Talk:Banff Sunshine

Delirium Dive is not a terrain park. I'm changing it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.59.172 (talk • contribs) on 20:55, February 22, 2007

This article reads like a PR release. It really needs a rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.110.227.163 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sunshine Village is not known in the ski community for its "champagne powder" this reference is clearly the work of the Sunshine Village marketing department. Quite the contrary, Sunshine gets realtively small but regular snowfalls which are often wind affected and drifted. Champage powder is understood in the ski community to be deep, dry and consistent snow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.78.77 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re: "The average annual snowfall is up to thirty-three feet (over nine meters).[citation needed]". This is marketing hype. Firstly, an average is the numerical result obtained by dividing the sum of two or more quantities by the number of quantities; an arithmetic mean. It cannot therefore be "up to". Secondly 33' is the high end of the range. Is it possible to have the Sunshine Village marketing department banned from editing this article? Let's deal with facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.78.77 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re: The Sunshine Mountain Lodge, an 84 room hotel is located in the vehicle-free "village" at tree line in the center of a vast snow bowl. Again, this is marketing hype from the Sunshine Village marketing department. In the winter the "Village" area where the Sunshine Mountain Lodge is located is frequented by a tracked SUV that is usually parked right in front of the building and tracked trucks as well as snowmobiles and snow groomers that all run late into the night. Anyone expecting the "vehicle-free" benefits of a back-country lodge would be very dissapointed. To state the area is "vehicle-free" is simply a deliberate marketing falsehood. In the summer a private road provides vehicle access to the Sunshine Mountain Lodge and "Village" and on any given day there are multiple staff vehicles as well as a regular bus service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.78.77 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

In one place the article describes the area as a valley between three peaks - elsewhere it describes it as a "vast snow bowl". The "Village" is not located in a "vast snow bowl" rather it is located at the upper reaches of a side tributary of Healy Creek known as Sunshine Creek. A bowl is akin to a cirque which is a steep, amphitheatre-shaped hollow occurring at the upper end of a mountain valley, especially one forming the head of a glacier or stream. Cirques are formed by the erosive activity of glaciers and often contain a small lake. The "Village" is surrounded by higher landforms but it is false to describe the location as a bowl - except perhaps with creative marketing licence (which is not what Wikipedia is about). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.78.77 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The first one is actually fine--the "up to" could easily refer to different parts of the resort, different circumstances, etc. It's actually possible to have a range of averages. I removed the snow bowl part as clear puffery; the "vehicle-free" part is borderline, but I can live with someone else removing it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't refer to different parts of the resort. The snow depth for record-keeping purposes is measured at the snow plot near the base of the Wawa chairlift. An average is not a variable or a range at a single location. There is also a snow plot on Goat's Eye but this is not the plot used to record main year-by-year measurements for the resort. You may think it's "fine" but you don't work in snow safety which is a science, not a marketing gig. "vehicle-free" is not a borderline term to people who understand back-country experiences. In the Canadian Rockies there are REAL vehicle-free backcountry accommodation locations like Mt. Assiniboine Lodge or Skoki Lodge. Sunshine Village is portraying itself as something that it is not and it is using Wikipedia to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.78.77 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the "vehicle-free" reference for the reasons previosly stated. The "vast snow bowl" reference is back again. I will remove that also for the reasons previously stated. As for snowfall averages - lets keep in mind that encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Anyone who wishes to post that the average snowfall at Sunshine Village is 33' should post a link to a verifiable source to support that claim.--24.64.78.77 (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have removed subjective slang adjectives like "cruisers" and "gnarly" from terrain description. --24.64.78.77 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re: History - I have removed the following entry " The record annual snowfall of 30 feet (9.1 m), with the average being closer to 6m, allows Sunshine Village to have one of the longest operating ski season in North America. The resort opens early November and remains open until Victoria Day weekend.[2] The annual Slush Cup is held on the final day of ski season." from the History section as it is not historical fact but is instead present-tense descriptive content which may belong elsewhere but some of the claims included needs verifiable citation.--24.64.78.77 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've just started the work of transforming this from an advertisement for the resort to a neutral encyclopedia piece. I started in "Amenities" (just because it was smaller), removing lots of information that is not critical to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject, was unsourced, and/or was puffery. Currently, the article reads much more like a travel brochure than an encyclopedia article. The other sections of the article also need work; anyone can take a swing at it; if not, I'll work on it when I have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)

Please be aware that a number of anonymous users have been removing content from this article. The period of semiprotection that I requested has just expired, so we'll see if the activity resumes. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm still watching the article. We can certainly have a discussion about the issue here on the talk page--it may well be that the current article can and should be modified, possibly even streamlined. I doubt that the issue in question should be removed entirely, but editing is always a possibility. To anyone who may actually have a COI, please note that you are, in fact, welcome to post here on this talk page and discuss points where you think the article does not meet Wikipedia standards. Having a COI doesn't preclude a person from editing--it just means that you have to be extra careful to be neutral and rely on reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have temporarily removed the section concerning the wrongful dismissal lawsuit from the article. It should not be restored to the article before it has been fully discussed and a consensus has been reached.

