Talk:Banff Sunshine

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reads like an ad

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Potential [[WP:COI|COI]] edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reverts be Resoluter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion controversy