Talk:Walt Disney World/Disney Springs

Star nomination

Continuing to plug away at Walt Disney World articles. This one is quite different from other articles because Downtown Disney isn't a theme park, but I think it still meets our standards for star. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)

I'll try to get a thorough read done later, but the intro "At Downtown Disney, you can shop 'til you drop, eat your fill, play all day, and party all night." bugs me a bit. I'm fine with "touting" the destination a bit in the intro, and like to see creative writing applied there, but to me it reads like it's taken out of Disney brochure. I might be the only one feeling that way, in which case I'm not going to hold it against the nomination, but maybe some others can comment on that. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 14:34, 31 January 2010 (EST)

Extremely well written and an easy read. I have a few points. Please forgive me if some of these are irrelevant for this destination, as I know absolutely zilch about the Disney set-up.

Do none of the roads on the map have names? Or are they not conventional roads but rather pedestrian walkways or bus-ways? If either (or both) of the latter, it would be helpful to mark as appropriate.

What's an Imagineer?

None of the Marketplace stores have phone numbers? Some are also missing for Pleasure Island and West Side.

In Eat. The use of a shouty, capitalised NO for NO Dining Plan, jars.

In Eat. After qualifying in the opening para that they should not really be used, I think the listings would look better if you either included phone numbers or not, rather than including just some.

Drink. I am just stunned that there are so few options! :)

I must say that I have a similar view to Stefan about the phrasing in the introduction. It does read like a Disney marketing-bite. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:57, 1 February 2010 (EST)

I've included phone numbers where available. For Disney-run stores, no doubt they have telephones but they're not publicized anywhere; for non-Disney stores, I was often able to go to their web sites to get phone numbers. The only roads on the map are both parts of Buena Vista Drive; the rest of the roadways are either bus-ways (in gray) or parking lot access/driveways (in white). I'm not sure how I could make that clearer. I'm also open to suggestions on how better to call out which restaurants are on the dining plan and which are not. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:20, 1 February 2010 (EST)

For the Dining Plan, it is customary here I think to use italics for emphasis and not caps. So: No Dining Plan.

On phone numbers, I think more work is required. As per the MoS requirement, I do not think we should have a star article without phone numbers for stores. I appreciate the point about the Disney establishments, but do think that a phone number at least is required for all the independent tenants. On the restaurants, if it is really advised not to use the phone numbers as the opening says, then perhaps omit them altogether? That would be better than having only some of them I think. Ideal of course, would be to find and include every number.

Understood on the roads, although it was not clear to me without the explanation. Maybe a key would be helpful. Not a biggie though.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:04, 1 February 2010 (EST)

- I apologize; I think the absence of phone numbers on those non-Disney establishments was a simple oversight, as I easily found them at the web sites (except Magic Masters, for which Yahoo! yellow pages came through). (WT-en) LtPowers 11:41, 1 February 2010 (EST)

Well done. I am still a bit confused though over what has a phone number and what doesn't, what is Disney and what isn't. For example, Cap'n Jack's Restaurant and Cookes of Dublin have no phone numbers. Does that mean they are Disney establishments that you can't telephone direct? Or?

The golf courses. No phone numbers, hours or costs?

As you did not answer my question, I found out what an Imagineer was all by myself :) :).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:37, 2 February 2010 (EST)

- Well, to be honest, I'm not really clear on what you need a phone number for anyway. If it's just because the rules require it, I would have to ask what the objective is, and whether that objective is satisfied by the main Disney Dining number or not.
  For the golf courses, I wasn't sure how much information I should duplicate from Walt Disney World#Golf. It seems pointless to copy all of the information on attire and other regulations, although I could add the 1-407-WDW-GOLF phone number without taking up much extra space. I can't find definitive hours anywhere; I suspect they vary as the hours of daylight change. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:34, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Consistency is the key for me I think. A star article with phone numbers for some listings but not others within the same sub-section, looks like a mistake or an error of omission. Whichever way, I think it needs to be consistent. On golf courses, I agree that repeating rules and regs from the parent article would be silly. But a phone number and a price range would seem like the minimum information. In my admittedly limited experience, golf courses always have first and last tee times. I guess golfers know approximately what those will be, so no big deal. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:13, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Some issues:

Does a Hilton hotel is a budget option? At least in Europe they are min. mid-range and the prices look not so much budget to me.
Possible contradiction between the understand and drink section. While the understand section is promotional for the nightlife, the drink section sounds like a interesting locations are gone and franchise companies etc. moved in and took away the individual places. What holds true?
Map: Does the parking slot have names, numbers etc.? This is very helpful. I was with my parents fiveteen years ago in WDW and it was always a nightmare to find the parking area of our car...
The first sections sounds a bit too promotional for me, too.