I don't think that the mention of a private lawsuit filed against the company by a few people who were fired from their jobs belongs in the article. In addition to it being unencyclopedic, Wikipedia should be very concerned about WP:BLP issues, as the Statement of Claim[1] and Statements of Defence[2][3] alleges serious, but unproven, misconduct made by named and identifiable people. The mention of the private civil claim may be verifiable and neutral, but the discussion of this isolated incident is disproportionate to its overall significance to the article topic, and per WP:UNDUE, should not be included in the article. Onthegogo (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agree with your removal per WP:NOTNEWS. If the case receives wide coverage (not just local coverage), and when it is settled, a few sentences could be added to the history section. The Interior (Talk) 17:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with removal. First, WP:UNDUE only applies to opinions, not to content about events. Decision of what events are "encyclopedic" is a consensus decision. Second, The Interior requires far too high a standard--almost none of the information in this article is of more than local level sourcing or interest, and there is no requirement that smaller events be reported in "wider coverage" to be included in articles. Such a requirement is only applicable when talking about a stand-alone article, not with regards to information within that article. Third, there is absolutely no BLP violation here--we didn't name the individuals; futhermore, WP:BLP doesn't say that we don't report negative information--it says that we only report negative information if it is backed up by a highly reliable source. On those grounds, I would certainly agree that we wouldn't cite the legal filings directly (they fall under WP:PRIMARY), but we absolutely can cite the Calgary Herald and Calgary Sun for negative statements. I won't re-add the info until we talk about it more, but I am pretty sure this belongs in the article. It's possible it should be shorter, but it seems like something should be there. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

After reading into it a bit more, a case could be made for some very limited inclusion. However, I don't support articles being used to detail minutiae and "he said/she said" back-and-forths in an ongoing legal battle. It's not within our mandate. I quote from WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

As a stand alone section, I agree with OP that we are giving undue weight to this case. I am an avid reader of Canadian news, and this is the first I have heard of it. The sources indicate that this is most likely a personality dispute between management and employees. I'd say that when this case reaches a conclusion, and settlements/charges are decided, let's put a couple sentences in the history section. The Interior (Talk) 23:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

My apologies on WP:UNDUE; I somehow overlooked that paragraph (I check the history, and while it used to be harder to find, it's always been there)...not sure how I missed it. I can accept the idea that we should wait for resolution, as I can see how this could be recentism. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I strongly agree with removal. Any major ski resort has undoubtedly had many lawsuits, past and present. Coverage of non-notable, controversies such as this civil claim are quite nauseating to read, and have no business being a part of this, or any other, Wikipedia article. Ulstereo (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The difference, of course, being that this lawsuit was covered in reliable sources. Perhaps those sources were too local, which is why its staying out for the time being, but should the case get wider press, it may belong in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is no mere lawsuit and to describe it as such completely misses the significance of a clear example of grass-roots social media backlash against private coroprate interests. It has spawned a massive, spontaneous and resiliant social media response with over 8000 "likes" on a facebook page directly related to the issue. At one point the "likes" were increasing at a rate of 1000 every 12 to 15 hours. The whole incident has been referenced by commentators as a perfect case study in "what not to do" with management of labour relations and social media, PR and customer relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.78.77 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

