Talk:List of ski areas and resorts

	Sports portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of skiing and snowboarding articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Skiing and SnowboardingWikipedia:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingTemplate:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingSkiing and Snowboarding articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Travel and Tourism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles

Older comments

re the european ski areas typically referred to by their closest town? matt 21:43 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

I would say so, especially since they are usually more or less located in said town. Egil 22:18 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Sometimes. Often it's more complicated. For example the 'Portes du Soleil' area is an amalgam of smaller ski areas, such as Chatel. DJ Clayworth

Any reason why the Middle East is not considered part of Asia? Grutness 05:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(fixed long ago)

Move to List of ski RESORTS

Saw note that "Tuckerman is not a 'true' ski area, as there are no lifts." (apparently inserted last June by User:DavidWBrooks). Really? Since when does a "ski area" need to have lifts? Perhaps this article should be moved to List of ski resorts, if it is going to exclude ski areas that are used exclusively for Nordic skiing, backcountry skiing or ski mountaineering. Skiing is not carried out solely in places having "lifts," and there are probably hundreds of non-lift ski areas that may therefore need their own list. Lupinelawyer 01:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have to set some criteria to determine candidacy in this list; if a ski area is any place you can ski, then every hill over 10 degrees with snow is a ski area. That's pretty much every mountain, park, and golf course in Canada. That sounds somewhat like compiling a 1:1 map of the world. I think a ski area should be defined as location that has permanent, fixed, uphill transportation; heli-ski and snowcat operations should not be included in this list.--Baoluo 09:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the skiing is good and it's a place I might want to go to legally ski, it should be listed, in my opinion. Heliskiing definitely fits this category, though the article should clearly indicate advance arrangements needed, which I wouldn't expect of a regular ski area. Most golf courses wouldn't do because I have to walk uphill, right? And they're fairly little hills?

The distinction between resort and area seems a little cloudy, but I would draw the line at whether it is possible to leave the hotel room and ski without an intermediate ride in an auto, bus, etc. —EncMstr 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"if the skiing is good" is definitely POV; if ski areas that were demonstrably poor were excluded from this list, then the great majority of ski areas in central and eastern North America shouldn't be here. I agree that a distinction be made between resorts and areas. This is a difficult distinction to make however; should it be made based on calculation of skier capacities, the physical size of the area, the presence of on-hill accomodations, or by some other criteria? I do think a distinction also needs to made between ski areas that charge user fees and provide up-hill transportation from back- or side-country skiing areas where users must power themselves up hill. This is a radically different activity, and as such deserves its own list. Additionally, ski areas with permanent lifts and ropeways are radically different from ski areas that move skiers uphill via snowmobile, snowcat, helicopter or ski plane; I think this category also deserves a separate list.--Baoluo 06:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my two cents on this. Wikipedia's own entry for "ski area" says that "A ski area is a developed recreational facility, usually on a mountain, containing ski trails, ski lifts and vital supporting services. At a minimum a ski area has food, rental equipment, parking facilities and a lift system catering to the sports of skiing and snowboarding." In my mind this certainly disqualifies places like Tuckerman Ravine and possibly the Mt. Washington Cog Railway, and it also disqualifies all cross-country skiing facilities. I don't know if that's good or bad (there are lots of XC areas listed here, at least in some places), but I personally would like to see a separate list for XC. I would like to see this list contain only (1) areas that offer alpine skiing and/or snowboarding, (2) areas that still operate, and (3) areas that offer uphill transportation to one or more defined ski trails or runs (thus excluding, say, heli-ski operations). Charolastra charolo 22:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would make it really simple: A ski area is an area that charges you to ski. Lake Mountain in Australia is a well-known cross country skiing location/area/resort/place. It would just be weird to see a list with Hotham, Falls Creek, Buller, Buffalo - and not Lake Mountain. OTOH, there is a need to split this huge list. Stevage 06:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Paradise Lodge on Mt Rainier, WA should be removed from this list. The area used to be an actual ski resort from the 1930's through 1972 but now its a hike-only, BC ski area. As stated further up the thread, besides having a lodge on the hill, there is nothing there that would qualify Rainier as an actual ski area. The lodge on the mtn was not built to be spcifically as a ski lodge, so its not like its leftover from the ski area. Any thoughts? Mrhyak 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Bunny is a similar article. It's been decades since there was a lodge or ski lift there, and I've had bad luck finding any reference at all which states there used to be a lift there. As long as the article notes the historical and current status, I'm 80% in favor of leaving it linked in. (How's that for divided? :-) —EncMstr 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centers of Ski Culture

There is no mention of Vail, Karuizawa, or Burlington in this or the main skiing article. That is like creating a suite of surfing articles without mentioning California or Oahu. --McTrixie 16:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of trail maps

Is there any interest in starting a list which has external links to trail maps for ski resorts? Or does such a thing already exist on the wikipedia? Or what would people think of adding it to this list? Reason I ask is that when working out where to go for a ski holiday, I really like to see the trail map to get a sense of scale, and layout. A big list that contained direct links to this information would be very handy (for me, and presumably for others too). -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds uninteresting to me and probably non-encyclopedic. Do not add it to this list because it would clutter it ...maelgwn talk 09:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, consider it dropped. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 05:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check out google earth; you can get a pretty good sense of a ski area that way.--Baoluo 09:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be helpful to add direct links to the relevant trail maps in the articles. A "list of trail maps" per se would get deleted by someone. Stevage 06:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting up?

Hi guys, I'm finding this list a bit unmanageable. I'm trying to work on the NZ ski resorts and it's a real pain working on such a large list. Would it be so bad to have separate lists for each country? Or maybe to do both: Make this list just transclude all the sublists? I might try this for NZ so you can see what you think. Stevage 06:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to edit the whole page at once. Just click on the relevant section Edit link. —EncMstr 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also considering splitting up the list, mainly because it is just unmanageably long to read. I was just about to post here myself regarding this issue.

Another problem with its length is while checking diffs to revert vandalism and unhelpful changes, in which case section ediiting / diff checking is impossible. I think the time for a split has come. In addition, the list should be renamed List of ski areas and resorts to match the recent renaming of all categories in the Category:Ski areas and resorts tree, and its new sublists should be "List of ski areas and resorts in . . ." for consistency. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed and split

I decided to go ahead and do the rename to List of ski areas and resorts, along with the split. All areas except Africa (which has too few ski areas to need its own list) are now split into separate list articles:

List of ski areas and resorts in Asia
List of ski areas and resorts in Australia
List of ski areas and resorts in New Zealand (previously split and transcluded by Stevage in January 2007)
List of ski areas and resorts in Europe (may also benefit from a further split later)
List of ski areas and resorts in Canada
List of ski areas and resorts in the United States
List of ski areas and resorts in South America

This looks like a major improvement in readability, usability, and maintainability to me. I hope that others agree. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 01:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]