(WT-en) jan 09:47, 1 February 2010 (EST)

It's true that a basic room at the Hilton is roughly comparable, price-wise, to a basic room at Port Orleans. But I thought it much more awkward to remove the Hilton from the other Hotel Plaza properties. The lots at Downtown Disney don't have names of which I'm aware, and they didn't all get on the map anyway. For nightlife, both are true; nightclubs as such are largely gone, but there is still much to do at night at places like Raglan Road, House of Blues, and Bongos. Certainly more activity here than anyplace else on property after 11PM.

As for the lead, I'm open to suggestions if anyone has something more specific to add than "it sounds promotional". Don't all of our star articles sound promotional? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:14, 1 February 2010 (EST)

We may integrate that explanation in the understand section because that's maybe the clarification/facts that the others have asked for as well. (WT-en) jan 11:04, 1 February 2010 (EST)

I think the issue is that Disney is a commercial entity, which our other destinations are not - which is why I didn't jump the gun and cried foul right away. I'll let you know if I think of something. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 11:08, 1 February 2010 (EST)

I'm not clear on why that should make a difference. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:31, 1 February 2010 (EST)

LtPowers: You reverted my edits while we discussed on my talk page. I suggest that as I'm not the only one that think the opening phrase of the article could be straight from Disney's promotion department you draft an alternative instead of sticking to the current version. (WT-en) jan 12:33, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Your edits didn't involve the opening paragraph at all, and you invited me to revert them; I apologize if I misread your intent. I'm still not sure what the point of them was, since they changed the grammar in awkward ways and didn't involve any promotional language. At any rate, I'm sorry; maybe there's a language barrier and I'm misunderstanding you somehow, but changing "In 2008, Disney closed down the six remaining Pleasure Island nightclubs" to "Disney closed down in 2008 the six remaining Pleasure Island nightclubs" doesn't make any sense to me. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:34, 2 February 2010 (EST)

LtPowers: The way you make your statements or interact makes me feel patronised and you take the part out that i wrote you that i didn't finish my work due to real life work. It's not the first time and I think i'm not the only one. I don't want to fuel this discussion here with offtopic so let get back to the article. (WT-en) jan 04:55, 3 February 2010 (EST)

How about losing the "shop 'til drop" bit altogether. The opening would then read:

Downtown Disney is an outdoor shopping, dining, and entertainment district in the southeast corner of Walt Disney World and comprises the Downtown Disney Marketplace, Pleasure Island, and Downtown Disney West Side. Although it's geared primarily for adults looking for something to do away from the parks, kids will find several things to occupy their attention as well.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:26, 2 February 2010 (EST)

That reads a bit dryly, doesn't it? I'm trying to maintain the same "At _____, you can ____, ____, ____, and ____," pattern that I used in the successfully starred Walt Disney World/Hollywood Studios, Walt Disney World/Epcot, and Walt Disney World/Animal Kingdom articles. And while everyone has said they don't like it, no one has really explained why it's bad. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:34, 2 February 2010 (EST)

I think it's because "shop 'til drop" sounds really cliche; something you're more likely to hear from an advertisement than a nonbiased travel website. Also, I'm pretty sure that the examples you gave also had a few criticisms when those articles came up for star (I think the criticisms were dropped when we came up with a lack of decent alternatives). How about we drop the initial sentence, then liven up the following one? (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 16:19, 2 February 2010 (EST)

I would very much prefer to keep the pattern so the five articles together with Walt Disney World form a coherent whole. I am absolutely not wedded to the choice of words within the pattern, but that was the best I'd come up with at the time. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:42, 2 February 2010 (EST)

The opening sentences of the other resort are much less promotional, e.g. Epcot: At Epcot, you can visit Mexico, France, and China, all in the same afternoon; survive crash tests in an experimental car; soar over California with the wind in your hair; and learn all about human achievement and international cooperation. So how about: At Downtown Disney, you can shop, dine and play throughout the day and party during the night. It might not be perfect but at least the two biggest phrases wouldn't be used any more. Any other suggestions? (WT-en) jan 05:07, 3 February 2010 (EST)

I've changed the lead and changed "NO" to "No" in the restaurant listings. (I wanted to italicize "No" but can't because it's in the "price" field of the listing tag.) Please review and comment. Any other outstanding issues? (WT-en) LtPowers 18:48, 5 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the all the changes which certainly address points raised, barring a number of details which are still missing. Again, it is hard to understand whether these are Disney establishments or not and if some are covered by catch-all contact details.