We cannot use Facebook as a barometer for whether something is included in our articles. As Qwyrxian mentioned above, we can use reliable sources to gauge notability of an event. Please do provide links to sources discussing this case (not Facebook) and we can see about adding it. The Interior (Talk) 04:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's one of the biggest news and discussion items in the ski industry this season. It has been discussed in a huge range of blogs and fora, not just locally, nationally or even just North America. This lawsuit has truly gone viral on a global basis and has expanded to audiences and participants who are not even connected to the ski industry. It has also been widely and repeatedly reported in the mainstream press. Simply google "sunshine village lawsuit" and you will see - I'm sure you don't want me to repost that entire list here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.78.77 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think some discussion of this should be included for the reason stated above: 'It's one of the biggest news and discussion items in the ski industry this season.' Omitting this ongoing lawsuit does not do justice to its significance as an major ski industry news item -- one that is already publicly mentioned in many news and industry sources all over North America and even in Europe. It just so happens to be located around the operations of Sunshine Village in relations with their staff. And that, is why it should included in the current edit of their wiki page. It is relevant, current, interesting, and unfolding. What more is needed for it to be mentioned? The Alberta Court has already stated that it does not think that the publication of the court documents (affidavits) would bring harm to Sunshine Village. I do not see any reason to not mention this in the current page. tragedian (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Resoluter just reverted my trimming of the history section, as well as the removal of puffery discussed above. Resoluter's edit summary was clearly mistaken, as it said "restoring referenced content", and most of that content was not referenced. More importantly, the reason the information was removed was because it isn't about Sunshine Village. By definition, Sunshine Village did not exist until 1933 at the earliest (per the article, the first time paying guests stayed there), so that information does not belong in the article; those earlier events had no direct connection to the resort. To me this information obviously needs to go. But maybe I'm wrong--I'd like to hear other people's opinions. I've also asked Resoluter to comment here. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also, I just reverted the addition of a gallery that had about 50 pictures in it. That is clearly unacceptable--this is not an advertisement. In general, we shouldn't use galleries, but, when we do, we choose a minimal number of pictures. Instead, pick one or two of those to add to the text. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You already know I'll agree with you there. I support the content removal, and re-deleted the paragraph in the intro about "champagne powder". —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 23:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article is more about the area of Sunshine Village than it is about the ski resort operation that uses that site. A gallery of photos is not “unacceptable advertisement”, but rather provides the opportunity for readers of this article to view images of the protected wildness within and around Sunshine Village. The use of “Galleries” within Wikipedia articles is common place and acceptable (1 2 3 4 5, 6 7), and the very fact that Wikimedia Commons has such a wealth of images to draw from is a further testament to the area's visual appeal, and the need for a “Gallery” section. Resoluter (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, that's not what the article is about at all. If you want to write such an article, then feel free to write "Sunshine Valley" or some such article (you'll of course need to demonstrate that the area is notable independent of the resort), but if you look at the lead, this is an article only about the ski resort. As for the gallery, your very first example proves my point--if you look at the Grand Canyon gallery, it has 7 pictures, and the Grand Canyon is one of the most famous natural formations in the entire world. There's no justification for 30 pictures here. In fact, there's no justifcation for a gallery of 30 pictures in any article in Wikipedia. Please note that the Image Use Policy says, in part, "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." Demonstrating visual appeal is does not add encyclopedic value. The fact that Commons has a lot of images means absolutely nothing, because anyone can upload images to Commons and they'll almost always stay indefinitely unless they're shown to be copyright violations. If you want to pick out two or three pictures and add them to the article proper, that's fine. Heck, I could probably even see adding in a small gallery (3-4 pictures) at the bottom, even though it is borderline against policy. But we are not here to advertise for a ski resort by providing a lot of pictures. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

And while I'm at it, I've once again removed all of the unreferenced material from the History section. If someone wants to provide a reliable source, feel free to re-add, but, if you find such a source, be sure to correct the writing to comply with WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

After the block is done, feel free to comment about the "expansion controversy" here. Don't post a copy of that info--instead, please point out what source it is you say has the info. Use some sort of masking to get around the blacklist. Obviously, that would never be acceptable for the article, but it will let us as editors determine whether or not the site is somehow valid in this case. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I restored an Incidents heading, that had been previously reverted based on WP:UNDUE. Any good wiki on a ski operation should include such a section. The details of such incidents shed light on the past history of the operations and help customers understand some of the safety considerations and hurdles encountered. Unless, Sunshine Village is an exception, the page should contain a list of newsworthy incidents. Take a look at Whistler_Blackcomb's page. There is a comprehensive list of newsworthy events that helps visitors, staff and researchers to understand the operations of a ski hill. tragedian (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

And I have reverted again. Please do not edit war, and please discuss before re-inserting. You have not addressed the concerns with undue weight that have been raised. Now, I am open to convincing, but I do have to ask why it is necessary to note that a worker was killed in an accident there eight years ago that the resort was ultimately held blameless for. The obvious question in my mind was, did this incident lead to any changes in policy, etc? Resolute 14:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see. I thought the undue weight was satisfied. I am a bit of a newbie here still. So, thanks for your feedback. I will try to address those issues and then discuss them here. To help me focus, what were some of the problems with undue weight that you saw? I will look into whether the changes brought about any changes in policy (I believe they did and will research that.) Once again, thanks for the heads-up.tragedian (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Canwilf. There's been a similar discussion before about material on the lawsuit. It's on this page, under the heading "Private Lawsuit". My concern is that while these events are very important to Sunshine staff, on a global scale, this might be a case of undue weight. My feeling before was that a short one- or two-sentence summary would be justified within the "History" section. I would prefer to wait until this is settled, but that's just me. We should also avoid court documents. They contain a lot of private information, and we rarely use them on Wikipedia. Welcome to the community, BTW. The Interior (Talk) 17:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome! I am learning how to contribute and hope to get better with age.tragedian (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

For the accident that was referenced, I have to admit, my initial response was "someone died. So what?" Now, as callous as that seems, we don't compile a list of deaths on any road that has had a fatal accident. But, if a road is known for being dangerous, or having a lot of accidents/fatalities, that becomes another point entirely. Or, as I suggested, if an incident resulted in a notable change to the park's procedures or policies. The goal isn't to whitewash controversy, but the question in my mind is "Is it important for the reader to know someone died in 2006?"

For the wrongful dismissal claims and suit, if there is ongoing coverage in reliable sources (read: not blogs), I think there can be a place for it. But honestly, probably not much more than a sentence or two at this point, referenced to those RSes, in the history section. Ideally as well, the history section wouldn't end at 1929. A concern I do have with that "controversy" section is that in the past, it has felt like people with a vested interest in that action were trying to use Wikipedia to push their viewpoint. Unfortunately, that led us to step on your toes a little. Sorry about that.  ;) Resolute 17:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply