This article has Star potential. It's well written with great information. However, for Star status it needs both to be entirely complete and to exactly match the manual of style. If you see how it can be improved, please plunge forward or point it out on the talk page.
We already have a format for Project:restaurant listings. The dollar-sign rankings should be replaced by actual prices. --(WT-en) Evan 16:40, 29 Feb 2004 (EST)
Hi there: I'm adopting this page, with the goal of filling it in slowly over the next month or so, so please don't delete places where there are headers/titles without details; I'm planning on trying to fill things in somewhat methodically. Thanks! (WT-en) ByeByeBaby 22:47, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)
why is Montanans mentioned and not Caesars? One is a large chain you could visit anywhere and the other is a Calgary institution.
There's no reason to complain about the lack of a listing; just plunge forward and insert the listing yourself. Anyone can edit a Wikivoyage page. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 19:34, 7 January 2012 (EST)
This page reads exactly like a Lonely Planet travel guide, which I can only assume is copyrighted materials. Is this allowed? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 209.107.119.85 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2007 April 22
If any content is taken from Lonely Planet then it needs to be removed. See Project:Copyleft for guidelines about what can be used on Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan• (talk) • 19:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Agreed, we don't use any content copied from Lonely Planet. For what it's worth, one of the colourful phrases in the intro, "Calgary lies where the prairies end and the foothills begin", dates back to the very first revision of this article from 2003, and doesn't show up on LonelyPlanet.com. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 01:37, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
This article is tagged with "This article or section does not match our manual of style or needs other editing." User:(WT-en) OldPine applied this tag on 03:52, 2007 September 25, with the comment "Besides frontlinked listings, attraction listings do not have address, phone, hours". I'll observe that there are a number of subheadings that don't match the appropriate article template, Project:Big city article template. Let's talk about how to bring this article back to the Project:Manual of style. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
The article appears to have all the headings for the Project:Big city article template. However, it also has extra sub-headings, as follows. I'd propose to simply delete them and let the content flow together. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Under Understand, drop the subheads City Layout and Navigation but keep Climate. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Under Get Around, drop subhead Pathways, bikeways and pedestrian-friendly areas, and change the two sub-sub-heads to By Bicycle and By Foot. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Under See, the district-level subheads are non-standard. However, there are enough listings to make some kind of subdivision worthwhile. Maybe what that says is that we should use the Project:Huge city article template, and divide Calgary into districts. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
the Do - Live Theatre section is pretty good and should be retained, but change the subhead to Performing Arts.
Do - Spectator Sports should be renamed Sports, and be moved up to replace Athletics.
All the listings under Do - Sports - Amateur, including Boating, Court Sports, Cycling, Field Sports, Golf, Hiking, Hockey, Raquet Sports, and Winter Sports, strike me as not very helpful to the tourist. Maybe they are helpful to a Calgary resident. They seem like an attempt to make the article into a complete directory to Calgary, and I don't think Wikivoyage aspires to be that. Most of the listings require work to confirm to the Project:Activity listings style. Thus I think I'm in favour of archiving these listings off the Talk page or something, and then deleting all these sections. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
The section Do - Annual festivals has interesting listings, most with URLs. I'd retain this. However, we should add street addresses and contact information to the listings (hopefully we can find it at the URLs given). (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Under Learn, the institutions are fine, but we should add street addresses and contact information to the listings (hopefully we can find it at the URLs given). (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Work is fine. Delete the subhead Volunteer, and make it the final paragraph of Work. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Under Buy, like See, the district-level subheads are non-standard. Maybe Calgary should use the Project:Huge city article template, and divide Calgary into districts. The listings also need to have address and contact information added in. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Eat, Drink, and Sleep look fine as far as the article structure goes. They use standard sub-heads. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Under Stay safe, delete all subheads. Move the hospital and medical centre listings (but not the headings) to Cope, and format using listing entities. The Stay safe section thus becomes the text under Safety.