AMC Pleasure Island has no phone number and needs some indication of costs. Had a quick check and it is all on their website.
Cap'n Jack's Marina and Characters in Flight. I guess these are Disney attractions? Prices? Contact details? Characters in Flight needs opening hours.
La Nouba is missing a telephone number.
Spa at Disney's Saratoga Springs, opening hours, costs and phone number missing.
Marketplace shopping section - a stack of contact details missing.
Magnetron - no contact details.
Sunglass Icon - no contact details.
Eat section. If all of the restaurants listed can be booked via the catch-all Disney number, then fair enough. It still looks odd to have some numbers shown and others not though.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:11, 7 February 2010 (EST)

I'm not as hell bent on insisting all listings have phone numbers, but if possible all restaurant and accommodation listings should have phone numbers listed - as I imagine this is useful for seat or room reservations. I'd also like to discourage the use of "letter" phone numbers, as these are not used in large swaths of the world, and will be confusing to many foreign readers. Once that is taken care of, i'd be happy to support the nomination, with the intro taken care of, this is nice work! --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 07:53, 7 February 2010 (EST)

Ah, had missed the central reservations number... guess it's still usable if you forget something, but not as critical, I'd still prefer getting rid of those letter numbers. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 08:02, 7 February 2010 (EST)

Somehow I'd missed the AMC phone number, not sure how that happened. Most of the Disney-owned shops don't have public phone numbers as far as I can tell, though I welcome help looking for them. For things like Cap'n Jack's Marina, the only phone number I can find is 1-407-WDW-PLAY, which is the main WDW recreational activities number. I've added it to the listing. I've also added hours for Characters in Flight (prices were already there). The Spa is not missing a phone number at all, but I've added hours and a lengthy explanation of costs. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:31, 7 February 2010 (EST)

Anyone care to support or oppose one way or another? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:12, 13 February 2010 (EST)

Definitely support. It is a very well written and presented article. I have not yet had time to see if all the minor points raised have been addressed. Once again, I will say it is disappointing how few users comment on these nominations. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:23, 13 February 2010 (EST)

Took me a LOT of time to review, but you now have my support. (WT-en) Jonathan 784 21:28, 14 February 2010 (EST)

~~Almost~~ Support. Great article, looking forward to seeing a star atop it, but IMO a few things need to be addressed:

For the completeness requirement, as usual, phone numbers should be included in the buy listings. They're especially useful if you need to track down details or answer questions that you can't find online... All that's ever needed for buy listings is phone, address, and hours, and the latter two are already taken care of here.

I also agree that it looks strange to have some restaurants with phone #s, others without. Is this because some should be called directly and others only via WDW-DINE? (And if so, what are their phone numbers for?) If so, maybe just plug +1 407 939-3463 into those listings? And if this is the case for all the resort restaurants (i.e., you don't call the resort?), then perhaps just put a reminder at the top of that section to only use the WDW-wide dining number?

The restaurants outside the marketplace need hours. Snack places should have price ranges. Some drink listings lack hours and all lack phone #s.

I would also recommend removing the check-in/check-out info from the hotels, as none of it is an exception to what one would expect (and the resorts will clearly give you the times when reserving a room) and it therefore just takes up space.

Lastly, I thought I'd just draw attention to the following: Opening their doors to a primarily adult clientele. If you get tired of the relentlessly artificial environments of the theme parks, you can drop by Downtown Disney at night for fun of an entirely different sort. The strongest concentration of activity at night is on the West Side, but Pleasure Island gets its share as well. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I have included all the phone numbers I can find. Of the ones remaining, I suspect several shops (like Mickey's Mart and the DisneyQuest Emporium) and some restaurants may not have external phone numbers at all. I am admittedly at a loss to understand what possible use the phone numbers might be, but I realize our policies require it. I'm open to suggestions.
The Eat section does say "The telephone numbers below are for extraordinary circumstances only; for reservations and most health or diet issues, call the main Disney Dining number at +1 407 WDW-DINE (939-3463)." Should I repeat that in each of the subsections?
I don't understand how to do price ranges for snack places, since you can't really eat a whole meal there. Is it just a range of menu item prices?
I can remove checkin/checkout, but they're still listed in the policy page.
Does that bit you quoted sound a little... misleading? I don't read it that way, but that's me. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:42, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Re 1: Inventory questions are usually the most important reason for phone numbers. If there are general numbers, could you call them to ask what the individual numbers would be? Not all info is available online. I don't have any real recommendations re: 2, and wouldn't want that to hold up a starnom—just that I agree it looks a little confusing. Re: 3, yes, e.g., ice cream store, $2-4.50. Re: 5, don't worry, it's perfectly clear—I'm just trying to inject levity into the starnom page ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Okay, I've addressed several of the issues. I'm still not sure what to do with phone numbers for the resort restaurants; all I can find is either WDW-DINE (usually) or the main resort phone number (more rarely). WDW-DINE is covered at the beginning of the eat section, so I'd rather not put it in there, but I could do the resort number. I just don't want to be misleading; I wouldn't want someone calling it and not realizing it's not a direct line to the kitchen or what have you. I'm still looking for numbers for a few of the shops, but I'm not holding out great hope; it's entirely possible they don't have external phone numbers. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:53, 5 March 2010 (EST)

