipedia to be cited. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: There seems to be some confusion here. The Hilton website was not updated based on text I wrote here first. The Hilton website was simply updated using language we discussed internally. I am just trying to paraphrase text currently displayed on the Hilton website. Are you able to offer wording that won't cause copyright concerns? Inkian Jason (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: For example "In 1919, Conrad Hilton purchased his first hotel, the 40-room Mobley Hotel in Cisco, Texas, and bought additional Texas hotels as years passed." is fine as it doesn't match the original sentence too closely. However one still has to worry about Wikipedia:close paraphrasing dependent on the whole passage versus what is on the website. It may help to build a userpage draft at User:Inkian Jason/Draft and that can be reviewed versus the original source. If it's different enough it can be copied into the mainspace. I know it's difficult so maybe you could make a draft in your userpace and we could work from that. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I've updated the above proposed text, which I hope will meet your approval. I will definitely keep your suggestion re: draft subpage in mind for larger proposed edits. But hopefully the above 'before and after' setup works for these 4 pieces of content. Inkian Jason (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Jumping in here with a suggestion. Edit 3 is still a bit close to the original wording. I propose the second sentence be worded as "The company incorporated in 1946 as the Hilton Hotels Corporation, and subsequently began public trading of shares on the New York Stock Exchange." With Edit 4, I propose the second sentence be worded as "To appeal to female travelers, a number of properties offered floors occupied by only women along with distinct amenities for their usage." Altamel (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel: Thank you for the suggestions. I've replaced the above proposed text with your wording. If you or WhisperToMe are willing to update the article accordingly, I'd be grateful. -Inkian Jason (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Thank you for updating the article accordingly. I have marked this section as resolved. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for updates to infobox

Resolved

I'm here on behalf of Hilton Worldwide, as part of my work at Beutler Ink, to suggest some updates for this article. I'd like to start with a request for three updates to the article's infobox:

1. Update: "$8.0 billion (2013)" to "$11.27 billion (2015)" per this more recent source. (See page 43 or control+F "11,272" to verify.) I've supplied some wiki markup with a formatted reference for easy copying and pasting as an inline citation:

Reference markup
<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://api40.10kwizard.com/cgi/convert/pdf/HLT-20160226-10K-20151231.pdf?ipage=10774498&xml=1&quest=1&rid=23&section=1&sequence=-1&pdf=1&dn=1|title=Morningstar Document Research FORM 10-K: Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. - HLT Filed: February 26, 2016 (period: December 31, 2015)|publisher=Hilton Worldwide|accessdate=March 8, 2016|date=February 26, 2016}}</ref>

2. Update: "152,000 employees / 162,000 franchise employees (Dec 2013)" to "164,000 employees at managed, owned, leased and timeshare properties and corporate offices (Dec 2015)" per this more recent source. (See marked page 2 or Control+F "164,000" to verify.) This is the same source used above, so the reference can be named as used, or the following can be copied and pasted:

Reference markup
<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://api40.10kwizard.com/cgi/convert/pdf/HLT-20160226-10K-20151231.pdf?ipage=10774498&xml=1&quest=1&rid=23&section=1&sequence=-1&pdf=1&dn=1|title=Morningstar Document Research FORM 10-K: Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. - HLT Filed: February 26, 2016 (period: December 31, 2015)|publisher=Hilton Worldwide|accessdate=March 8, 2016|date=February 26, 2016}}</ref>

3. Hilton Worldwide also seeks to remove "Blackstone Group" as the designated parent company. Blackstone Group is a majority shareholder, but not a parent company.

Please let me know if you have any questions about these requests. Thank you for your consideration. -Inkian Jason (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made these updates, with minor changes. Toohool (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Toohool: Thank you so much for your help. I've marked this section as resolved and posted a second request below, if you or another editor are available to assist. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Blackstone Group

Resolved

See also: User_talk:Toohool#Re:_Hilton_Worldwide_article_request. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Copied from User:Toohool's talk page:

On second thought, I believe it is still incorrect to include "Blackstone Group" in the infobox in any capacity. Since Hilton Worldwide is a publicly traded company, it is actually incorrect for anyone to be called an "owner" and the parameter guidelines for the infobox say (my bold): "Use this parameter to list ownership percentages for private companies owned by a few key individuals or to list ownership percentages for joint ventures, if applicable. Do not use this field for publicly traded companies. When listing a company as an owner, use the full legal name of the entity that holds the ownership stake in the article's subject company." Would you mind eliminating Blackstone Group from the infobox altogether?

@Toohool and WhisperToMe: In case one of you has time to respond. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I very much disagree with that statement in the infobox documentation. An infobox is supposed to be a summary of key points from the article. If a shareholder's ownership is discussed in the article, then it's probably worth mentioning in the infobox. Particularly here, as an investor with a 43% stake, where there are no other major shareholders, can effectively control the company for all practical purposes. Toohool (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Toohool: I see where you are coming from, but I think it would be best if we follow current infobox documentation guidelines and perhaps you can start a discussion on the infobox talk page re: shareholder's ownership? Inkian Jason (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in starting a bureaucratic discussion like that. What's important is not some silly rule on some obscure page, but what is best for this article. Ignore all rules. Toohool (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel: Since you've been so helpful, I was wondering if you had an opinion about removing Blackstone Group from the infobox given the above guideline. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on the infobox issue. As a compromise, perhaps Blackstone Group could be removed from the infobox while writing a sentence in the introduction about Blackstone's plurality ownership stake. Incidentally, the 43% stake is incorrect. According the the DEF 14A SEC filing, Blackstone owns 45.8% of Hilton Worldwide. Altamel (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel: I am fine with this compromise. I suggest removing Blackstone Group from the infobox and adding the following: "As of December 31, 2015, Blackstone Group held 45.9% of Hilton Worldwide's common stock." The the most recent Hilton WW 10K can be used as an inline citation. Would you be willing to make this update? Inkian Jason (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if Toohool has anything to add before we proceed. Altamel (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any good reason to remove this from the infobox. The infobox is supposed to present a summary of important facts from the article in a standard format. For a reader who is looking in the infobox and expects to find information about the ownership of the company, this is the information they're looking for. Toohool (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case, there is no consensus for this alteration at this moment. Closing the edit request. Altamel (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel and Toohool: Thank you, both, for revisiting this discussion. The problem is that people are getting the ​wrong information by reading this in the infobox. Hilton Worldwide is a publicly traded company and Blackstone owns a percentage of stock. "Owner" is not to be used for public companies because it is not applicable. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The information is not wrong in any sense. Blackstone own 46% of Hilton. The fact that the stock is traded on a public exchange doesn't make that any less true. Toohool (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel and Toohool: I think template documentation supports my argument, but User:Toohool and I are still in disagreement. User:Altamel has proposed a compromise, to which I have agreed, but still no change has been made to the article. Is something like WP:3O or WP:RfC an option, or is there another compromise that will satisfy all of us? Inkian Jason (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: See Talk:Hilton_Worldwide#Request_for_comment:_Blackstone_Group_in_the_infobox below. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request regarding the "Hilton HHonors" section

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton Worldwide, I have a third request with two corrections/updates to the article's "Hilton HHonors" section:

1. Can the following text be updated? (Bold text emphasizes changes.)

Before

Hilton HHonors is Hilton's guest loyalty program in which frequent guests can accumulate points and airline miles by staying with the various Hilton family of brands. The Hilton Honors program is one of the largest programs of its type, with over 30 million HHonors members.