Under Cope, the long, detailed, wonderful list of consulates and laundries seems like more than what most travellers need. Maybe if we were to divide the article into districts, it would be more manageable. But I think both take the article too far towards being a business directory. Thus I think I'm in favour of archiving these listings off the Talk page or something, and then deleting these two sections. Maybe keep just a few of the most useful laundry listings to tourists. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Under Contact, delete the two external links per Project:External links. Whatever is useful there should become listings in the article. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Get out looks fine as far as the article structure goes. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
If you have useful sources for Calgary travel info, add them here. Remember to follow the Project:External links policy. If a site has good Calgary travel info, let's use it as a research source to write new listings for Wikivoyage, not just link to them in the article. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 01:14, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
User:(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast just added a subsection City districts under Calgary#Understand. This doesn't quite match the Project:Manual of Style, but it does point out a question. Is Calgary a large enough city to require separate articles for its various districts, like Vancouver has? If so, we should agree on district names and boundaries. Then we should rework the Calgary article to follow the Project:Huge city article template, then create articles for each district, then move listings from the top-level article to the lower levels. If Calgary isn't large enough, then we should follow the Project:Big city article template, and get rid of that City districts section. Note that the first paragraph of Understand already sketches out some districts. Personally, I don't think there's enough content here to justify district articles, so I've removed the City districts section for now. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:46, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Hi, saw your comment, I want to comment, hehe. The reason why I put that in there was not becayse of huge city status, believe me that's not my intent, Edmonton or Ottawa probably would get that soon enough though, but anyways...I put that in there to add some more information that may be great for travellers to know, just a little bit about specific districts. I didn't add information, because I only really know NW, Central, North Central, and SW well, and I'm not a good person to decribe it. So I left it for someone else to do it. I don't think Calgary has enough information to have "huge city" yet, but I think its nice to know about the districts anyways, but nbot have links to them. I am working really hard to have Edmonton, Alberta, Canada to have "huge city" and "star article" but I don't think I can do it all by myself and I think Calg can do the same. Maybe I can help you, JimDeLaHunt with Calgary...anyways I'm getting off-topic! I just think, like the Ed section, Calgary could use some additional information pertaining to the districts of the city. Thats my point! I won't re-add them until you reply with what you think first of all, also check the Edmonton talk page, Jim, from time-to-time and see the other sections i added to Calgary Talk... sorry, I get off-topic...thansk for listening! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast (talk • contribs) 14:54, 2008 October 22
User:(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast, thanks for your reply, and thanks for you enthusiastic(!) contributions to various articles. Regarding districts in Calgary, I guess we can agree that this article isn't ready for the Project:Huge city article template. I agree it's nice to know about districts. More to the point, it is helpful to travellers to have an idea of the districts. EE, did you see the part of the Understand section describing the city's structure? It begins, "Calgary is divided into four quadrants, NE, NW, SE, SW…." Does that seem to you like a useful way to describe Calgary's structure for a traveller? If it could be improved, we should revise that paragraph, instead of setting up a conflicting structure elsewhere. See the Project:Big city article template instructions, and also Project:Where you can stick it for what goes where in the article. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:02, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I think, perosnally, Jim, that Calgary could use Districts seperate and then, well, travellers could know more specifically about the district, not a simple little paragraph. But that's my opinion, what do you think. (Also check the Talk: Edmonton section please. Thanks, Jim, you're helpful! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:30, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast
Well when Calgary gets the districts, they will be pretty bland, but not much worse than Edmonton for sure. Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, Southeast, Central, UofC. 6 Districts. Keep smiling,(WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST).
I saw Oklahoma had a seperate page for it's metropolitan region-just an outline is all, but still nice to talk about the cities radiating the city. I also recently did this to the Edmonton Capital Region and was wondering if Calgary needed this aswell?(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 20:58, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast
I think it is time to go around and creat Calg. Metro Region. I think the general idea from the alberta page is that it would be nice! Any oposition? I'lla give it some days-or if I get over like 5 replies...hmm, ok! KEep smiling, (WT-en) eetalk 22:55, 4 November 2008 (EST).