Hey, folks, here's where we stand.

After researching pretty much every way I know how, I believe I've gotten all the phone numbers I can. As far as I can tell, all remaining listings without phone numbers (shops, restaurants, and lounges alike) have no direct incoming line from outside the resort. As I see it, there are two options: I can put in "parent entity" phone numbers (which would be the resort number for resort restaurants and lounges, the colocated restaurant in the case of Cooke's of Dublin and Wolfgang Puck's The Dining Room, and the main Downtown Disney number for everything else), or I can leave them as-is. The former, to me, is misleading and of dubious value to the traveler, but I can do it if the latter option remains unacceptable.
I have retained checkin and checkout information as the Project:Accommodation listings policy page does not say anything about them being optional, and star articles must follow our style policies.

I have no idea where consensus stands on promoting this article. I think Burmesedays and Jonathan are on board as supporting, but others have commented without making a decision one way or the other. Any final thoughts? -- (WT-en) LtPowers 16:26, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Could you mention whatever general number you can call in the buy intro? When some of the listings lack phone #s, a) it's not clear what to call to get something like an inventory check, and b) it looks incomplete.

When a policy page does not make something clear, we look to discussion and practice. In practice, most of our star articles omit check-in and check-out times. In discussion, the rough consensus was that we should include them only when they are an exception to the rule, and that we should therefore remove the fields from the listing editor (they would still be accessible by editing the page). This isn't an issue that I think should hold up a starnom, but it is relevant for printing—it's an issue of trimming the fat to reduce page counts. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 10:32, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

I see your point about clutter. Checkin/checkout times are hardly an issue at Disney hotels these days anyway, with early check-in allowing you to leave your bags with bell services and have them delivered to your room when it's ready. I've removed the checkin/out times and will update the MOS accordingly.

I've put the Guest Relations number for Downtown Disney in the intro to the Buy section, along with instructions on what to do with it.

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 12:27, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

Double rooms for free?

"This guide uses the following price ranges for a standard double room: Budget $0-$150"

Is it maybe just a typing error, or do guests perhaps get complimentary hotel nights when buying something or what?

(WT-en) Ypsilon 06:13, 14 January 2011 (EST)

It's not a typing error, it's just another way to say "up to $150". (WT-en) LtPowers 14:41, 14 January 2011 (EST)

Waterpark fun and more

This needs to be addressed over in the Animal Kingdom section as well, but since there are 2 WPF&M options in the DtD region ... The wording that admission to Disney Quest and Typhoon Lagoon are free if you have purchased the Waterpark Fun and More option is very misleading. Admission to either takes one "entitlement" off your admission media. If you have a 2 day ticket and the fun and more option, you get 2 visits to fun and more locations, so if you goto Blizzard one day, Typhoon another, and then show up at DisneyQuest, you will not get admitted to DQ. "If you have the Waterpark Fun and More option on your ticket, addmission counts as one of your visits to these locations," or something along those lines is a more accurate description of how this type of addmission media works. I haven't looked at the wording over at Magic Kingdom yet for Oak Trail golf course, but I would imagine wording is similar ... --(WT-en) Hawkeyefla 12:44, 7 January 2012 (EST)

I didn't realize it was one per day. Probably not a huge deal though; if you only have a two-day ticket, who's going to go to both water parks and DisneyQuest? =) (WT-en) LtPowers 12:00, 8 January 2012 (EST)

You would be surprised how much people try to cram into a short visit. But with this ticket option, it's possible to have 4 days of admission with only a "2 day" ticket. 2d+FUN could be MK on day 1, a water park on day 2, Epcot on day 3, and DisneyQuest on day 4. The admissions can be used in any combination desired, as long as all are used within 14 days of the first day they're used. --(WT-en) Hawkeyefla 15:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Fair point. Feel free to revise as needed, otherwise I'll get to it sometime. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:21, 8 January 2012 (EST)