After

Hilton HHonors is Hilton's guest loyalty program in which frequent guests can accumulate points and airline miles by staying within the Hilton portfolio. The Hilton HHonors program is one of the largest programs of its type, with more than 50 million members.

Reason

Slight wording change, correct the misspelling of "Hilton Honors program", and update the number of members per this source

If this change is appropriate, the following can be copied and pasted for use as an inline citation:

<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.hiltonworldwide.com/assets/HWW/docs/brandFactSheets/HWW_Corporate_Fact_Sheet.pdf|title=Hilton Worldwide At-a-Glance|publisher=Hilton Worldwide|accessdate=March 8, 2016|date=December 31, 2015}}</ref>

Changed the text, but can we get an outside source to verify the 50 million members stat? Altamel (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel: Thank you. Would this link work as an inline citation? Inkian Jason (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately, this request fell through the cracks last month. Altamel (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

2. Can the following text be removed in an attempt to trim the section?

Remove

The program has partnerships with most major airlines where guests can "Double Dip" and accumulate both points and airlines miles simultaneously with their hotel stay. Similar to frequent flyer programs, there are various tiers of membership which guests can reach depending on the amount of stays and points accumulated annually, the higher the tier the more benefits members receive. The membership tiers are as follows:

Blue (obtained upon enrollment)

Silver VIP (obtained after 4 stays or 10 nights)

Gold VIP (obtained after 20 stays, 40 nights, or 75,000 base points)

Diamond VIP (obtained after 30 stays, 60 nights, or 120,000 base points)

Diamond VIP is the highest tier level, these members receive benefits such as access to the Executive Level lounge at Hilton Hotels, complimentary in-room internet access, Guaranteed 48-hour reservations, a dedicated "Diamond VIP Desk" which members can call for priority reservations and travel planning, a dedicated VIP check in line at larger hotels, best available room pre-assignments, and special in-hotel amenities such as room upgrades and arrival amenities.

Reason

The above content is unsourced, promotional, and in some cases incorrect (for example, Hilton membership tiers do not include the word "VIP"). Additionally, this much detail is not necessary for a general overview about Hilton Worldwide and its history and properties. Specific benefits also change over time, so keeping this section more general means more longevity.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. @Altamel, Toohool, and WhisperToMe: Pinging three editors who have been kind enough to help already and may be willing to assist again. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done, also merged the HHonors program section into the list of chains. That seems like a more logical placement, as the loyalty program really is just an incentive for travelers to stay within those chains. Altamel (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel: Thank you for updating the article. I hope the above source (see unresolved part) will allow the addition of the membership figure. I also wonder if you might have an opinion regarding the logos of Hilton brands (see above section)? Inkian Jason (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed updates for the History section

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton Worldwide, I have some additional requests for this article. I've outlined 4 specific changes below, all related to the History section.

1. Currently, the article displays a box with the quote, "Our vision is to fill the earth with the light and warmth of hospitality, by being the first choice of hotel guests, team members, and owners alike." However, the inline citation, which links to the Hilton website, displays the following: "To be the preeminent global hospitality company - the first choice of guests, team members, and owners alike."

Can we therefore change the quote box to display the following?

"To be the preeminent global hospitality company - the first choice of guests, team members, and owners alike." - Hilton Worldwide's mission

This is exactly how the Hilton Worldwide displays its mission. Source: Hilton Worldwide

Formatted reference: <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hiltonworldwide.com/about/mission/|title=Vision, Mission, and Values|accessdate=June 15, 2016|publisher=Hilton Worldwide}}</ref>

2. Can the following sentence be removed from the History section? "Conrad Hilton was featured on the cover of Time Magazine, the only hotelier at the time to have been so." This is about Conrad Hilton, and not the company itself. This fact is probably better suited for the Conrad Hilton article.

3. Can the following sentence be removed from the History section? "The 499-room Hilton Istanbul became so famous that it earned its own zip code and postal stamp." This seems appropriate for the Hilton Istanbul Bosphorus article, but not an article providing a general overview of Hilton Worldwide.

4. Can the following sentences be removed from the History section? "Hilton became the first hospitality company in September of the same year to create the franchise concept. This allowed a hotel to operate under the Hilton name to utilize company systems and brand recognition, but would not be operated by Hilton Worldwide, instead by a private party." This content is unsourced.

Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done @Inkian Jason: Let me show you my rationale:

1 - I'm not sure about this. The article mentions this quote, yes, which is an amalgamation of both the vision and the mission so the quote itself is distorted (it's two separate quotes on the website). I'm not going to do this until I get further clarification from you on what you think is better, because you'd have to neglect the vision part of the quote if you were to implement your edit.

2 - I think this fact is fine, it's directly related to the Hilton hotel because it's referring to his status as a hotelier. If it just stated he was on the cover of Time Magazine, then I'd remove it. But in this case, I don't agree.

3 - I agree, I've removed this.

4 - Removed.

Let me know about the first request. st170e^talk 22:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@St170e: Thank you for your help thus far. Regarding #1: I would be find leaving the vision and mission statements, if both are appropriate for the Wikipedia article. Just including the mission statement would be fine if both vision and mission might seem too much. If both are kept, however, I don’t think they should be presented as a single quote by Conrad Hilton since this is not how the two statements appear on the Hilton website. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: Is there even any evidence to prove that Conrad himself said this? I'd be happy to use one or the other, as I concur about how the two statements appear. --st170e^talk 18:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@St170e: I am not suggesting that the vision or mission are quotes from Conrad. I am asking to replace that quote with the actual mission (and possibly vision statement, if you deem appropriate), as presented on the Hilton website. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Inkian Jason: That's fine! I've changed it now to how you have suggested. As they are two separate quotes on the website, I've only included the mission. You can include the vision elsewhere in the article, but at the moment I would leave it out. st170e^talk 14:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@St170e: I really appreciate your help. Thanks so much! (If you have another spare moment and are able to assist, there is a much simpler edit request directly above this one.) Inkian Jason (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Resolved

I have another request to submit on behalf of Hilton Worldwide. This request proposes the removal of several unsourced claims in various sections of the article.

