Template talk:Intrawest resorts

Corporate template?

Is it normal for companies to have their own templates? This is near-spam; a suitable tempalte here would either be {{Ski areas and resorts in British Columbia}} or {{Ski areas and resorts in the Pacific Northwest}} or something simliar.Skookum1 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Interesting. I would not expect to find a navigation template for corporate list of resorts owned unless it was likely to be of great import like, for example, the previous Canadian Pacific Hotels. I am unfamiliar with Intrawest. Is there any reason to think the relationship between these resorts is a useful navigation tool? DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Big-big companies I can see, like CP Hotels; I think Weyerhauser may have a template. But this one seems utterly promotional (as does the Intrawest article) - and IIRC Intrawest sold Whistler-Blackcomb recently so it shouldnt' even be on that page. There is also {{Ski resorts in the Canadian Rockies}} which I made heavy edits to, as it included mountains well outside of the Rockies, and omitted others; reason being is that it seems to have been the counterpart to this template but for Resorts of the Canadian Rockies, Inc., which I changed the title on so it was less deceptive in nature. I suspect there are others like this out there, and sombody's p.r. firm needs a stern letter from Wikimedia.org about not abusing Wikipedia for commercial promotional pruposes.Skookum1 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification... Intrawest is the largest operator of ski resorts in North America. In the winter sports world, Intrawest is as recognizable as Disney is for family vacations (you'll note there is a template listing all their resorts). I have no vested interest in Intrawest (I don't work there, and it's now a privately-held company, so I'm not a shareholder)... I just believe that a template for Intrawest's resorts is just as helpful on its ski resort articles as, for example, the Disney resorts template or the Canadian Pacific Hotels template are on their subject-related articles.   user:j    (aka justen)   00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any utility to this template. Would someone reading about Blue Mountain want a link to Intrawests Honolulu resort? DigitalC (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who knows, but they could well want to know about Mont Tremblant. Again, does every person visiting the article for Tokyo Disneyland want to read the article about Disneyland Paris (see: Template:Disneyparks)? Does every person visiting the Chateau Laurier want to read about the Jasper Park Lodge (see: Template:Canada's railway hotels)? Maybe not, but there is an obvious correlation. Each of these Intrawest resort articles exist. The Intrawest article exists. They're already linked together, usually with one step in between. The purpose of the template is to make the number of clicks a little simpler for those who are interested in reading the other articles.   user:j    (aka justen)   00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be meaning "people who want to read the other articles about Intrawest Resorts", rather tahn "people who want to read about other resorts" or "people who want to read about resorts" or "people who want to read about ski areas". The title is clear - resorts owned by Intrawest, Intrawest resorts (not capital-r, a corporate name). The difference with the wonderful worlds of Disney and the CP Hotels is their iconic value and their architectural/design interest, their cultural influence (considerable in both cases) and their place in the history of tourism. Don't presume to tell me that Blackcomb Village is in any kind of rank with those, or that Intrawest is driven by anything like the same visionary impulses. The template that should have been designed here should have been, as already noted, {{Ski areas and resorts of British Columbia}} or something of that kind. Making a corporate template without even thinking to make a proper wiki-concept template is in itself suspect but I'm supposed to presume good faith and play nice; if people want to read about what else Intrawest owns, they will be able to find that on the Intrawest page; Wikipedia is not a directory, and especially not a corporate directory. The point that the only thing that links Honolulu and Whistler on here is Intrawest is a good one, and it's the primary one; this template is not about topical interest, it is about the corporate interest: promotion of the company's profile by diverting readership to other articles about places owned by the company; fine in an article, very spammish as a template (or worse as a category btw).Skookum1 (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As for the sale of Intrawest thing, maybe I've got that scrambled, but I recall there was an item in the paper about two years ago or less about the new ownership being faced with build-out, i.e. that Intrawest - I thought it was Intrawest - got out before post-buildout stagnation set in, with pundits in the media wondering what the new owners were going to do to survive; the economy of ski resort investing is geared around assocaited land development, much in the way railways used to be given land in return for investing in building the lines (interestingly ski tows and lifts are, or were, governned by the Railways Act). That's what I heard, maybe I got the corporate tango wrong and it went the other direction; I do remember the point that, with Whistler at build-out, the usual returns from real estate development - new construction, that is - was reaching its end, and the new owners would be faced with what to do . If that's not Intrawest, who was it?Skookum1 (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent for readability, but in response to User:Skookum1):

