Talk:Thompson Seattle

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by History6042 talk 18:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that The Nest, a Thompson Seattle rooftop bar, distribute drinks from copper containers shaped like flamingos?

• Source: Voelker, Jessica (2024-10-01). "Review: Thompson Seattle. An architecture and design lover's dream". Condé Nast Traveler. Archived from the original on 2025-06-23. Retrieved 2025-06-23.

  The article notes: "On warm evenings, flocks of locals head to rooftop bar The Nest to share vodka-and-Courvoisier punch served from copper flamingos, or sip on locally brewed beers."

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Emma of Jericho

Created by Cunard (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 96 past nominations.

Cunard (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC).

• Article is new enough, only bold link is the Thompson Seattle, definitely long enough, Condé Nast Traveler is definitely acceptable source, hook is proper and interesting, QPQ has been done, I definitely think this is good to go for a DYK. Only shame is we don't have an image of the said flamingo containers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

This edit reverted my edit removing maintenance templates and my rewording of a sentence linking boutique hotel while complying with MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Please explain why the link change was reverted. Please explain how the maintenance templates apply. The article includes plenty of criticism from critics and is not "fawning tripe". I modeled this article after the articles in Wikipedia:Featured articles#Architecture like 20 Exchange Place which go into detail about the architecture, history, and use of a building. Cunard (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

It reads like an advertisement to me, particularly how it quotes reviews like "Scout attractive to the haves, but still accessible to the have-less. You’ll eat extremely well no matter which way you go." The other FA you linked just talks about the architecture for the most part. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. For articles that discuss restaurants, it is due weight to include what reliable sources thought about the restaurant. The featured article Blackrocks Brewery includes praise at Blackrocks Brewery#Recognition. For this article, I included both positive and negative commentary about the restaurants. Regarding that quote, it is appropriate to include the restaurant critic's commentary about her dining experience at the restaurant. However, I've reworded that quote to be more specific about the two types of dining experiences—chef's table and the regular seating—since the quote did not include that context. I welcome further feedback about specific parts of the article that can be improved. Cunard (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I would just tone it down so it's more neutral. For example, the article mentions at least 20 travel reviewers and what they said, which is just unnecessary and doesn't add to its encyclopedic value. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The article provides a summary of critics' views of the hotel's architecture, dining venues, and accommodations. The articles uses in-text attribution when citing their opions. I think this information complies with the due weight policy. Which parts of the article do you think are not neutral and "just unnecessary and doesn't add to its encyclopedic value"? Cunard (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with paraphrases and quotes from notable critics, I just feel there's way too many. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I included these paraphrases and quotes because I think they provide encyclopedic information to the reader. Which paraphrases and quotes do you think do not comply with due weight or are "just unnecessary"? Cunard (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Amberly McAteer, a travel writer for The Globe and Mail, thought the restaurant's avocado toast was the "fanciest" she had eaten is one. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the discussion about the avocado toast. I included this sentence as showing that the restaurant served avocado toast but can be removed since it's not a particularly illuminating commentary or particularly special dish. As the author of the text, I have reasons for including each quote, so I appreciate the feedback from someone uninvolved in the writing to flag parts that add minimal value to the reader. Please let me know if any other parts of the text stand out to you like this one in not adding sufficient value to the reader. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The two maintenance tags on the article are Template:Promotional and Template:Overly detailed. Template:Promotional says, "If you add the template, you should be able to identify specific, correctable content that tends to "sell" the subject."

Template:Overly detailed says, "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy."

For the Template:Promotional tag, please provide examples of specific, correctable content that tends to "sell" the subject.

For the Template:Overly detailed tag, please provide examples of how the article has an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience that potentially should be spun off or relocated.

I would like to get these tags removed from the article. Cunard (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Are there any further comments about regarding my preceding comment? I plan to remove these tags from the article as I do not consider the article to be overly detailed or promotional. Cunard (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I guess so. You created the article in good faith as far as I can tell, and we can always come back to it later if something needs fixing/toning down more. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

That is correct. I created the article in good faith and do not have a conflict of interest with the subject. Thank you so much for removing the tags and for your feedback in this section about improving the article! Cunard (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Another editor has since restored the tags. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Qwirkle, you have twice reverted two editors who have removed the tags. You have engaged only in edit summaries and not on the talk page. Wikipedia:Edit warring#How to avoid an edit war says, "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute."

As I asked on this talk page one week ago, please provide examples from this article of specific, correctable content that tends to "sell" the subject and how the article has an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience that potentially should be spun off or relocated. I would like to get these tags removed from the article. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I would be quite comfortable leaving this to the reviewing admin. Are you? Qwirkle (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I would like you to provide examples of why the maintenance tags are needed as I mentioned in my previous comment. This has not been done yet.