1. In the "Two chains with one name" section, "known as Hilton International Co.." could have the second period removed (proper punctuation). This is a very minor edit, but I still prefer to have others edit the article directly, given my conflict of interest.
2. Currently, the "21st century" section includes the following text: "HHC was granted the naming rights to the George R. Brown Convention Center in late 2003. The Hilton Americas in downtown Houston, Texas is connected to the convention center." This seems too specific for a Wikipedia article about a large company's general history. This content belongs on the Wikipedia article about the convention center, or the non-existent article about Hilton Americas.
3. Currently, the "Franchising" section includes the following text: "Competitor companies, such as Marriott International and Starwood, follow a similar business model that focuses on franchising as a rapid expansion method." Not only is this content unsourced, but it seems arbitrary to mention Marriott and Starwood specifically.
4. Finally, can we replace "Dubai Internet City Building 15" with simply "Dubai"? The former is unnecessary detail for a general company overview, and is more consistent with the first part of the sentence.

I realize a couple of these requests may be considered minor, but I'd still prefer to have a neutral editor make changes as I have a conflict of interest. Thanks for considering these proposed updates. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Inkian Jason: I've performed all of these edits as requested. I was hesitant on number two but I ended up agreeing with you as it seems a bit trivial for a company's global article. -- st170e^talk 21:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and assistance. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the article's lead

Resolved

I am submitting another request on behalf of Hilton Worldwide as part of my work for Beutler Ink. This request proposes 2 changes to the article's lead.

1. I propose a slight wording change to improve flow, eliminate unnecessary detail (re: Chad), and update the number of rooms.

Before: As of January 2016, Hilton Worldwide's portfolio includes 4,610 hotels with over 758,502 rooms. In January 2016, the opening of the Hilton in Chad marked the 100th country Hilton resides in, thus making the corporation the largest hotel chain in the world by rooms and international presence.

After: As of March 2016, Hilton Worldwide's portfolio includes more than 4,660 properties with over 765,000 rooms in more than 100 countries, making the corporation the largest hotel chain in the world by rooms and international presence.

Source: Hilton Worldwide

Formatted reference: <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.hiltonworldwide.com/index.cfm/news/responding-to-popular-demand-hilton-taps-google-maps-to-help-hhonors-members-see-more-when-choosing-their-room|title=Responding to Popular Demand, Hilton Taps Google Maps to Help HHonors Members See More When Choosing Their Room|date=May 11, 2016|accessdate=June 15, 2016|publisher=Hilton Worldwide}}</ref>

2. Currently, the article's lead says, "The company has been a sponsor of the United States Olympic Team since 2005." This is no longer true. I propose changing the tense, since the company is no longer a sponsor, and moving the sentence from the lead to the article's History section. This past sponsorship does not seem like something worth mentioning in the lead.

Thanks again for your consideration. I am happy to address any questions or concerns reviewers may have about these proposed changes. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've now performed these edits Inkian Jason. -- st170e^talk 20:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Blackstone Group in the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Should this article's infobox include Blackstone Group in the "owner" parameter?

I submitted a request to remove Blackstone Group from the infobox (see the Request for updates to infobox section above, or more specifically, the Re: Blackstone Group subsection). Hilton Worldwide is a publicly traded company. According to infobox template documentation (bold emphasis mine), we should "Use [the owner] parameter to list ownership percentages for private companies owned by a few key individuals or to list ownership percentages for joint ventures, if applicable. Do not use this field for publicly traded companies. When listing a company as an owner, use the full legal name of the entity that holds the ownership stake in the article's subject company."

User:Toohool disagrees with the infobox documentation. User:Altamel does not feel strongly either way, but offered the following compromise: "perhaps Blackstone Group could be removed from the infobox while writing a sentence in the introduction about Blackstone's plurality ownership stake". I agreed to this compromise. User:Toohool did not accept the compromise, and User:Altamel closed the edit request saying there is no consensus for update the article accordingly.

I think template documentation supports my argument, but Blackstone Group remains in the infobox and I am not willing to edit the article myself given my conflict of interest (see multiple sections above). I would like for more editors to weigh in on this discussion. Thank you in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• In sentence: I agree with User:Inkian Jason that asserting ownership of publicly traded company in infobox is misleading and posit that User:Altamel's solution works best. There are cases where publicly traded company structurally remain subsidiary of another publicly traded company (VMWare, parent EMC Corporation). But owner attribute doesn't make sense for publicly traded companies. From my understanding, Hilton Worldwide is not structurally a subsidiary of The Blackstone Group L.P. either, Blackstone just happens to own a handsome amount of its shares. So, it makes sense to mention their large stake in a sentence somewhere in the history section' 21st century subsection, but not in infobox or lead. --nafSadh did say 22:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Include in infobox: A corporation is owned by its shareholders. It doesn't make any difference that it's publicly traded. A shareholder who owns 46% of the shares is a major owner, certainly important enough to include in the infobox, whether the other 54% is owned by 1 person, or a million investors on the public market. OP's argument seems to be based on nothing more than a desire to comply with some obscure template doc that was written with little discussion. Toohool (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Include in the infobox, and as a sentence in the introduction, and as a sentence, or paragraph if necessary, in the body. The RFC bot sent me. Complete, accurate, and up-to-date information, including ownership of property including corporate equity and vested control, is the only way to achieve the WP:COMPREHENSIVEness requirement of WP:FACR criterion 1(b). EllenCT (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• No ownership in infobox Publicly traded companies should not have an owner listed. Perhaps the infobox could be developed to introduce additional fields, like "major shareholders", but it is confusing to say that a publicly traded company has a particular owner. It should be noted wherever appropriate that a certain company owns many shares but I am not seeing a reason why the owner box is the best place for presenting this information. Using that box seems misleading. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• No ownership in the infobox. The information should be included in the article, but not in the infobox. I like the compromise suggested by Altamel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• No owner in the infobox - Hilton Worldwide is a publicly traded company. It's misleading to list Blackstone as the owner when it's a publicly traded company. Details about who owns what percentages of the publicly traded company can be covered in the lead/body of the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there someone watching this page who is able to close the above discussion? I’ve already submitted a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This RfC has been closed upon request of the author. --st170e^talk 20:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The consensus of this RfC seems to be that there should be no ownership in the infobox. This RfC has gone on long enough and there have been no more contributions to the discussion since. General consensus seems to convey that it's misleading. I'm now closing this with consensus of having no ownership in the infobox, but instead, mention of Blackstone's ownership in the lead section. -- st170e^talk 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to revert vandalism

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton Worldwide, I request a vandalism revert. Please see this diff, which actually represents a series of edits by an anonymous user. I prefer not to edit the article directly. Thank you in advance. @St170e: Might you be able to help? Inkian Jason (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Inkian Jason st170e^talk 17:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request re: intention to spin-off its timeshare and real estate businesses

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton Worldwide, I have another request for this article. Can the following update be added to the bottom of the History section?

In February 2016, Hilton Worldwide announced its intention to spin-off its timeshare and real estate businesses, creating three independent public companies.