I think Calgary needs more pictures. Anymore contributers? I can't do it all myself, you know.(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:03, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast
I might go to Calgary for Rememberance Day Long Weekend in November I could take some pictures and add some to Wikivoyage, or any other time I go to Calgary. Also, I encourage others to get out (especially Calgarians) to take pictures! The Doo, See, Buy, and Eat section needs that stuff. If you need some inspiration Vancouver has lots of photos and i recently added bunches to Edmonton. Thanks! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:04, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast
More pictures are always welcome! Thank you for adding these ones to Calgary. I think you've already found out the secret: upload them to Wikivoyage Shared, so every language of Wikivoyage can use them. Think especially of pictures which will help travellers: by capturing the spirit of the destination, by identifying landmarks, by helping travellers enjoy the destination. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:17, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
THankyou, for the commetn! Yeah, I knew Shared right when I uploaded my first photo of 104th Street Downtown Edmonton. that is a beautiful picture. ANYWAYS...yeah, I have a bunch of photos of Calgary, but most are randomly of downtown and the Calgary Zoo, most of which don't fit here. ALl my other Calg photos I can't find,:(. Oh well, next time I go I'll be sure to check out 17th Avenue, some restuarants, different skyline views, some aprks, Steph. Ave., maybe Calaway Park, or SOMETHING. Calgary desperately needs more pictures, Ifind most articles on WT lack that, unfortunately. I am adding more and more to the Edmonton section, but I live in Edmonton ,and I love takin' pics so it's easy. But I ecnourage Calgarians to take out photos. WT Calgary desperately needs more. I will try as much as I can, though. Anyways, thats all...THANKYOU! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:35, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast
I think we need people to add more hotels to the section. I personally am not that good when it comes to Calgary & hotels, but if I must, I can search some. Any takers? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast
More hotel listings are always welcome. Usually I hope that travellers will list the (good) hotels they stay in, and everyone will contribute the better hotels in their home town. If you want to do research and add listings, that is also fine. I'd encourage you to aim for quality over quantity: make your listings complete, with address and URL and prices, not just the name of a hotel. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I know, I know about the quantity. I think I will try to look up a few I think would be good and stuff. But seriously, mega-Calgary travellers please add, and Calgarians themselves add. Are there even any Calgarian's out there? C'mon! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:37, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast
To add, it seems no person is actually a Calgarian on this site! Keep smiling, (WT-en) eetalk 20:38, 3 November 2008 (EST).
Hi, I was wondering if I was doing a good job by adding Hospitality inn to the midrange for hotels. Did I do it ok, does it fit the
"Calgary Criteria"? Also, I encourage anyone who knows more about the hotel to add more info.! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast
Hospitality Inn is a fine hotel to add to the Calgary article. Thank you for listing it. However, since you're such an enthusiastic participant, I'm going to hold you to a higher level than I would a random one-listing contributor. Firstly, get the formatting right. The listing tag needs to be all on one paragraph; you can't put an Enter character anywhere in it, or the listing won't show up. Did you notice that the listing didn't appear on the page after you entered it? Secondly, when you make a listing, see if you can make it complete. Your Best Western Hospitality listing lacks URL, phone number, typical prices, check-in and check-out times, etc. All of those are valuable pieces of information for travellers. Thirdly, be careful with spelling. You spelled convenient as "convinent". When I make an edit, I generally press the "Preview" button so that I can see my changes before I save them. Sometimes I'll preview a dozen times before I'm satisfied. So: great work, but keep on raising your quality. Travellers will thank you for it. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 03:38, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, and, I left some blank because I wanted to get on to other stuff, coming back later and of course looking. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 10:23, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Do you think Calgary needs more stuff in the "Understand" segment?
Do you think Calgary section needs more in the Understand Segment? I mean, look at Edmonton or even Vancouver's, their's is much larger! Should we include a history section, or anything¿ I personally think it deserve's more. And...what do you think?
I agree the Understand section could be better. The guide/star articles will usually have a bit of history about the city, things that make it unique, etc (Chicago is a good to use as a reference). I think a lot of the existing info in Understand could probably be moved to the Get around section, too.