Wikipedia:Edit warring#How to avoid an edit war mentions "a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute". I am comfortable with having an admin review this. I'm adding an {{Admin help}} below:

Cunard (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

While I am here in response to the admin! flag, I say this with my proverbial admin hat off: I don't think it's unreasonable to ask @Qwirkle to provide more details in support of those maintenance tags.

And still in non-admin capacity I will also say that those tags are not entirely unjustified, IMO.

Please continue discussing the matter. May I also suggest that you take down the flag, as I don't see why this needs admin intervention, at least not yet and hopefully not later, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Seconding everything DG said. Template de-activated. Keeping an eye on this space. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for reviewing. Cunard (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

It has been nearly 14 days since I first asked you for an explanation of how the maintenance templates apply. I then asked several times in this section for you to provide examples. Despite adding the Template:Promotional tag and then twice reverting removals, you have yet "to provide more details in support of those maintenance tags".

In the subsection below, 184.152.65.118 provided examples for the Template:Overly detailed tag. I've made changes to the article to address the feedback.

I still do not see examples for the Template:Promotional tag. I complied with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight by including both positive and negative information about the hotel "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Cunard (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The article looks very resourceful and well-researched to me. But on closer inspection I think it's a little too detailed on what it offers. I would condense it a bit Cunard. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing, Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs). I did some condensing earlier in the discussion and am open to condensing further. Would you be help point out which parts are still too detailed and need to be condensed further? Cunard (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The restaurant sections for me are way too long and are most in need of condensing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs). I've condensed the restaurant sections. Please let me know if there is anything that you find to be still too detailed and I can make further changes. Cunard (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't have more than three paragraphs for each restaurant. It is out of proportion with the rest of the article. Do a word count on the restaurants in total compared to the article word count. I doubt you'll agree to that much of a trim though! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

In the body of the article, 1,854 words are about the non-restaurant aspects of the hotel, while 1,997 words are about the restaurant aspects of the hotel. The restaurants are a core part of the hotel so I think roughly 50% about the restaurant and 50% about the non-restaurant aspects is due weight and reasonable. Maybe further condensing can be done but I think trimming that much content would result in the loss of a lot of encyclopedic content. Each restaurant (The Nest, Scout, and Conversation) meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria so could be spun off into its own article so that the hotel article has much less content. My preference is to try to keep the content in the same article for as long as possible to avoid fragmentation of information in four different articles. Cunard (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The sources that discuss the hotel and the restaurants spend a significant amount of space discussing the restaurants. I've explained above my rationale to for now not spin off the restaurants into their own articles. Is there further feedback from anyone about specific sentences in the article that are too detailed? Is there any feedback about specific sentences in the article that are considered promotional? I've made significant changes to the article since the tags were placed. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

... said that underneath the sparkling exterior, the hotel pulls off a ritzy feel despite having a relaxed, at-home ambiance and display different messages based on the time of day—"Good Morning", "Good Afternoon", and "Good Evening"—adding a lighthearted vibe are just some promotional content I managed to find in under 15 seconds. In my opinion, this article should be a third the size it is now. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback which I've implemented. I've reviewed the entire article again. I've cut the body of the article from 3,854 words to 3,356 words. Each "Restaurant" subsection is three paragraphs as recommended by Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs). I welcome further feedback from editors. Cunard (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks better! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Do editors have further feedback about improving the article with respect to these tags? Since the tags on the article, I've made significant changes. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It has been almost two weeks since my previous comment. Is there any further feedback? I plan to remove the tags soon if there is no further feedback. Cunard (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the tags. Cunard (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs) and Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs), you commented above. Qwirkle reverted the removal of the tags for a third time (their first two reverts). Their only participation in this discussion was this comment. I don't know what more to do here. Cunard (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs) and Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs), I'd appreciate your advice on this. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion (and it is, of course, only that), this article is too extensive and detailed, especially for an apparently ROTM hotel. Not everything that can be said about a subject must to be said. Do we really need to know what the welcome mat in the lift says? Or how Guide Michelin commented on some tower of glass boxes? Or that the beds have "duvets with pin stripes"? Or who produces the crackers for the minibars? And then there is the restaurant section, which tells us in considerable detail the ingredients and glassware for many of the drinks on offer, bar food available, books on display, intricate details about the decor, and much else besides. Content this detailed might be suitable for a Seattle hotel guide – probably not even that – but not, IMO, for an encyclopaedia article. My advice, therefore, since you ask, would be to condense the entire article considerably, thereby making it at once more encyclopaedic, more accessible, less promotional, and more suitable for a reader of general interest rather than a keen student of this particular hotel specifically. I also note in this context, for perspective, that this article is 65k bytes in size (down from a peak of 72k+), compared with eg. the articles on the likes of Raffles Hotel (20k) or Hôtel Ritz Paris (49k), which are both unquestionably among the world's most historic and iconic hotels. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I've been having a side conversation with Qwirkle and trying to get further explanation. That said, we now have a repeated pattern of previously uninvolved people reviewing the article and agreeing with the tags. Cunard may have to reckon with the possibility that the detail and promo issues are obvious enough that no further explanation is necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs), thank you for taking the time to review the article and provide such detailed, valuable feedback. I've significantly condensed the article based on your feedback. Would you review the article to see if anything is still "too extensive and detailed"?

Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs), thank you for asking Qwirkle to discuss on the talk page. I appreciate your efforts to mediate. I hope I've shown throughout this discussion that I'm receptive to improving the article based on editors' constructive feedback. Saying an issue is "obvious enough" doesn't justify skipping an explanation. It was not obvious to me what needed to be improved until other editors gave examples of what they thought was too detailed. Per the policy Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party, "Actual discussion is needed; discussion conducted entirely through edit summaries is inadequate." The goal of tagging should be to improve the article and engaging with an editor who's actively implementing feedback supports that. Not participating in talk page discussion and reverting does not. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

ChildrenWillListen (talk · contribs), your edits today substantially shortened the article. They removed all negative or mixed coverage about the hotel and its restaurants, including four instances in the "Guest rooms" section, four in "The Nest", and one in "Facilities and services". Although I disagree with some of these removals, I won't contest them in the interest of bringing this discussion to a close, as this has been a discouraging experience. Would you remove the Template:Ad and Template:Overly detailed tags now? Cunard (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I still intend to edit the article further, and I want to wait for the rest of the participants as well. If you want to revert any of my changes, I'm totally fine with that. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

ChildrenWillListen (talk · contribs), no one else has responded in a week. As the article has been extensively shortened, do you think the Template:Ad and Template:Overly detailed tags are still needed? Would you support removing them? Cunard (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Not even close yet. Qwirkle (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion. What is promotional in the current version of the article? What is overly detailed? Cunard (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there further feedback about anything that would still be considered promotional or overly detailed? The article used to be 4,315 words. Now it is 1,327 words. Significant changes have been made that I thought addressed previous concerns. I would like to remove the tag as no further feedback has been provided but don't want to do so and get reverted again. Pinging DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs) and Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) for advice. Cunard (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a straw poll to see if others think the tags are warranted? It's possible that everyone who gave specific feedback is now satisfied. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Support removing promotional, oppose removing overly detailed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

For or anyone who opposes removing the tags, please provide feedback about what is promotional or overly detailed. ChildrenWillListen (talk · contribs), would you provide feedback about what is overly detailed? Pinging Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) and DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs) as you provided specific feedback earlier. Cunard (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, an article about a hotel does not need to be as detailed as this one. As a reader, this reads like a bunch of trivia that belongs on a tourist guide. I have removed most of the bloat, but there is still plenty of room for improvement, particularly the History section and the lede. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

At two paragraphs, the lead is very short now. What is overly detailed in the lead? The history section is three paragraphs. What is overly detailed in the history section? Cunard (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

ChildrenWillListen (talk · contribs), would you provide more specific feedback about what is overly detailed in the history section and the lead? Cunard (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I plan to remove the maintenance templates if there is no specific feedback about what is overly detailed in the history section and the lead. I've reviewed the history section and the lead and don't consider them to be overly detailed. If any editor would revert a removal of the maintenance templates, please explain why here.

Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs), you previously wrote, Cunard may have to reckon with the possibility that the detail and promo issues are obvious enough that no further explanation is necessary. This statement might lead some editors to refrain from engaging in discussion as they might assume "no further explanation is necessary". I hope you can make a statement here along the lines of what you said here encouraging editors who would revert a removal of the maintenance templates to engage in discussion by providing specific feedback. Thank you. This discussion has gone on for too long. I hope this two-month-old discussion can be concluded soon. Cunard (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think CWL's feedback was specific enough that there is an unresolved dispute about the detail tag. Rather than revert, consider some dispute resolution. I haven't watched closely, but my first read is that removing the other tag would be appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the Template:Ad and Template:Accuracy tags but left the Template:Overly detailed tag. Regarding "consider some dispute resolution", I've been attempting this by asking ChildrenWillListen and Qwirkle to provide specific feedback about what is overly detailed. Despite reverting the removal of the tags three times (1, 2, and 3), Qwirkle has not participated substantively in the discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs), I hope you can encourage editors who would revert a removal of the maintenance templates to participate in the discussion here. I've been trying to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party but the process breaks down when the other party doesn't participate. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, ChildrenWillListen, for removing the Template:Overly detailed tag. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cunard: I thought about it for a while and I think I like the article the way it is now. I have removed the last remaining maintenance tag. Anyway, thank you so much for creating this article and finding multitudes of reliable sources. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

ChildrenWillListen (talk · contribs), thank you for the kind words. I appreciate that you engaged in discussion with me about specific improvements that could be made and removed the tag after making changes to the article. Cunard (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

My thanks as well, to you both. I'm seeing rough consensus among the active participants here that the tags should be excluded, so anyone seeking to re-add tags would need to change some minds. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs), thank you, I really appreciate your work in mediating this dispute. Cunard (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Getting down to brass tacks

I'm not interested in getting involved in a multi-party edit-war, so I will hold off on direct edits to the page for now, but I do think some specifics need to be discussed here so I'll start off with some general impressions just from the lead.

The hotel has a geometric glass outer structure and floor-to-ceiling windows from which guests can see the Olympic Mountains and Puget Sound's Elliott Bay.

Observation: Depending on the degree of attention that RS give to the architecture we will probably need to provide some summary in the lead. However, should the lead really be detailing the views or that the windows are floor-to-ceiling? Much of this is dubious.

The hotel was built on a former parking lot by Turner Construction

Observation: Clearly not lead worthy, not even sure it belongs in the body, but stuff like this will draw trivia tags.

Hotel rooms follow the mid-century modern design and have a masculine aesthetic.

Observation: One travel review is not going to justify this in the lead, perhaps the weight of RS do support this but again it seems dubious.

Rooms offer different kinds of views including of the water, the courtyard, and the city.

Observation: Does not belong in an encyclopedia article. If by some clever architectural trick involving non-euclidean geometry all the rooms offered identical views that would be worth mentioning; the rest is trivia.

provides views of the city and Puget Sound

Observation: See above

offering cocktails named after birds and small bites

Observation: More trivia. There are few cases where stuff like this is even appropriate for the body, should definitely not be in the lead.

Scout, which opened in 2016, was a restaurant at Thompson Seattle that offered a woodland cabin-inspired atmosphere and a menu focused on Pacific Northwest ingredients. It ceased operations in 2019 for a complete overhaul. In its place, Conversation opened later that year, offering a menu with international and regional cuisine and encouraging in-person interaction

Observation: Overly detailed for the lead, we certainly don't need to have material about the intent to encourage in-person interaction.

Now in a sense this is backwards, the body should be rewritten first and then that should be used as the basis for rewriting the lead, but I hope this gives just some idea of the issues that need to be addressed. Just because information is sourcable that does not mean it should be in an article more at WP:VNOT. Granted, what is and is not WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC can be fuzzy around the edges, but e.g. A Biscuit Bitch branch is directly opposite the hotel is rather out of place in an encyclopedia article. Is anyone surprised that The minibar features drinks and craft-produced snacks? Surely we can do better. Also, though not presently tagged as such, several paragraphs are effectively WP:QUOTEFARMs, and should be entirely rewritten into summary encyclopedic style. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed feedback. I've implemented most of this feedback and gone through the entire article to rephrase quotes and remove text. Regarding some of the material identified as trivia: I agree that some of it is too detailed for the lead so have removed it. I've retained some of the material in the body of the article as being due weight and encyclopedic since multiple reliable source focus on those aspects of the hotel. I am open to discussing in further detail if there are more parts of the text considered overly detailed. I would like to get these maintenance templates removed from the article. Cunard (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

My view is that the maintenance templates don't matter much either way, at worst they clutter a category, sometimes they fulfill their purpose and manage to get outside eyes on an article. However, the two currently present do not have large enough groups of devotees where we should expect either assistance or complaints about category pollution to happen anytime soon.

The changes are a significant improvement so I appreciate your responsiveness to feedback. I still think some additional rewriting would be desirable. As just one example A variety of art books are showcased in the lobby. Other books in the lobby are about tree houses, log cabins as well as related topics about living outside. I mean assuming this detail needs a mention due to the weight of RS can't we just say the lobby has books? So yes there are still portions that appear overly detailed. Might be best to give it some space and then come back to it though I know how hard it is to find issues in your own writing.

I don't expect to have the time for an extended back-and-forth for a good long while so it might be best if you tried to recruit one of our skilled copyeditors to give this one a once-over and offer another external view but that's your call. Regardless no one should wait for my feedback before being bold. Thanks for the time you've already put in to tighten and distill this one. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree that these maintenance templates are entirely useless. For example, the promotional and undisclosed paid editing tags let the reader know that the article may not be extremely reliable. It also acts as traps that sockpuppets would seek to remove, allowing you to report them easier. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Well admittedly they do serve some functions beyond their originally intended use cases, though whether to employ them solely for such ancillary purposes is the subject of some disagreement. I agree they can make good sock traps though that is not at all a consideration here. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I've implemented this additional piece of feedback by deleting the second sentence and condensing it into the first sentence. Regarding recruiting a skilled copyeditor, I've contacted Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs), who has done excellent copyediting work in the past and reviewed this article when it was created.

Regarding the maintenance templates: No justification has been provided for the Template:Promotional tag. Some good examples have been provided for the Template:Overly detailed tag which I've hopefully mostly addressed here. As an article creator, it is discouraging to have maintenance templates for an extended period of time, so my hope is that they can be removed after these improvements and this discussion. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Accuracy tag for boutique hotel

Qwirkle added a third maintenance template to the article, Template:Accuracy, with the edit summary "152 room boutique hotel?" Reliable sources call Thompson Seattle a boutique hotel including Condé Nast Traveler (link), The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (link), the Seattle Metropolitan (link), The Seattle Times (link), and Nine.com.au (link). Following the reliable sources, it is accurate to call Thompson Seattle a boutique hotel. Cunard (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

There is additional context about boutique hotels from this article in Hospitality Net:

The question that blurs the meaning of boutique hotels is, "Does size matter?" Most boutique hotel "celebrities" insist that it does, and that boutique hotels are properties that do not exceed 150 rooms. They believe that what distinguishes boutique hotels from standardized hotels is the connection that hotel guests experience with members of the hotel staff. Most of these hotels impose the acknowledgment of guest names by all hotel staff members, an experience that is clearly difficult to achieve in a large-scale hotel. Nevertheless, Ian Schrager, founder and president of Ian Schrager Hotels, which currently comprises approximately 3,000 guestrooms in nine properties, is among those who do not believe in this commonly accepted facet of the typical boutique hotel. With creative people as his target market, he defines "boutique" as an approach and attitude, with no regard to hotel size.

This article from AFAR says:

While not all small hotels are boutique, all boutique properties are small. The industry standard is under 100 rooms. But the designation is less about monitoring the number of accommodations and more about attention to detail and opportunities for privacy—and even quiet—at hotels where management’s focus isn’t spread thin. “It’s not about the number of rooms,” agrees Simmons, who confirms that SLH properties have an average of 56. “It’s about how the hotel feels: Does it feel intimate? Do they offer secluded, discreet options with the highest standard of guest well-being?”

This article from Business Insider says:

But from the size of the establishment to the details that make it "boutique," there was only one aspect of boutique hotels that all four agreed on: The term has evolved over time and will continue to do so. As Gabbai put it, "In truth, there is no official definition. ... Whether or not a boutique hotel can have too many rooms was a polarizing subject. "In our awards, we consistently find that judges record a lack of intimacy and an accompanying loss in the emotional impact that comes with it when hotels push at the upper 'limits' of what might be considered a boutique-sized hotel," Gabbai told Business Insider. "This is somewhere around 85-100 rooms. Although it doesn't make standard business sense to stop doing what works on a bigger scale, in boutique hoteliering, it's crucial." ... Schrager agreed with Gabbai on loss of impact, but not on size. A hotel stops being boutique, he said, only "when it loses its point of view and specific attitude ... when it becomes generic and institutionalized, cookie cutter." Even if EDITION had one thousand hotels worldwide — which Schrager hopes could be a possibility one day — it could still be a boutique hotel brand, he said. ... Ting agreed. "I think it's hard to use size or number of rooms a qualifier for that anymore. I think it's when you lose that feeling of being in a special place or having a special experience — that's when your boutique hotel card is removed."

People differ on how to define boutique hotels. Since reliable sources call Thompson Seattle a boutique hotel, it is accurate for the Wikipedia article to call Thompson Seattle a boutique hotel. Cunard (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I have shown how reliable sources call Thompson Seattle a boutique hotel, so it is accurate for the Wikipedia article to call Thompson Seattle a boutique hotel. If anyone disagrees, please explain why. Cunard (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

ref

• https://www.bonappetit.com/story/where-to-stay-seattle

--Another Believer _(Talk) 12:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)