Source: Reuters

Formatted reference: <ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hilton-wrldwide-reit-idUSKCN0VZ1EP|title=Hilton to spin off real estate, timeshare businesses|date=February 26, 2016|accessdate=June 15, 2016|publisher=Reuters|first=Ankit|last=Ajmera}}</ref>

Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. @St170e: Pinging you since you've been so responsive and helpful lately. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I believe so It looks like the reference is suitable, yes, it does not appear to be advertising or promotion, and anyone researching the corporation might like to note that information. It seems reasonable. Damotclese (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Damotclese: Thanks. Would you be willing to add this content to the article on my behalf? This is an edit request and not a request for comment, so you're welcome to add the sentence if you are willing. -Inkian Jason (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait a day or two, see if other editors have an opinion. If nobody objects, yes, I'll make the update. Damotclese (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like there are no objects, Inkian Jason (talk) so it got added. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, Damotclese. I have marked this edit request as answered and the section as resolved. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes Good addition. I've also found some more information | here. It looks like there is already a name for one of the spin offs: Park Hotels & Resorts Gpeja (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should other logos be included?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Conrad Hotels and Resort logo and the Waldorf Astoria logo be included on the article? I am starting this RfC on behalf of Inkian Jason, an editor with a conflict of interest, who requested this edit. --st170e^talk 16:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

These are brands of the Hilton Worldwide family. I'm not sure why they wouldn't be included.Hoteljargon (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I just want to direct readers to this conversation above for some additional context, where I argued: "Setting aside brand confusion, the Walford Astoria image includes a registered trademark and should probably only be used under fair use. Per Logos, "they are usually non-free images, and so their use must conform to the guidelines for non-free content and, specifically, the non-free content criteria", and "logos are often registered trademarks and so their use is restricted independently of copyright concerns"... There is no need to include logos for all of the brands in the Hilton portfolio, especially those with their own articles. Again, per Logos, "A logo may appear in the infobox of the main article on the subject the logo represents. For example, the main company logo may appear in the main article about the company, the main school logo in the main article about the school, and the main sports team logo in the main article about the sports team, but a school logo and a school sports team logo may not both appear in the same article (although they may appear in separate articles). Outside of these limits, neither non-free nor trademarked logos (see discussion) should be used within an article." I hope this helps to explain why the logos should not be included." Sorry for the redundancy here. I just wanted to make sure reviewers saw the above conversation. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• No. WP:ISNOT a logo gallery. If we included logos of every product, division, or other trademark owned by a particular corporate entity, some of our articles would have hundreds of logos in them. This is not an encyclopedic purpose. The four superflous logos already in the article need to be removed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• No. There is no need for more logos. I like how this article is kept clean and simple. Hilton is well known and there are many opportunities to misuse and advertise. Keep up a good work and don't add more logos! There could be more photos of the hotels/resorts itself or the main people (CEO etc.). Logos could be on the photo. Gpeja (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@St170e: It looks like the discussion period has ended. What is your takeaway from this discussion? Should the logos be removed? Inkian Jason (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: withdrawing now. --st170e^talk 23:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Logos

Resolved

See this edit regarding the hotel logos. @Inkian Jason: and @Hoteljargon: WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Thanks for starting a discussion here.

@Hoteljargon: Can you explain why you think these logos should be displayed on the Hilton Worldwide article when they are already displayed on their respective articles? Setting aside brand confusion, the Walford Astoria image includes a registered trademark and should probably only be used under fair use. Per Logos, "they are usually non-free images, and so their use must conform to the guidelines for non-free content and, specifically, the non-free content criteria", and "logos are often registered trademarks and so their use is restricted independently of copyright concerns".

There is no need to include logos for all of the brands in the Hilton portfolio, especially those with their own articles. Again, per Logos, "A logo may appear in the infobox of the main article on the subject the logo represents. For example, the main company logo may appear in the main article about the company, the main school logo in the main article about the school, and the main sports team logo in the main article about the sports team, but a school logo and a school sports team logo may not both appear in the same article (although they may appear in separate articles). Outside of these limits, neither non-free nor trademarked logos (see discussion) should be used within an article." I hope this helps to explain why the logos should not be included.

@WhisperToMe: What are your thoughts? Inkian Jason (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: I checked the logos and noticed those three are on the Wikimedia Commons. Normally things are placed in the Wikimedia Commons if they are not copyrighted. Now in the U.S. Some logos are too simple to be copyrighted and therefore eligible for Commons. If they are not simple enough they should be moved to the English and French Wikipedias. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I understand. I don't know how to go about having the logos assessed for whether or not they belong at Wikimedia Commons, but regardless, my understanding of the above guideline is that the logos should not be displayed on the Hilton Worldwide article since they are displayed in their respective articles. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 Question: @Inkian Jason: are you still looking to remove the logos on the article? st170e^talk 21:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@St170e: Yes. I just posted on User:WhisperToMe's talk page about this. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: What we can do is see if those images are eligible for the Wikimedia Commons in the first place. If not they may be deleted from the Commons altogether. If they are still eligible then we can figure out whether to remove them from this article anyway. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: You mentioned non-free logos: it appears that these logos have actually been licensed for use on Wikipedia. --st170e^talk 21:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@St170e and WhisperToMe: I’ll need to look into the copyright situation with the logos some more and see if this should be discussed at Commons. In the meantime, it does not seem necessary nor especially helpful to readers to have the Conrad and Waldorf logos in this article, since they are already displayed in their own Wikipedia articles (which are linked from here). Likewise, once there’s a page for the Canopy brand, that logo can live there. What do you think, can these brand logos be removed? Inkian Jason (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: I would be rather inclined to opt for the status quo here; I don't see any compelling argument for the removal of these brand logos. They are correctly licensed so that isn't an obstacle. Hilton Worldwide operates and owns both of these so I would say it is rather fitting for the section discussing Hilton's brands. Having the logos helps identify the Hilton brands. Since the isn't a straight forward edit, I would recommend generating consensus on the talk page (or maybe through an RfC). --st170e^talk 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

At the Commons. according to one user one of the logos seems borderline but the other two are too simple for copyright: Commons:Commons:Village_pump#Are these logos too simple for copyright? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done @Inkian Jason: I've had another look at this and I am agreeing with Hoteljargon on this. Hilton Worldwide has these hotel brands amongst its portfolio so it's completely suitable and fitting for the logo to be included; brand confusion is not for Wikipedia to sort out. If you are still insistent on this, then I would advise an RfC as the most appropriate course of action because there isn't any consensus to remove the logos. If the discussion at the commons finds that one logo is copyrighted, then it should be removed per non-free image rules. Also pinging WhisperToMe. --st170e^talk 16:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason, WhisperToMe, and Hoteljargon: I've decided to start an RfC further down the talk page to gather some consensus. st170e^talk 16:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Inkian Jason: RfC consensus is to remove the logos and I have performed this edit for you (even if it was 3 and a half months later!) --st170e^talk 23:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@St170e: Thank you for revisiting this discussion and updating the article. However, it looks like your edit reverted many of the article improvements I've worked with community members to implement within these talk page discussions, as well as edits by others. Was this intentional? If not, do you mind undoing this diff and then simply removing the logos? Inkian Jason (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault completely! I must've been editing an older revision of the page without realising. I've reverted my original edit and fixed it now. Apologies. st170e^talk 14:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@St170e: Thank you for addressing this so quickly and for updating the article. I do appreciate your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request re: updated properties/room/country count

