Template talk:Infobox ski area

Example

Sunshine Village
Sunshine Village ski resort Sunshine Village ski resort
Location	Alberta, Canada
Nearest major city	Banff, Alberta
Coordinates	51°04′43″N 115°46′56″W
Top elevation	2730m
Base elevation	1660m
Skiable area	13.6 km²
Trails	107
Longest run	4 km
Lift system	1 gondola lift 8 chairlifts
Snowfall	9 m
Snowmaking	100%
Night skiing	100%
Website	SkiBanff

{{Infobox ski area
|name=Sunshine Village
|logo=
|picture=Sunshine village.jpg
|caption= ''Sunshine Village'' [[ski resort]]
|location=[[Alberta]], [[Canada]]
|nearest_city=[[Banff, Alberta]]
|coordinates={{coord|51|04|43|N|115|46|56|W|display=inline,title}}
|top_elevation=2730m
|base_elevation=1660m
|skiable_area=13.6 km²
|number_trails=107
|liftsystem=1 [[gondola lift]]<br>8 [[chairlift]]s
|snowmaking=100%
|nightskiing=95%
|external_link=[http://www.skibanff.com/ SkiBanff]
|}}  

Change

I have added the ability to remark on the resorts snow making and night skiing capacity, which is a major draw in most eastern ski resorts. -- Ubergenius 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional fields

I was about to create such a template, but discovered this one. The things I had that are missing or substantially different are:

• Lat/long: I'd make this a location which uses one of the {{coor}} templates (coor d, coor dms, etc.). In some instances these are available in degrees, minutes and seconds (as in the existing template); other cases all one has are degrees and minutes where minutes might have a fractional part; in yet other cases, one has only degrees with fractions.
• uphill capacity, as passengers per hour
• standardize lifts into elements for
  • trams
  • high speed chairs (maybe break out 6s from 4s?)
  • standard chairs (break out double/triple/quads?)
  • gondolas
  • surface tows
  • other, like subways and whatever
• annual snowfall
• snow making
• terrain breakdown, such as 20% green, 25% blue, 35% black, 20% double black; 55% groomed
• terrain parks/pipes
• snowboards (dis)allowed
• busiest day of week and week of year
• non-busiest (but open) day of week and week of year
• winter activities, such as sleigh rides, nordic skiing, snowmobiling, ice palace building, etc.
• summer activities, like golf, water skiing, etc. Or "none" if that's the case.
• ski/snowboard school, rentals, gear for sale
• facilities: lodging, resort, snack, dining, spa, etc.

It would be nice to specify the measured units in metric and imperial (or whatever it is) consistently and automatically. The {{feet}} template does this, so maybe it could be adapted—or used outright..

Undoubtedly several of these would have highly debatable values, so maybe they are best specified as a range. For example, "Annual snowfall: 200 to 300 inches".

I am going to make this template easier to find. EncMstr 23:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the template to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ski page, so it should be easier to find. I thought of some additional infobox fields:

• Typical season: open to close dates
• Year opened: resort age
• Expected snow and weather indication: some expectation guidelines, like hard pack ice in fog December through April; or sunny and cold January through March.
• Transportation: best way and options getting to the resort, like private car, bus/train line, parking hassles, permits, etc.

EncMstr 06:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Vertical Drop

I have seen some variations of this template with Vertical Drop added in. As many skiers know, the advertised vertical drop for ski areas doesn't necessarily match up with USGS Topographic Maps or Google Earth, nor does it necessarily measure lift served skied.

I don't know if we want to get into trying to disprove what ski areas, ski guides, magazines, books, newspapers, etc. show as vertical drop ski area per ski area - unless we can officially survey each ski area, we can't accurately measure total skiable vertical drop (lift served or otherwise).

This has been of earlier debate at the Berkshire East Ski Resort article and, when a compromise could not be found, edit wars and potential sock puppeting took place. A decision was later made to leave the vertical drop/elevation measurements out of the article altogether.

I would propose the vertical drop figure be the published number (as per the ski area, SnoCountry, newspapers, etc.) and be labelled as such ('Advertised Vertical' possibly). Jrclark (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Doing surveys, etc. might be fun, would would definitely be original research and not usable anyway. It can be labeled simply "vertical". When the snow report says "powder", you already take that with a grain of salt, right? —EncMstr 19:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I see there are base and summit elevations in the template as well, but those are estimations at best too unless there are benchmarks on the top and bottom of the lift. Nonetheless, if those base/summit elevations remain on the respective fields in the template (not arguing them), I think the advertised vertical should still be used in the vertical field.Jrclark (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To try to avoid contests between advertised vertical drops and original research vertical drops, I have added a citation from SnoCountry to the vertical drop field. Example: Ski Butternut. Jrclark (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As a non-skier who is unfamiliar with skiing jargon, seeing it labeled simply "vertical" can be kind of confusing. I would find it clearer if it were labeled "vertical drop" instead of just "vertical". Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the usage of advertised vertical figures. Wikipedia does have a policy against using its database as an advertising tool. I have contributed heavily toward giving accurate vertical statistics to several ski project infoboxes simply by subtracting the lowest skiable area in the park's altitude from the highest. This is standardizable and can be cited by using topographical maps.

Advertised vertical is sinfully incorrect and made with the intention of creating a competetive atmosphere with other ski areas. This is not the case with actual vertical statistics.

Regards, Bill User:Willdakunta (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Topographical maps are not accurate to the foot in regard to ski areas - and only would be if there were a benchmark at the bottom of the lowest ski lift terminal and highest ski lift terminal. Any estimations based upon 7.5 minute topographic maps is, as stated by EncMstr, original research. Your quote unquote heavy contributions have been limited to the course of one day and seem to be, as an end result, done to further an edit war conducted under a previous username. This matter has been escalated to Wikipedia Sock Puppet administration. Jrclark (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I used google earth, which not only has accurate GIS data but it overlays the trails (with photos current within the last 5 years).

I suggest you stop levying sock puppetry charges until wikiadmins speak, until then its just wild speculation.

Lets be realistic about this please. Ski area advertised vertical is inherently inaccurate and again I remind the board that wikipedia is not a place used for commercial gain. Its better to have an independent individual measure the vertical using a topographical map, google earth, or state issued GIS data (which contains amazing accuracy). I have never heard of anyone so distrusting of topographical maps. If tolerances of 20 feet are unacceptable then we should request that ski areas give us the source of their data. Personally i'd rather see some guy on the internet miss the mark by 25 feet then trust an advertisement which is off by 300.

We can take this to the original content dispute resolution portion of the website if its believed that topographical maps do not account for citable material.

Regards, Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdakunta (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll second those sockpuppet allegations; they appear undeniably credible. Socks aside, I'm not comfortable with either the WP:Original research you are suggesting above or the stats provided by ski areas; either including them both or excluding them both seems to be the only solution. As I've said before, it will be up to Wiki ski to decide how vertical drop is measured. Some insight into how ski areas make those measurements would be helpful, too. The issue may not be as simple as a linear top of lift to bottom of slope measurement.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, just an FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard

The notice board says citing topographical maps is a reasonable source and is not NOR as it was suggested above. Please read their suggestions, I think they ahve some pretty good neutral input.

I am all for adding an option to show true vertical VS Advertised vertical. It is a good way to keep the users informed and perhaps also a good way to show which ski areas are more honest.

Regards, Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdakunta (talk • contribs) 20:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably wasting my time responding to this trolling, but it should be noted that, at the time of this comment, the 'board' referenced above was only one user.

I don't think the intent of this template is to 'show which ski areas are more honest.' Showing what someone thinks the 'true vertical' is based upon arbitrary points on a 7.5 minute topographical map or Google Earth vs. what has been published as the vertical drop for a ski area for decades only creates more conflict, which is probably what this trolling behavior is aimed at. Jrclark (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, this controversy is about a particular case, so has no place here. There should be no particular policy about the implementation of the template, all information is subject to the general wikipedia policies. Stating here that official vertical drops (advertised or not) should be disregarded would be detrimental to most pages where this infobox trancludes. Please move your arguing to the specific page. --Qyd (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Qyd, it was originally limited to one case, however, the latest sockpuppet has gone through many areas in Massachusetts and Vermont and has received some resistance. I think that citing the vertical drop as cited nationally on SnoCountry is a fair compromise instead of trying to get into what someone considers the 'real number' vs. the published number. Jrclark (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion isn't specific to just one ski area, but it does seem that this isn't a template issue at this point, it is an issue for Wiki project ski; failing that WP:afc. What is at stake here is "by what criterion is vertical drop measured here on Wikipedia?" The answer to that question will inevitably affect every ski area article, especially since there appears to be one user out there intent on revising how vertical drop is measured in every ski area article.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note I've combined the last two discussions, as they are a unbroken continuation of the same debate, and have removed the false section header which gave appearance of two distinct arguments.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Coords being double-displayed

The template currently places the coords both inline and in the title. The title placement pushed the infobox down, and causes general alignment problems. It's also redundant, because the second set of coords appears directly below the title. Is this a simple oversight, or is there some method to this madness? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Having them appear in both places is standard MO. They are usually expected in the infobox. Also, having them in the title area permits Google Maps, Google Earth and other data harvesters to use them. This isn't as redundant as one might think, since it's well within each user's options to have the title coordinate appear in a different format, or not at all. See WP:GEO for more detail. —EncMstr (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)\\

Color me confused, but why can't Google Earth use them if they are in the infobox? Should we really pollute all of our articles to avoid a problem that will likely be fixed, if it isn't already? And why should the user have to globally set their preferences to avoid this obvious redundancy? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles can have more than one infobox, This issue goes beyond {{Infobox ski area}} and is best discussed at WT:GEO; but please - until you understand the issues involved, try to avoid emotive and unwarranted terms like "this madness" and "pollute all of our articles" Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG Andy, "emotive and unwarranted"? Really? Methinks he doth protest too much. Whatever, clearly I have no traction here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"emotive and unwarranted"? Really?: Yes. HTH. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Mount Hood: it contains a dozen coordinates. How does a harvester know which coordinate is for "Mount Hood"? It's the one in the title. —EncMstr (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Location map

Is it possible to add a location map parameter to this infobox as in "Infobox mountain" and "Infobox mountain pass"? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Owner" or "Operator" field

A lot of ski areas are coming under consolidated ownership recently, so adding this to the infobox would make sense. Many of the resort operators like Vail, Alterra, and POWDR already have articles anyway. Gary600playsmc (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)