And take it easy on us, it sometimes takes a day or two before we can look and respond! (Urgent work deadlines and the such):-) (WT-en) Shaund 22:29, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Heh, sorry, it's just, you get anxious. I will try to add more to the "Understand" segment after I get this whole big Edmonton project I'm doing (districtifying) which I should be able to do by Saturday-or Sun because I busy on Sat. Anyways, thanks, and In the meantime, you should clean it up and maybe startup the history segment:)! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 22:32, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
I put in history for you to get started, or anyone else;)! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:09, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Stir up some beautiful discussion on the history I added-please check and if you have a comment add it here about it. THANKS! Keep smiling, (WT-en) eetalk 20:05, 6 November 2008 (EST).
I made a few changes. It is not factual to say it was founded "to keep out whisky-drunk Americans" and some people might even take offense at that summary. I also made some other minor grammatical changes to help the flow. (WT-en) Texugo 01:14, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Sorry I just looked at stuff on wikipedia since I don't know much about Calgary's history and it says it there! Keep smiling, (WT-en) eetalk 10:24, 7 November 2008 (EST).
where are some good spots to view the skyline? i already know of memorial dr. and nose hill. others in particular? keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:17, 2 November 2008 (EDT)
any ideas? ***BUMP*** keep smiling, (WT-en) eetalk 20:39, 3 November 2008 (EST).
I'd really like to know. Just wondering if anyone's saw this. 19:10, 20 November 2008 (EST).
what parts need help to fit the manual of style in calgary? hmmm? i was wondering because maybe i could do some. keep smiling, (WT-en) eetalk 20:40, 3 November 2008 (EST).
For starters:
Listings should be alphabetized
Addresses should not include city, province, or country (they should be obvious by the article title itself). Zip code information shouldn't be included either, by the way, though I'm not sure if that is an issue here.
Telephone numbers need to be standardized, preferably by using the appropriate template for easier editing. This would also take care of the missing comma after some listing titles.
Many elements of the See section should be bulleted, and in the many cases the addresses need to be moved from within the text to their position just after the listing title. Again, using the do template would be helpful. On top of that, we usually subdivide that section by attraction type rather than by location.
Links in some sections, such as the Get around by bicycle section need to be properly placed.
While not really a MoS issue, this article could use a good pruning. 20 golf courses and 26 laundromats, for example, are a bit much. They appear to be just copied out of a phone directory, rather than personally recommended by someone. Not really sure whether we need the complete list of consulates and embassies either.
Hope that helps! (WT-en) Texugo 23:50, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks! Remember Canada has postal codes, not zip! Keep smiling, (WT-en) eetalk 23:54, 3 November 2008 (EST).
Don't mind the name--yes, I know. Anyways, a new (ugly, suburban, wierd, blah) "Mills" mall is opening 2km north of Calgary in the hamlet of Balzac. It is called CrossIron Mills. What I am wondering is when it opens to put it in calgary or to creat one for balzac, alberta - with like 1000 people, and then only thing is the mall and farms and basic industry and the QEII. Keep Smiling,(WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 15:34, 24 November 2008 (EST).
If that is really the only thing in Balzac, you can put it in the Get out section of Calgary. And actually, with it being only 2km from Calgary, you might even put it in the Buy section instead. (WT-en) Texugo 19:45, 24 November 2008 (EST)
I think districting would be the best choice. If there is opposition, fine, but I love the vibe of making good articles. I will start adding a lot of information. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 17:57, 8 December 2008 (EST).