I'm not sure that "iconic" value is a necessity insofar as templates linking resorts that are part of the same network (in this case, Intrawest). Again, my creating this template was not without precedent, and I didn't create it "without even thinking." In fact, I based it on:

  • Template:Disneyparks
  • Template:Canada's railway hotels
  • Template:Six Flags
  • Template:Cedar Fair
    • It appears I have doubts about company templates in general, unless the company is megalarge; but Six Flags falls in the 'iconic" category, can't say the same for Cedar Fair, but then again there's grounds to consider that some corporate templates out there shouldn't be; I don't know Wiki guideilness or the practices in the Economics WikiProject; I stil think it's disingenuous to compare Intrawest to the likes of Disney and CP - and that cateogry isn't *Canadian*Pacific* Hotels only, please note. On any ski resort page you'd expect a template offering other resorts in the same general region; why was it more interesting to you to create a corporate template without even thinking of a general resorts template?Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I'm afraid the extent to which you have called my work here "near-spam" and called my actions "suspect" is most certainly not assuming good faith. It's quite the opposite. You seem convinced that this template is either spam or unencyclopedic (or both). I regret that you feel that way. If you continue to believe that, at this point, I would suggest you list this template at WP:TFD. My work with this template was not to link together regional ski resorts, like you propose to do (and apparently believe I should have done instead). My aim here was to link together Intrawest resorts. I don't believe that's "suspect." If you believe it is, I apologize for your misunderstanding.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in response to your "if people want to read about what else Intrawest owns" point, it's important to understand that templates are, indeed, designed specifically to help with the "people want to read about what else..." reality. For example, Star Alliance and Template:Star Alliance. You'll notice I'm offering up all these links, not to distract you, but to show you that there is quite a bit of support on Wikipedia for templates much like this one. But, I digress.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for thematic content, yes, and Disney and the grand railway hotels (not a CP category, again) are tehmatic and iconic and the sort of thing that people will want to cross reference; not to compare lift capacity and hotel amenities at other resorts owned by the same hill. Oh yes, people really do want to read more about Intrawest and not more about ski resorts as such, I'm sure you're right. Honestly, I am. But there's fewer of those people, much fewer, than those who are looking for a place to ski; that's who, indeed, this tempalte is aimed at - aiming at redirecting people's web-browsing towards other esorts owned by the same company instead of to any other resort. {{Resorts owned by Intrawest, Inc.}} should be the title of this template, also. And just because Cedar Fair exists doesn't mean Intrawest should; if this is a corporate template, fine, but in light of this being a 2010 Olympics venue and therefore an extremely high-profile page (I'm speaking of the Whistler Blackcomb page (which should be hyphenated shouldn't it?) I just don't think it's right that one company gets itself any kind of special promotion on this page/ whether in the text, or in additional promotional contexts such as this template. In light of the Olympics promotion issue, I think that's a clincher; not for your motives, but for why this template is unfair; to other ski resorts in teh region and British Columbia, and to the readership, who should be offered more than a listing of other resorts owned by the same company; no doubt with the same lobby decor and architects. At least Disney and CP Hotels had vision, and taht's why they're iconic and notable. What's iconic about Whistler is the skiing, not the company taht owns it.Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THIS is Category:United States company templates; the considerable stature of most of the entries maybe Intrawest belongs in the company of; I'm not sure the criteria for inclusion/creation; but the only other company templates cat is for Korea; I suppose what's odd here is to see such a template on a Canadian-topic page as other than for iconic ones like the HBC or CP I don't think there are many such templates for Canada. Wikipedia corporate articles and formatting always walk a fine line with spamification; you may not have intended it, but that's the effect. And once again, the role of this resort in the Olympics has me uneasy about the effect (if not the purpose)_ of this template; it's unseemly.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whistler Blackcomb, as far as the resort is concerned, is not hyphenated. Again, stature is not the litmus test for inclusion on Wikipedia, notability is; and, insofar as this template, it's not a matter of whether it's fair to other British Columbia ski resorts, it's a matter of whether it's relevant and helpful for navigability to and from articles that are a part of this family of resorts. Whistler Blackcomb, Mont Tremblant, and others, are a part of Intrawest, that's a fact, and I'm afraid that fact can't be changed by you or me. As far as that's concerned, I think this navtemplate helps the encyclopedia. (Which, I know you've heard this before, is why I added it.)   user:j    (aka justen)   03:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spin doctors generallly will always assert that a wrong position is right; either believing in it, as some do, or being paid to. I'm not saying you're either but you should consider a career in corporate public relations, you've got the spiel down, I've heard it before; never admitting that any other possibility or argument is right, always re-asserting the original one as it were thte most logical and natural. I have my doubts about the corporatization of Wikipedia (which was actually an election issue in the recent board elections, with one candidate clearly corporate-backed to make it a more corporate-friendly environment). Like I said I have my doubts about this template; and since you're obviously too busy or unconcerned will have to get to makign the BC or PacNW ski resort templates so that there's something above the Intrawest one here. Please note {{Canadian Pacific Hotels}} does not exist - does {{Fairmont Resorts}}? (thinking of the Whistler Fairmont, whichever building taht is now; used to be the one on the highway side of the Convention Centre, long ago). What other companies are present in the resort that also have templates? Anyway, a ski-resort template is obviously a higher priority, and obviously much more in the general interest; unless you're giong to tell me taht the primary interest of people reading ski resort articles in Wikipedia is their corporate ownership....Skookum1 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{Weyerhaeuser}} gives another model of a corporate template; of a non-promotional nature.Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of comments on this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies. Gr1st (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have some doubts about the usefulness of this navigational template. I strongly doubt someone reading about one resort would want to easily navigate to resorts owned by the same owner; it is far more likely they want to read about similar resorts or resorts in the same area. I really only see it being useful on the Intrawest article itself. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleBlue, this kind of template has considerable precedent on Wikipedia. If you feel a geographic navbox would be more helpful to you, you could coordinate your efforts with Skookum. But both templates can and should coexist. You might want to take a look at a parallel discussion to this one, which Skookum also initiated, here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies#company template guidelines.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template seems fine to me in that it provides links between related articles which is what navboxes are designed to do. Now, if the articles have problems (POV, COI, etc), go tag them with the appropriate tags so that they can be fixed. And as other companies have templates, this one should not be disallowed. - LA (T) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but....