Resolved

On August 14, an anonymous editor updated the number of properties, rooms, and countries, but did not provide a source for this information. This information is correct, but there is one minor caveat worth noting (see parentheses below). On behalf of Hilton, I propose updating "As of June 30 2016, its portfolio includes 4,726 properties with 775,866 rooms in 104 countries & territories," with the following markup and inline citation: "As of June 30, 2016, its portfolio includes 4,726 properties (including timeshare properties) with 775,866 rooms in more than 100 countries and territories,"

References

The proposed text and citation are rendered by the following markup:

As of June 30, 2016, its portfolio includes 4,726 properties (including timeshare properties) with 775,866 rooms in more than 100 countries and territories,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.hiltonworldwide.com/assets/HWW/docs/brandFactSheets/HWW_Corporate_Fact_Sheet.pdf|publisher=Hilton Worldwide|accessdate=September 1, 2016|date=June 30, 2016|title=Hilton At-a-Glance|format=PDF}}</ref>

The language "more than 100 countries" has been carried over from a previous edit request and its implementation in order to give the wording some longevity, in case the number of properties changes from 104. Is there a neutral editor who is willing to update the article's markup on my behalf? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason:  Done Woodstop45 • Talk ^(Contribs) 18:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Woodstop45: Thank you for your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Logo

As part of my ongoing work, I have uploaded a new logo file image for the infobox, which was provided to me by Hilton. Please let me know if you have any questions. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading the new logo. I have moved it to Wikimedia Commons as File:Hilton Worldwide logo.svg. --Senator2029 “Talk” 14:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Senator2029: Thank you for doing this. I wonder if you might be willing to take a look at either of the above edit requests. I’ve been looking for neutral editors to help, and have even been given permission to implement this request, but I’d prefer not to edit the article directly given my COI. If not, no worries and thanks again for helping out. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request to correct and update the article

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton Worldwide, I'd like to request a correction and an addition to this article.

1. Currently, the article says: "It was announced in Q4 2015 that Hilton Worldwide Holdings would turn its hotel holdings into a real estate investment trust. Prior to making the announcement, the company went to the IRS for approval." The inline citation for these two sentences is this source.

However, this content is not quite right. Some outlets were reporting based on what they'd heard about the IRS request, but Hilton had not made any announcement yet. The company actually made the announcement in Q1 2016 when they reported Q4 2015 results.

Instead, could the text be altered to say "The company announced in February 2016 that Hilton Worldwide Holdings would turn its hotel holdings into a real estate investment trust. Prior to making the announcement, the company went to the IRS for approval."?

---

2. In addition, I'd like to request the addition of the following text, per Fortune, Great Place to Work, and Skift:

• In 2016, Hilton was named one of the "World's 25 Best Multinational Workplaces" by Fortune and Great Place to Work.

References

Here is markup for the three inline citations, if needed:

<ref>{{cite journal|title=The 25 Best Global Companies to Work For|journal=Fortune|date=October 26, 2016|url=http://fortune.com/2016/10/26/best-global-companies/|accessdate=November 10, 2016}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web|title=2016 World’s Best Multinational Workplaces|url=http://www.greatplacetowork.net/best-companies/worlds-best-multinationals/the-list|publisher=Great Place to Work|accessdate=November 10, 2016|date=2016}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web|last1=Ting|first1=Deanna|title=The 3 Hotel Brands on Fortune's List of Best Global Workplaces for 2016|url=https://skift.com/2016/11/01/the-3-hotels-on-fortunes-list-of-best-global-workplaces-for-2016/|website=Skift|accessdate=November 10, 2016|date=November 1, 2016}}</ref>

I am happy to answer any questions or respond to concerns here or on my user talk page. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, looking at the proposed changes I would agree that they are golden to make. The accuracy of the requests previously for this page have been successfully backed with references and citations so I recommend that the editor Inkian Jason proceed with the changes. I'm not fully aware of the company but a Google and a check of the references look correct.

Unless no other editor objects, if you would, Inkian Jason, please make the changes. I have this page watch listed. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Damotclese: Thank you for reviewing this edit request and approving my proposed changes. However, I would still prefer not to edit the article directly given my conflict of interest. Would you be willing to implement these changes on my behalf? I'm not sure if you're referring to just this edit request, or the above one as well (where I pinged you), but I've tried to make implementation as easy as possible by essentially allowing reviewing editors to copy and paste markup. I am also willing to wait for another editor to make these changes if you prefer. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Damotclese: No worries if you prefer not to implement these proposed changes, but are you able to confirm if you approve of both of the above edit requests, or just the latter? Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel and WhisperToMe: You've both been helpful with past updates, so I'm hoping you may be able to help with this request, which has already been reviewed and approved (but not implemented), or the above edit request. I've pinged several editors and posted requests for help at a few WikiProjects, but so far no one has responded. As always, I am happy to address any questions or concerns, and thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Inkian Jason: Check the article to see if it's how you intended. See revision WhisperToMe (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• @WhisperToMe: Thanks for your help. I have marked this edit request as 'answered'. Is there any chance you might be able to address this edit request, too? Should be just as easy to implement as this request, but thanks for your help either way. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request re: HNA Group and HHonors membership

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton Worldwide as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I propose updating the article with the following:

• In October 2016, HNA Group agreed to acquire a 25 percent equity interest in Hilton from Blackstone, reducing Blackstone's interest in Hilton to approximately 21 percent. The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2017.

References

The best location for this update may be after: "On December 12, 2013, Hilton again became a public company in its second IPO to raise an estimated $2.35 billion. The Blackstone Group holds a 45.8% stake in the company."

In addition, I'd like to request that the number of HHonors members be updated to 57 million, per this source, which is already used as an inline citation in the first sentence of the introduction's second paragraph. Here is markup for the inline citation, if needed to update the second sentence of the "Hilton HHonors" section:

<ref>{{cite web|title=Hilton At-A-Glance|format=PDF|publisher=Hilton Worldwide|url=http://news.hiltonworldwide.com/assets/HWW/docs/brandFactSheets/HWW_Corporate_Fact_Sheet.pdf|accessdate=November 10, 2016}}</ref>

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your assistance in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@St170e, Damotclese, and Woodstop45: I am pinging you three editors since you participated in the most edit request discussions. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hi Inkian Jason, I'm really sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I have implemented your edit now in full. st170e^talk 14:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@St170e: No need to apologize, and thank you very, very much for your assistance. Happy New Year! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for updates

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton, I am submitting another edit request to update this Wikipedia article. Each of the below changes are based on this source, which is the same one used to update these figures in the past. Here is formatted source information to make adding an inline citation easier:

• <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://newsroom.hilton.com/assets/HWW/docs/2017/HLTCorporateFactSheet_February2017.pdf|title=At-A-Glance|accessdate=February 27, 2017|date=December 31, 2016|format=PDF|publisher=Hilton}}</ref>

1. In the infobox, I propose updating the number of locations to 4,922 Also, the company's URL can be displayed as simply: hilton.com.