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The C-Train line graphic box is fabulous. Sadly, it is also outdated, as the west LRT line opened in Dec 2012, extending the C-Train west of downtown and adding 5-7 new stations. Could someone fix it? If not, should it be removed because it's outdated? User: Country Wife04:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm impressed--what a speedy response! The updated graphic looks good, but there is one small hiccup: the thumbnail version alongside the article text is not yet updated. Can you work your magic on that too? Thanks!- Country Wife (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Grr. It's acutally a page cache issue -- if you don't change the size of the thumbnail it sometimes takes a while for the new thumbnail to display consistently. I've made the graphic a tiny big bigger to force the new image... it should work now! -Shaundd (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I deleted this part of the description of Fort Calgary because I don't know what it means. Does it mean that Fort Calgary was the first site in the city to be declared a National Historic Site? Probably correct, but not very interesting for most travellers. Does it mean that Fort Calgary is the oldest settled place in Calgary? In that case, what about the archeological sites in the city from before the arrival of Western settlers? What is a "historic monument" anyway? Canada doesn't have this designation, so I think of statues and the like. Maybe it's just poor writing, or maybe I'm just thick, but I thought I'd remove it pending some clarification.Country Wife (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
User:Country Wife has done a wonderful job improving this guide, and it would be nice to feature it on the front page at some point in the future. What strikes me as most needed is more nice photos to break up the blocks of text. Anything else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I know you're continuing work, but this article can be nominated for Dotm while you continue improving it. I think it may not be quite ready for nomination but probably will be soon. I've never seen a separate table of contents box in addition to the ToC that appears at the bottom of the pagebanner. I'm not sure where the best place would be to propose it, so I'll suggest mentioning it in the Pub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
facepalm* I'm new to WikiVoyage. Because of my browser settings, I don't normally see the ToC at the bottom of the page banner. It would still be nice to have something more detailed, but the existing ToC is not bad.Country Wife (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Random list of things to add: Family of Man statues, numbers & interpretive signage at Battalion Park, more listings generally, especially public art--Calgary Root, Weaving Fence and Horn, Wonderland(!), Sitting Eagle, etc. What about a guide to the Stampede and the Stampede grounds? There is much info now in the TripAdvisor wikis (Traveller Articles) which really ought to be here too, like a visitors' guide to Stampede.Country Wife (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sure there could be more information about the world famous Stampede. (There's actually just three things I know about Calgary; Calgary Flames, the oil industry and the Stampede). And if you plan to write a lot about the event it may even become a separate travel topic article - essentially a guide to the Stampede.However, remember that it isn't allowed to just copy and paste text from elsewhere. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate the warning. I wrote 95% of the TA article and would relish the opportunity to do it over from scratch. I think the Stampede really merits a separate article, because there is a LOT to cover - dress code, what to see, what to do, how to save money. Which means I really should polish off Calgary here on WV first, and put the Stampede article into some kind of sensible first draft in WV format on my computer before posting it here.Country Wife (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Country Wife, do you envision Calgary Stampede as a travel topic? Do you have a rough estimate on the number of paragraphs it would need if it were just a long "Do" entry on the Calgary page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ikan Kekek, I'm still new to WV, but I think a separate article (travel topic?) would be the best fit. Glancing over the main TA article and the other three, I think that I could easily write 12 paragraphs or more: Intro, tickets, transport, free stuff around the city, other Western attractions in Calgary & area, orientation to the Stampede grounds (many paragraphs), art on the Stampede grounds (1-2 paras), hotels for Stampede (what's closest, other good locations, campgrounds), dressing Western (2-4 paras), saving money (1-4 paras), free pancake breakfasts (1-3 paras). Some content about seeing Stampede-related stuff when it's not Stampede Week might also be good, "Stampede Year-round" or the like. There should be content about Stampede nightlife too, but I don't know very much about that, nightlife gives me a rash. Here's a link to the first of the four articles on TA about the Stampede: (links to the other three are at the bottom). That may give you an even better idea of the scope.Country Wife (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
You're not that new anymore.:-) By all means, with such a large amount of content, a travel topic would be best. You can look through the links from Travel topics for some other examples of travel topic articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The map of downtown Calgary is almost five years old now so it's a little of date. There's a dynamic map now that covers off the whole city, albeit not as prettily. I was wondering what direction we should go with the old map (particularly since this will be a DotM): update, replace with something different or get rid of it entirely? My own thoughts are it should be updated, or maybe go with a new map that provides an overview of Calgary but leaves the details to the dynamic map -- e.g., the static map shows the neighbourhoods mentioned in the Understand section, key attractions, the airport, bus terminal and major roads. Thoughts? I should have time over the next few weeks to update/draw the map. -Shaundd (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Shaundd, if you could update/create a static map that mentions the key points (neighbourhoods, airport etc.) as you suggest, then it would be superb. The dynamic map is feeded by User:Country_Wife and i guess a good mapmaker would lift the article to a very strong guide level. Thank you & welcome back jan (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I don't have much time (there's a baby in the house now), so my contributions will probably be limited to small bits or maps. I'll start work on a new map that focuses on the key points. I'm hoping it'll take no more than a week or so! -Shaundd (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've posted the new map. My idea behind it is to provide a general overview of the main routes into the city, airport location, bus station location and the locations of (what I think are) the main attractions. I haven't tried to squeeze everything onto the map because Calgary covers a very large area, and with the amount of listings, I think any map would be unreadable on screen unless it was gigantic. The dynamic map seems better suited to the task of showing all the listings for whichever part of Calgary a visitor is in.