Removing of the Club Intrawest entries, great; but those year-round ones have issue - MonteLago redirects to Lake Las Vegas, not the MonteLago Resort which, yes, is mentioned there but is still a redlink. Ucnertain if the Florida item is only about the resort, or if the resort is in the unincorporated community. Addition of corporate data like on the Weyerhaeser template seems also called for.Skookum1 (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both villages were significantly developed by Intrawest. Intrawest may actually be the last solvent developer for MonteLago. It is the only corporate developer for Sandestin. Both links are valid. As for your other suggestion, please see the Disney parks template. This is not a corporate information navbox. It is a resorts navbox.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lake Las Vegas article, by its title, should be about the LAKE. Lake Las Vegas Resort would be for the resort community; simply being the last solvent holding in that resort area does not mean that it's a valid link:
The area includes several hotels and casinos including the MonteLago Village Resort, the Loews Lake Las Vegas Resort (formerly the Hyatt Regency), The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, and Casino Monte Lago.

Loews, Ritz-Carlton etc. are not Intrawest holdings; thet link shoudl go to MonteLago Village Resort and/or Casino Monte Lago, not to a town article. Or a lake article, for that matter.Skookum1 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Las Vegas is the name of the project and the accompanying man-made lake. MonteLago Village is the name of the development that makes up much of the Lake Las Vegas project. MonteLago is sort of like the downtown of Lake Las Vegas. But it really isn't reasonable to create a second article for a "downtown" of Lake Las Vegas, hence one article that encompasses both, under the most recognizable name of Lake Las Vegas. If you believe the lake and the development should have separate articles, please feel free to create them. But, in the meantime, the content is at Lake Las Vegas and the navbox should continue to link to where the content is.   user:j    (aka justen)   18:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]