Talk:Walt Disney World Swan

message: :Image:DisneySwanResort.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DisneySwanResort.jpg

message: (moved from Talk:Walt Disney World Resort
Though there is a "Themed Resort" category, I would suggest that the Swan and Dolphin be moved from that list to the "Non-Disney Owned Onsite Resorts" list.  The reason you can even book the Swan and Dolphin on the Disney Website is irrelevant here.  That's a legal issue between some sore hotels and Disney that doesn't have to be carried here on WP.  I appreciate the notation in parenthesis after them that they are operated by Starwood, but they are OWNED by them as well. Whereas it is true that these two hotels are "Themed Resorts", they are not Disney themed resorts.  They are served by regular Disney transportation, located between Epcot and the Studios, but they are not owned by, operated by, or operated as a Disney resort. In fact, I would like to see the history behind their location and 'special treatment' gone into more depth on their respective pages.  This was indeed something that Disney DIDN'T want.  Apparently (and that's why its only here in discussion) Wyndam and Sheraton were promised a hotel in Downtown Disney.  When they got cut out, they were awarded a prestigious location by Epcot by the courts.  To spite Disney, they built the most whimsical, tallest, (POV here) obnoxious hotels they could get away with.  Apparently, there is a 99 year lease on the property during which Disney can't really do anything about it.  They refused to provide bus transportation at first, but then the courts said they had to (or they paid for it).  All the conjecture in this paragraph is rumor, but I heard it from a bus driver there, so it must be at least hooked in truth a little bit...Tiktok4321 (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of what is in your paragraph is rumor and conjecture.  The counter response is that the sections should be labeled "on-property" and "off-property" hotels, as all Disney hotels have some sort of theme to them.  Eisner was involved with the design of the hotels, so there was no spite involved there.  There is a terrific article over at Mouseplanet and at Imagineering Rebirth that you may want to read, but there's a question over whether it could be used as a WP reference or not. Swan and Dolphin remodel and reimagineering swan/dolphin story SpikeJones (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If you're saying that the Swan/Dolphin are not Disney hotels (being owned/operated by Westin), then you need to figure out how to handle the fact that you can book rooms for the Swan/Dolphin from the Disney website directly.  Here is a NYTimes article that you will want to investigate further: The task is delicate, in part because the Walt Disney Company owns the ground beneath the hotels and has a veto over any modifications ... After a lawsuit and settlement in the mid-1980's involving covenants among the various companies regarding their marketing, Tishman and MetLife won the right to build the Swan and Dolphin... The Swan and Dolphin are operated under a land lease from Disney granting Disney a percentage of revenue from the hotels, one that has escalated over the years. NYTimes Article.  And all it takes is a little bit of googling and you'll find this gem: When the giant Tishman hotel complex was conceived in the early '80s, it was located elsewhere: the Lake Buena Vista area. Alan Lapidus, son of the flamboyant Morris Lapidus, who designed the Fontainebleau and Eden Roc hotels in Miami Beach, designed a 2,000-room convention-oriented hotel to handle the ever increasing convention business at Disney without the Mouse having to spend a dime of capital. Enter Michael Eisner and Frank Wells with their rapid realization that Disney should be in the hotel business. Disney quickly drew plans for a Florida-themed hotel with 150,000 square feet of convention space. A furious John Tishman threatened to sue. His deal with Disney guaranteed Tishman's would be the only convention hotel at Disney. baltimore biz journal   So there's the WHY of the ownership issue. Feel free to expand the Swan/Dolphin article as necessary. SpikeJones (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and to address your original statements -- the design was handled by Disney & Eisner, so that comment is false.  the Downtown Disney commentary is close, but only from a convention center viewpoint with relation to the hotels currently in that area, so that comment is incorrect as it stands as well.  Considering Disney gets a cut of their profits, lists them on their website, owns the land beneath them, has veto power over their architecture (in fact, designed the buildings)... then your original point of them not being Disney resorts is a bit more moot than you had before. SpikeJones (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm merely providing information that you had requested regarding the history of the resorts compared to what the bus driver mistakenly told you. Not all resorts on property need to have a disney character (Coronado Springs, anyone?) to be considered a disney resort. Yes, S&D guests get better privs than those at the partner hotels near DD.  The dining privs is a non-issue as not all restaurants across the board participate in the dining program. Intentionally devoid of anything Disney in their design is also moot (see, again, Coronado Springs).  On the Disney website, the S&D are intermingled in the "All Resorts" dropdown box, so I don't know what you're looking at.  Perhaps it's listed differently on different pages.  If so, it's also a non-issue. I do agree that there can be disappointment from folks who don't realize that it's not the same Disney experience when they book there, but their location as walkable to EP/ST should alleviate that. The question I pose to you, as you also appear to have your mind made up, is specifically what bullet points will qualify (or not qualify) the hotel as being appropriately listed on the resort page? I'll offer some examples here, and look forward to yours.  (a) physically on property? check.  (b) uses Disney-provided transportation? check.  (c) must be a building designed by Disney? check.  (d) has Disney staff working there? Disney outsources housekeeping, bell staff, Magical Express, etc so it is moot on their own properties too.  (e) guests staying there qualify for magic hours?  check.   SpikeJones (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, what you propose is certainly reasonable.  I like the removal of the "themed resorts" phrase.  Whether there needs to be clarification here of "disney" vs "non-disney" hotels in general on THIS page is questionable (be sure to include SoG on that list of non-disney if you do), but the clarifications certainly need to be on the individual S&D pages themselves. SpikeJones (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As :Template:WDW_Resorts contains hotels in Hotel Plaza, the question remains how/where to add Swan/Dolphin to that list.  They can't be left off, but the way the template is configured they can't easily be added to any of the existing categories (they should be on the Epcot row, for example) SpikeJones (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine as is.  If anything, it could be asterik'd, but I don't think that's totally necessary.  Since it is a link, hopefully the relationship can be understood from the respective WP pages.Tiktok4321 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swan and Dolphin (moved from [[Walt Disney World Resort]] talk page)