Talk:Sugarbush Resort

Fair use rationale for Image:Sugarbush.jpg
Image:Sugarbush.jpg 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

 * Reorganize material into clear sections & reasonable sections headers.
 * Eliminate/ reduce reliance on bulleted lists.
 * Bring more information into head.
 * References. ..

--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Double tags
There are currently two nag tags on this article - cleanup and needs-references. I've removed the cleanup largely because two tags them atop each other pushes the text almost off some browsers, so that situation should be saved only for very important tags, not subjective opinions like "needs to be cleaned up".

The references tag is generally considered far more important, which is why I left it. It has been replaced twice, however, so obviously it's a matter of opinion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's an easy solution to this--the "this article has multiple issues" tag; if you wish to apply that instead, it works for me. I expressed my reasons for the tag, above; glad to discuss what you find subjective about them, if that is helpful. I read the long discussion on your talk page RE:tags; I agree, they are applied too liberally, often without thought, and by many folks who have no intention of doing any editing themselves. Nonetheless, I believe in their utility in motivating editors to improve mediocre articles. In general, the articles on many of the ski areas in New England are in need of good editing; I've done some myself & I'm not even a (downhill) skier. Whenever I see a tag pop up on an article I care about, my immediate reaction is to cringe, maybe even feel a little defensive, but as long as the tag is reasonably justifiable (i.e. there exists a nexus between the article and the issue the tag addresses), I can't in good conscience pull it down without significantly addressing the concern it points out. There rests its value as a motivator. I've placed several tags on similar articles in the last few weeks & have seen some active editing as a result. The proof is in the pudding. Hope that helps explain things. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of my objection is that I find the "cleanup" tag useless - it's too general, too vague, too subjective. I don't think it's ever really justified, frankly - tags IMHO should be limited to very specific, very important issues. Particularly because this article isn't that bad. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. . .what I'm hearing is that you want to see the cleanup tag (and maybe some other tags) eliminated or restricted by clearer use guidelines. It might be more fruitful to take this up via at the Wikipedia venue for policy changes instead of wrangling over tag placements on individual articles. As it stands, the tags you mentioned are currently legit tools used by Wikipedia users. The policy (or lack thereof) that invites their use may stink in your opinion, but purging the use of a sanctioned tool on the grounds that you don't agree with the substantive aesthetic of that tool is, well, problematic--and its going to invite challenges, of which this isn't your first. In general, I like you, your work here, and even your work as a reporter outside here, but I don't agree with you on this particular issue. As for the quality of the article, my main beef is with its organization and over use of bulleted lists. Beyond that, I don't see why the tag can't be removed, depsite its other flaws. Heck, I'll even compromise and pull down the tag should one of these improve. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to disagree - if one editor can place a tag because he/she/it feels it's appropriate, another editor can remove it because he/she/it feels the tag is inappropriate. It's editing; there's nothing magically untouchable about tags.
 * And my response to your comments about not liking the organization and lists in the article is ... as you probably expect ... if you don't like it, fix it! (Or discuss it on the Talk page, where it doesn't interfere with casual users of the encyclopedia) It's not like "cleanup" is along the lines of "needs references," which takes much time and expertise to fix, and in the meantime should stand as a warning to readers - this is just one person's opinion about style. For example, I think bulleted lists are fine; if your turn them into prose, should I stick a "cleanup" tag on the article because I want somebody to return them? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do a lot of editing, as I'm sure you're aware of, including multiple edits to ski area articles. I don't intend to edit everthing I come across and I've already explained why I find utility in the tags(we will just have to agree to disagree about that utility). Beyond that, acccording to Wikistyle quality standards, bulleted lists should be converted into prose whenever possible; I can pull out an exact quote if it helps. The tag explicity addresses "quality standards." It's not just a matter of my opinion--it's consensus approved encyclopedic style. Additionally, the bulleted lists reach into WP:Not where, in this case, Wikipedia is not a collection of ski area statistics. As for the "untouchability" of tags, by your own reasoning, if it's just like any other edit, you stand on similar ground in deleting the substance (versus wording) of another's edit when that edit is supported and justifiable. If you feel the tag is inapppropriate, we can discuss that in more detail. If there is concensus to remove it--more than just you and I going back and forth--I will gracefully bow to that. But what I'm reading from your words here and in other places is that you object to the very existence of the tag itself. That seems to be the root issue; everything else seems semantic. Again, if that's the problem, your disagreement isn't with me--and there are better ways to resolve it. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S., "if you don't like it, fix it!" works both ways: if you don't like seeing a tag in the article header, then do the edits that make the tag no longer necessary or justifiable. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why I didn't delete the tag a third time, after you replaced it and seemed concerned, because it was a topic of reasonable debate, now taking place here. In general, I think that debates about content in an article should default in favor of the editor who wants to keep the content, if it seems as if agreement can't be reached.
 * Nine times out of ten, or perhaps more, deleting a tag produces no reaction at all - because far too often people use them in place of editing; just slap them down and then move on, leaving visual blight that causes more harm than good.
 * As for doing the necessary edits - I did: I removed the big, ugly, text-obscuring tag, thus improving the readability of the article! Remember, I don't think the tag accomplished anything or was needed, so leaving it in place would have been bad editing on my part. On the other hand, the editor who was concerned enough to place the tag - that person should certainly be concerned enough about improving wikipedia to actually make the changes that seem necessary, right? I look forward to enjoying your work.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're moving in circles. I've already offered two compromise measures, above. I'm going to leave this discussion alone for a while, and move on to other things. Perhaps the distance will offer us both some perspective. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, cleanup isn't needed

 * The cleanup tag has been sitting there for two months and has prompted nobody to do anything to the article (including the editor who placed the tag). So it seems wikipedia consensus is that the article doesn't need cleanup, which means the tag is a pointless distraction. Into the trash it goes! - DavidWBrooks 15:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Alterra acquisition
Alterra Mountain Company has acquired sugarbush, this should likely be noted in the article.

Regards 18:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Skiing in Slide Brook does not require a guide.
Skiing in Slide Brook does not require a guide. If unfamiliar with the area a guide is highly recommended. 209.99.212.101 (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅  02:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Vonnegut Slaughterhouse Five Reference
Sugarbush is mentioned several times in Kurt Vonnegut’s book Slaughterhouse five as the site of a plane crash where 28 optometrist passengers were killed, along with the pilot. Billy pilgrim (the story’s protagonist) survived, as did the copilot. 108.31.148.119 (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * See chapter 7 of slaughterhouse Five. 108.31.148.119 (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)