2. Additionally, I propose replacing the text "As of October 2016, its portfolio includes 4,820 properties (including timeshare properties) with 788,864 rooms in more than 100 countries and territories" with "As of December 2016, its portfolio includes 4,922 properties (including timeshare properties) with 804,097 rooms in 104 countries and territories". (The bold emphasis is mine to note specific text changes.)

3. Finally, I propose two simple changes to the "Hilton Honors" section:

• Replace the text "with 57 million members to "with more than 60 million members".
• Please update "Hilton HHonors" to "Hilton Honors" in the sentence beginning, "The program has seen significant growth in China..." to reflect the program's current name.

I am not making direct edits to this article because of my conflict of interest, but I hope a neutral editor can help by making these changes. I don't think these are particularly controversial, but I can address any concerns here or on my user talk page. Thank you for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Inkian Jason JB525 (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus appears to be to move this to Hilton Inc. after the name change takes place. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 22:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Hilton Worldwide → Hilton – As part of my ongoing work, I would like to move the article to the new official name of the company, as it announced a corporate name change - "Hilton Announces $1 Billion Stock Repurchase Program, Quarterly Dividend and Corporate Name Change" [1]. Please let me know if you have any questions. Valgetova (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Instead I would prefer it be renamed and move instead to Hilton Inc., with the legal suffix for disambiguation purposes. I need to see evidence or some rationale that the company should be the primary topic of the search term "Hilton" over Hilton Hotels & Resorts, the founder, Conrad Hilton, or anything else currently listed on the Hilton disambiguation page. For example, Conrad Hilton tends to average more page views[2] than Hilton Worldwide.[3] Hilton Hotels & Resorts also has comparable pageviews.[4] And the great-granddaughter tends to get significantly more traffic than either of those three.[5] And doing a google search, I see more results for Hilton Hotels than the parent company.[6] Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - no good case for a claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, per above. However, I doubt Hilton Inc. is better if that name is not registered anywhere (our article currently claims that the legal name is Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., so it should go there if anything). If e.g. IBM did not have any primary topic, the correct place for the article about the corporation would be International Business Machines Corporation, not IBM, Inc.. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As the requested move is intended to reflect the official renaming of the company from Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. to Hilton Inc., wouldn't a move to Hilton Inc. be supported by your example? JB525 (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    • OK, I now see that the new registered name is Hilton Inc., so there is a case to move it there after March 6. There is WP:COMMONNAME that says that the usual (not official) name should be used, but since "Hilton" is (IMO) unavailable, this seems the best next place. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that Hilton hotels are the primary topic for "Hilton". (Conrad Hilton and Paris Hilton may get more views, but are not likely to be referred to as simply "Hilton".) The problem is that the topic is split between this article and Hilton Hotels & Resorts. I would support merging these two articles to Hilton, as there is so much overlap between Hilton as a company and Hilton as a brand that it's rather silly to keep them separate. As a second choice, I would move this article to Hilton Inc. after the name change is official on March 6. Toohool (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request to update the number of employees

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton, I am submitting a request to update the number of employees in the article's infobox. This SEC filing (dated February 15, 2017) says, "As of December 31, 2016, more than 169,000 employees served in our managed, owned, leased and timeshare properties and corporate offices around the world." I propose updating the infobox to say "More than 169,000 employees (2016)" or "Approximately 170,000 employees (2016)".

I've provided a formatted reference, which can be used as an inline citation, below:

• <ref>{{cite web|title=United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Washington, D.C. 20549: Form 10-K: Commission File Number 001-36243: Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.|url=http://otp.investis.com/clients/us/hilton_worldwide2/SEC/sec-show.aspx?Type=html&FilingId=11861441&CIK=0001585689&Index=10000|publisher=[[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]]|accessdate=March 9, 2017|date=February 15, 2017}}</ref>

Is there an editor is willing to update the infobox on my behalf? I won't edit the article directly because of my conflict of interest. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Conifer (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Conifer: Thank you for helping! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hilton Inc.. 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/20111110181002/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US5179952&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US5179952&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070330105719/http://www.eqt.se/Page____557.aspx?epslanguage=DE to http://www.eqt.se/Page____557.aspx?epslanguage=DE

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) 14:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft article for Canopy by Hilton brand

Resolved

I proposed an article for the Canopy by Hilton brand at Draft:Canopy by Hilton, if any page watchers wish to assist by reviewing and moving the draft to the main space as appropriate. Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I am marking this request as resolved since the draft has been moved. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Hilton Worldwide Holdings per discussion -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Hilton Inc. → Hilton (hospitality company) – On behalf of Hilton, I am requesting this page be moved to Hilton (hospitality company). ("Hotel company" may be another option for a disambiguator.) The company's official name change to "Hilton Inc." did not get final approval and did not go forward, despite the announcements that it would. This SEC filing (see item 7.01) verifies that Hilton did not elect to move forward with the name change. Note: Although the person who asked for the last move did so on behalf of Hilton, my contact there has not been able to track down who made this request, whereas I'm now asking on behalf of the Hilton's corporate communications office. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not very fond of "hospitality company" – it sounds like non-neutral corporate marketingspeak. If Hilton Inc. is not the official name of the company, what is the official name of the company? Also, I don't see a very clear distinction between the content of this article and the one at Hilton Hotels & Resorts. Should the articles be merged? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. is still what's listed on the New York Stock Exchange. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 09:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NATURAL. It's better to avoid using parenthetical disambiguation when we can, and "Hilton Inc." is a suitable title since the company is commonly recognized as such. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we have a substantial number of reliable sources that refer to the company as "Hilton Inc."? If that's not the formal name of the company, I wonder whether it is commonly used. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with Hilton Worldwide Holdings. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Hilton and merge Hilton Hotels & Resorts with this article, as this is the primary topic for the name, and the Hilton brand is not really a distinct topic from the Hilton company. Alternatively, move back to Hilton Worldwide, as the longstanding and accurate name of this article. Toohool (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Hilton Hotels & Resorts is one of the hotel brands within Hilton’s portfolio; this article is intended to be about the holding company. If a natural disambiguator is preferred, what do editors think about moving this page to Hilton Worldwide Holdings, which is the official company name? Inkian Jason (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Hilton Worldwide I like both Toohol's and Jason's solutions. Most of what's on Hilton Inc. is about Hilton Hotels & Resorts. The Hilton Hotels & Resorts page seems mostly to rehash the Hilton Inc page. As it is, it should probably be merged. That said, it could contribute to confusion to just have one page. I'd prefer Hilton Worldwide to Hilton Worldwide Holdings, though. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 09:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC) updated—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 15:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Hilton Worldwide Holdings per discussion. bd2412 T 01:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move: to Hilton Worldwide Holdings; has encyclopedic tone for title and per assertion that this is official company name per Inkian Jason. Thanks Fylbecatulous talk 18:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Move back to Hilton Worldwide, where it was just fine until March 10 of this year before a well-meaning editor jumped the gun. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support; Hilton Worldwide appears to be somewhat more WP:COMMON than Hilton Worldwide Holdings.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Are you supporting what was proposed – i.e., a move to Hilton (hospitality company) – or are you opposing what was proposed? —BarrelProof (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm supporting a move away from Hilton Inc.; of the proposed options Hilton Worldwide seems to be the best bet (especially over Hilton (hospitality company).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

upon second look, there is a longstanding prior precedent for Hilton Worldwide. i'll move it back to that. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Requests for updating this article

