Talk:Banff Sunshine

Delirium Dive

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

Reads like an ad

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Neutralizing" article

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)

Potential COI edits

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)

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)

Private lawsuit

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reverts be Resoluter

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)

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)

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)