Talk:Whistler Blackcomb

Fitzsimmons lift

Isn't the Fitzsimmons lift on Whistler?

The Fitzsimmons lift runs from the village base up Whistler Mountain. It links (sort of) with the bottom of the Garbanzo Chair. It is the primary lift for accessing the bike park on Whistler during the summer. It is also a quick way to bypass long lines at the gondola on busy ski days.142.177.195.152 14:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

When Blackcomb opened it had four fixed-grip triple chairlifts and one double chairlift and they were numbered, not named. Later they assigned names to the lifts and the one which ran from the village elevation to the upper parking lot, originally called Lift One, was called Fitzsimmons Chair. That chairlift was eventually replaced with the much longer, but still only marginally useful, Excalibur Gondola.

Names of places, structures, runs and lifts get moved around, and even repeated, frequently and seemingly at random at this resort.

Whistler

The Resort Municipality of Whistler and the ski area Whistler-Blackcomb are not one and the same, incidentally. Intrawest only owns and operates the two ski areas and some retail shops and land management services. They are principally a developer and, contrary to popular belief, do not own or run the town.

Nippon cable of Japan also owns a minority share in Whistler/Blackcomb (not the town). They have been a partner in the mountains for many years, and were involved with Blackcomb when Aspen Skiing Corporation was also involved.--Baoluo 06:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

vertical drop

The vertical drop stated in the article is as supplied by the ski area, but is not correct. The true elevation at the top of the highest lifts is 2,240 metres or 7,347 feet--but that doesn't work out to a vertical mile unless one can get from the top of the lifts on Blackcomb Mountain to the bottom of the lifts on the west side of Whistler Mountain--not an easy feat.

Reference?

Accurate elevations have been taken from 1:5,000 scale planning maps produced for Whistler-Blackcomb by Ecosign and on file with the Resort Municipality of Whistler planning department. These map elevations have been verified with several calibrated altimeters and a GPS. Approximate elevations can be taken from Google Earth. Elevations used for marketing purposes have no known reliable or accurate source.

Figures for elevations and vertical heights corrected again. This is a losing battle between fact and marketing, unfortunately, since somebody seems to be getting paid to fudge the figures. Isn't .972 mile enough for you? Even your own reference, http://verticalfeet.com/, supports the facts and not the numbers you keep plugging in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttoesen (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Olympics

In the section on the upcoming Olympics, it is written "Whistler, as the main focus of the 2010 Olympics". This strikes me as subject to certin conditions at best, if not plain wrong. Am I missing something? Given that the majority of people will be in Vancouver, and the opening and closing ceremonies will be in Vancouver, it seems the city is the main focus. Whistler is the almost exclusive focus of the Paralympic games however.

Also, the same section seems to mix together Whistler and Vancouver issues with the mention of "local mountains in... Vancouver". Seems to me this should be kept separate.

Finally, perhaps it should be noted that upgrading the highway has been in discussion for years before the Olympics came around. The event just kicked the schedule ahead a few years.

When did they merge?

The Blackcomb section mentions they were purchased in 1986 by Interwest, but it does not say if they already owned Whistler (I don't think they did). So when did Whistler-Blackcomb become Whistler-Blackcomb? Maury 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Found it, edited... Maury 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blackcomblogo.png

Image:Blackcomblogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Idiots in the Alpine

some idiot has reversed all the verbs to read the opposite of what is meant, thinking it is hilarious, I have corrected most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalistic edits are usually caught by regular editors, but thanks for fixing those; if you look in edit history youl'l see a regular user recently undid othe vandal edits from the same IP address. But as for your removal of the templates at the top of this page, that's not something you can do, it has to be done by consensus once the issues raised are fully resolved, and generally are only removed by admins, or by the person who originally placed them. Please do not do it again (as you, or someone else apparently involved with the resort, has done at least once before). They are there to maek this a better article; if you don't like them, work on fixing hte article so they are no longer needed. They will always be replaced if you remove them again.Skookum1 (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing cleanup tags

Hey everyone I'm removing the refimprove, cleanup, and neutrality tags as they were added by an IP user, without any rational at all, around the time the particular IP in question was vandalizing other articles, being blocked, etc. Original edit in which the tags were added is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whistler_Blackcomb&diff=261985703&oldid=261492468

If anyone wants to re-add them, please include a rational for doing so here otherwise it becomes difficult to determine why they were placed on the article. Some of these tags are also somewhat redundant --- CanadianGuy (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Peak 2 Peak - lift incidents

The minor breakdown of Peak 2 Peak has been removed from the lift incidents section. The P2P gondola had a general breakdown which was nothing out of the ordinary. It is surely not necessary to list general lift breakdowns for Whistler Blackcomb.

The Harmony Exprees incident has been edited to communicate more accurately what actually happened. The old article implied that it was an isolated grip failure. This is incorrect as the grip failure was caused by a faulty bolt on the sheeve train. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.58.82 (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Major events section edited:

The Excalibur gondola and Harmony express incidents have been removed from the major events section. This is because they where NOT events, they where incidents. A more suitable item to write about in the major events section would be something about the 2010 winter games or the Telus ski and snowboard festivals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.58.82 (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone should add the Big Red sheave incident since the lift was in operation when it happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.218.46 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

closure of Garibaldi townsite, creation of Pinecrest and Black Tusk Estates

These important events in the area's history - not unrelated to the creation of the RMOW - are missing from the history section. The forced evacuation of Garibaldi townsite was a major political issue in the late '70s and there was lots of press copy on the controversy, which was seen as a way to bolster/protect the new RMOW's real estate values, and there were issues about how Pinecrest and Black Tusk Estates were created and who got what; the geotechnical danger of The Barrier notwithstanding, a lot of people got the short shrift when Garibaldi was closed; its location was also relevant as a ski-out from Diamond Head, I think, though I'm not familiar with the ski terrain in that area ,where the proposed Brohm Ridge ski development is still lurking (despite lesser snowfalls than at one time).....Skookum1 (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Given this article is focused on the resort/ski area, and not on the region or township per se, seems to me that the Garibaldi/Pinecrest/Black Tusk discussion doesn't hold any relevant significance. 207.81.119.165 (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)