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton, I am submitting a request for 3 additional updates to the article:

1.  Done Related to the above name change discussion, the current article's infobox and lead says the company is "formerly called Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc." However, this is not true. The name change did not go through, and the company is currently called "Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc." Can the infobox be updated (replace "Hilton Inc." with "Hilton Worldwide Holdings" and remove the 'formerly called' entry), and the lead's wording changed to "Hilton Worldwide Holdings (formerly Hilton Hotels Corporation) is an..."?

   Do you have a link for this? Scroll up and we've already discussed the confirmed name change from Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. to Hilton (subsequently Hilton Inc.). This took place in February.Hoteljargon (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

2.  Done Currently, the article's infobox has "$11.3 billion (2015)" for the revenue parameter. Can this please be updated to "$11.663 billion (2016)" per this source (see page 8)? If so, following is markup for the inline citation:

   <ref>{{cite web|title=Hilton Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year Results; Achieves Record Pipeline and Net Unit Growth for the Year|url=Hilton Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year Results; Achieves Record Pipeline and Net Unit Growth for the Year|publisher=Hilton|accessdate=May 12, 2017|date=February 15, 2017}}</ref>

3.  Done Finally, I propose removing the following content: "The program has seen significant growth in China, which alone saw a 79 percent increase in Hilton Honors membership in 2011. This was attributed in part to the refining of the brand identity in China, including the addition of a Chinese name and a Chinese website for customers to sign up and redeem their points." This information seems a bit outdated, and I'm not sure "TTG Mice" is appropriate for use at Wikipedia.

I'm seeking an editor to implement these changes, and as always, I'm available to answer concerns or questions here or on my talk page. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed Hilton Inc. per the discussion above; this confirms that the company didn't go forward with the "Hilton Inc." name change, and it's never been a common name for the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hoteljargon and Cuchullain: The move to Hilton Worldwide Holdings Hilton Worldwide is appropriate, so thank you for helping to update the article. I will consider the first of the 3 requests in this section, which I crossed out above, resolved. If either of you are willing to review the other two parts to this request, which would not take long, I'd love to check this section off as complete, otherwise thanks again for your help thus far. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

So then is this press release and change by the Board of Directors just false information? Company recognizes itself as Hilton, Inc. All collateral has been changed as such. Hoteljargon (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hoteljargon: The press release noted it had been approved by the board but there were further approvals required and the name change did not end up going forward. I am fine with the decision to move the article to its current name. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Inkian Jason: JB525 (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@JB525: Thank you for assisting. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Edit request

Resolved

On behalf of Hilton, I am back with an additional request to update this Wikipedia article. This request has four parts, one of which is a simple content move request and another is to update a number in the Infobox:

1.  Done I propose adding the following to the "Company culture" section: In 2017, Fortune ranked Hilton number 26 in their list of "The 100 Best Companies to Work For". Following is markup, for easier copying and pasting, if needed:

   In 2017, ''[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]'' ranked Hilton number 26 in their list of "The 100 Best Companies to Work For".<ref>{{cite journal|title=#26: Hilton|journal=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]|url=http://beta.fortune.com/best-companies/hilton-worldwide-26|accessdate=May 5, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=The 100 Best Companies to Work For|journal=Fortune|url=http://beta.fortune.com/best-companies/|accessdate=May 5, 2017}}</ref>

2.  Done Related to this, I request moving the 2016 ranking from the "History" section to the "Company culture" section (right before the 2017 ranking).
3.  Done Currently, the article says, "As of December 2016, its portfolio includes 4,922 properties (including timeshare properties) with 804,097 rooms in 104 countries and territories." Can this be updated to say, "As of March 2017, its portfolio includes 4,982 properties (including timeshare properties) with 812,341 rooms in 103 countries and territories.", per this source? Here is markup for easier implementation:

   As of March 2017, its portfolio includes 4,982 properties (including timeshare properties) with 812,341 rooms in 103 countries and territories.<ref>{{cite web|title=Hilton At-A-Glance|url=http://newsroom.hilton.com/assets/HWW/docs/brandFactSheets/HLT_CorporateFactSheet_May2017.pdf|accessdate=May 5, 2017|publisher=Hilton Worldwide}}</ref>

4.  Done Related to this, can the Infobox be updated to show 4,982 properties?

Thank you in advance for assistance, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns, thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

References

• @JB525: You helped with a similar edit request not too long ago, so I'm wondering if you might be willing to help with this edit request, or one of the 2 others below. No problem if you're not interested, just thought I would ask! Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done st170e 19:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@St170e: Thank you for your help. I have marked these requests as done and the section as resolved. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Request to update article

Resolved

I have additional requests to update this Wikipedia article, which I am submitting on behalf of Hilton.

1.  Done In the above edit request, I requested updates to the number of properties, rooms and countries based on this At-A-Glance document. In the "Hilton Honors" section, can the number of members be changed from "more than 60 million members" to "more than 62 million members", using this same source as an inline citation?
2.  Done I propose removing the following content: "In February 2017, Hilton shortened its name from "Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc." to "Hilton Inc." and renamed its reward program from "Hilton HHonors" to "Hilton Honors"." The corporate name change did not go through, and I'm not sure a proposed name change is worth mentioning. Additionally, the article already says, "Hilton renamed the Hilton HHonors program to Hilton Honors in February 2017" in the "Hilton Honors" section, so the latter part of the aforementioned sentence is redundant and unnecessary.
3.  Done In the "Franchising" subsection, I propose removing the 3 mentions of "Worldwide" (leaving just "Hilton"), and in the last sentence, changing "Most" to "Many".

I have 3 additional requests, but I'll place those in a separate edit request to make reviewing easier for volunteers. Expect another edit request soon, and in the meantime, I'm happy to address any concerns or questions about these requests. Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the number of members, I personally hate the way companies use "more than" and "less than" phrasing to make things seem bigger or smaller. That's not neutral phrasing. I also think there is no need to be so precise as to care about the difference between 60 and 62. Rounding to the nearest 10 million seems sufficient. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done I've performed your edits bar the last in the franchising subsection; I don't think the edits are necessary. Also, I believe that checking the number of members periodically is fine and that should be updated to keep the encyclopaedia as accurate as possible. If there are 62 million members, 60 wouldn't really cut it. Update the number every few months, just as long as it isn't being constantly changed. The difference of 2 million is quite big so I don't agree with BarrelProof on this one. st170e 19:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

At least I'm happy you didn't go with "more than". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've marked this section as resolved. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

On behalf of Hilton, I am back to submit another edit request for this Wikipedia article.

The first two changes are based on this source, which is the latest version of the fact sheet used to update these figures in the past. Here is formatted source information to make adding an inline citation easier:

• <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://newsroom.hilton.com/assets/HWW/docs/brandFactSheets/HLT_CorporateFactSheet_July2017.pdf |title=At-A-Glance July 2017 |accessdate=August 10, 2017|date=June 30, 2017|format=PDF|publisher=Hilton}}</ref>

1. In the introduction, I propose replacing the text "As of March 2017, its portfolio includes over 5,000 properties (including timeshare properties) with 812,341 rooms in 103 countries and territories" with "As of July 2017, its portfolio includes over 5,000 properties (including timeshare properties) with about 825,000 rooms in 103 countries and territories". (Bold emphasis is mine to note specific text changes.)

2. In the "Hilton Honors" section:

• Replace the text "about 62 million members to "with around 65 million members".

3. Finally, I have a request regarding the final three sentences of the "21st century" section, which are currently duplicative. I propose replacing the following:

The company announced in February 2016 that Hilton would turn its hotel holdings into a real estate investment trust. Prior to making the announcement, the company went to the IRS for approval.

In February 2016, Hilton announced its intention to spin off its timeshare and real estate businesses, creating three independent public companies.

with In February 2016, Hilton announced its intention to spin off its timeshare and real estate businesses, creating three independent public companies. Prior to making the announcement, the company went to the IRS for approval. The current sourcing can be kept to support these details.

Per my previous requests, I am not making direct edits to this article because of my conflict of interest, but I hope a neutral editor can help by making these changes. I don't think these are particularly controversial, but I can address any concerns here or on my user talk page. Thank you for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done One minor nitpick—I'm tired of reading the phrase "more than" in a plethora of edit requests I have reviewed. Surely you can see, had I rephrased your suggestion to "Hilton's portfolio holds under 5,100 properties, with less than 830,000 rooms," the negative slant this change would create. The flip side of my hypothetical operates on the same principle: "more than" and "over" are unnecessarily imprecise language, creating the impression that Hilton's portfolio is larger than it is. I'm not opposed to the use of "more than" per se, but the phrase has been so overused in PR speak that these words have lost their heft. Instead of making readers guess, and hoping they guess high, please use a more neutral term such as "about." Thanks, Altamel (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Altamel: I changed "more than" to "about" in the proposed text above. Does this work for you? Inkian Jason (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, much better. I have done the first two requests. As for the third, I am investigating the impact the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 had on Hilton's REIT spinoff. So far, my research has indicated that the REIT spinoff had some tax advantages for Hilton, and I believe those should be stated in the article. Altamel (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request to add citations

Resolved

Hello! I am back with some additional requests to update this Wikipedia article on behalf of Hilton. This time, I am looking to improve the "History" section, which currently has a "This section needs additional citations for verification" banner. I am providing sources below, and my ultimate goal is to have this tag removed. I invite editors to help verify claims and possibly remove the tag, if and when appropriate. Below I've listed some unsourced claims and possible sources for consideration, which can be copied and pasted into the article's prose:

• In 1927, Hilton expanded to Waco, Texas, where he opened the first hotel with air-conditioning in public areas and cold running water.
• In 1943, Hilton purchased the Roosevelt Hotel and the Plaza Hotel in New York, establishing the first hospitality company to span the contiguous United States. The company incorporated in 1946 as the Hilton Hotels Corporation, and subsequently began public trading of shares on the New York Stock Exchange.
• Hilton International was born a few years later, in 1949, with the opening of the Caribe Hilton Hotel in Puerto Rico. Barman Ramon "Monchito" Marreno claimed he created the piña colada cocktail at this resort. Hilton purchased the Waldorf Astoria New York in the same year. Conrad Hilton was featured on the cover of Time magazine, the only hotelier at the time to have done so.
  • Actually, for this last part, I'm wondering if we should just remove this sentence. As I suggested here (see #2), this sentence is about Conrad Hilton, not the company itself. This fact is probably better suited for the Conrad Hilton article.

I'll stop for now so I don't make this edit request too complicated. I know the Hilton websites are not ideal sources, but figured primary sources are better than none at all. I've tried to include multiple options for consideration, when possible, in case editors have preferences for best sourcing. Thanks to all editors who have helped with past requests, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns for these proposed changes. Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Edit request to add citations, part 2

Resolved

Continuing from the above edit request, I am offering some additional sources for consideration, on behalf of Hilton:

1. Later in 1955, Hilton launched a program to ensure every hotel room would include air conditioning.
2. In late 1955, Hilton opened the first post-World War II property in Istanbul.
3. Hilton is credited with pioneering the airport hotel concept with the opening of the San Francisco Airport Hilton in 1959.
4. In 1965, Hilton launched Lady Hilton, the first hotel concept created specifically for women guests. To appeal to female travelers, a number of properties offered floors occupied by only women along with distinct amenities for their usage.
5. In 1969, the first DoubleTree Hotel opened. However, Hilton was not affiliated with the brand until its acquisition of the parent company in 1999.
6. Hilton purchased the Flamingo Las Vegas in 1970, which would become the first in the domestic gaming business to be listed on the NYSE.
7. In 1979, founder Conrad Hilton died at the age of 91. Hilton Hotels Corporation later created the Conrad Hotels brand in honor of Hilton.
8. Hilton Honors (formerly Hilton HHonors), the company's guest loyalty program, was initiated in 1987. In 1994, the Honors surpassed competing hotel loyalty programs by offering members both hotel credit points and airline credit miles.
9. The company has been a sponsor of the United States Olympic Team.

References

Feel free to adjust the prose's flow and wording, if needed. I just copied the claims exactly as they appear in the current version of the article, and my primary goal is to provide possible sources for unsourced sentences. I realize a couple of these resources are not considered independent, but I am including so reviewing editors can verify the company's internal reporting, too. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@St170e: You've been very helpful responding to edit requests in the past. I've had these requests posted for a while, and no one has responded so far, so I was wondering if you might be able to help with adding these suggested citations to the existing article. If not, that's ok, just thought I'd ask. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Inkian Jason: as this is a long request and I'm about to hit the sack I will review your request in the morning. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 21:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• @Inkian Jason:  Done DrStrauss talk 08:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @DrStrauss: Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I've marked this and the above edit requests as answered. I think the tag in the "Hilton in popular culture" section is appropriate, but I don't think the tag in the "History" section is necessary any longer. Do you agree? Inkian Jason (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. I've removed the tag in the history section. DrStrauss talk 15:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• @DrStrauss: Thanks again. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)