That said, the old downtown map is probably better for printing and walking around downtown (where most of the attractions are). I can update it if people see value in it.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Are there any objections if I merge the Road development section with Get around#by car? I find it odd the first thing we have after the intro is a discussion of the roads, and parts of the section overlap with Get around. Seems better to put it all in Get around. -Shaundd (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I do not see any compelling reason why Calgary needs a supersized, centered, rectangular map that breaks the flow of the article in two. I can fully understand making exceptions such as Trans-Siberian Railway and Wendover (Utah/Nevada), but there is nothing peculiarly rectangular about Calgary. Given the controversiality surrounding supersizing and centering maps in the face of a tradition of never doing so with any image unless there is a compelling reason to do so, I would strongly oppose the already scheduled upcoming feature of this article if it is to include a controversial non-standard article layout without reasoned exception. I have therefore set it back to the default size and alignment. If you still feel that Calgary is a worthy exception to the default, please explain your reasoning. If your opinion, on the other hand, is that all maps should be huge and centered like that, or that size and alignment should be left to the whim of whichever editor is on it at the time, please await the results of the ongoing policy discussion, which is leaning toward encouraging default size and alignment unless there is special reason to do otherwise. Texugo (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
You arbitrarily changed the map scale to the point where it was not legible. I have no idea why you want to use this article as a forum to push an agenda, given that you have contributed nothing to it, but your changes do not improve the piece and this looks to be disruption on your part merely to prove a point. The feature nomination (on which I haven't spoken out for or against) will stand or fall on its own merits, which have nothing to do with your crusade against {{mapframe}}s. K7L (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have no crusade against mapframes. I uncentered it and knocked it down a single zoom level. At neither zoom level can you see the majority of POIs anyway, so supersizing the map doesn't even help that much. To make any real use of the map the user will have to roll the mouse scroll up a tic or two, in any case. At default size, it is perfectly usable enough. As for the legibility argument, it doesn't hold that much water. Yeah more street names are shown at zoom 12 than at zoom 11, but then again, it's a sliding scale, and the fact that even more street names are shown at 13 or 14 is not an argument for us to go there either. Again, it's all still available to the user with a minor mouse gesture, without the need to bisect the article. Texugo (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago42 comments5 people in discussion
Hello,
I noticed that there had been a previous discussion about Calgary becoming a huge city and adding districts, much like Edmonton; I was wondering if that could be revisited? With Calgary's existing quadrants, they could be defined by existing quadrant boundaries with the downtown area having its own district. Boundaries could be:
City centre/downtown: defined by the Bow River to the northern boundary, Elbow River as eastern and southern, 26 Ave SW /5 St SW / 17 Ave SW as the southern boundary, and 14 St SW as the western boundary. Basically its the downtown core expanded to include 17 Ave S, Mission (4 St SW), East Village, and the Stampede Grounds. If the central area extends too far south, Mission (4 St SW) could be included in the Southwest.
Northwest: north of the Bow River and the Trans-Canada Hwy (west of Sarcee Trail), west of Centre St/Harvest Hills Blvd. Includes Kensington (Hillhurst), University of Calgary, Nose Hill Park, and Market Mall.
Northeast: north of the Bow River and Memorial Drive (east of Deerfoot Trail), east of Centre St/Harvest Hills Blvd. Includes the Calgary International Airport, Zoo, Telus Spark, and Sunridge Mall.
Southeast: south of the Bow River and Memorial Drive (east of Deerfoot Trail), east of Macleod Trail, excluding area defined by the City centre/downtown district. Includes Inglewood, International Avenue, Southcentre Mall, and Fish Creek Provincial Park.
Southwest: south of the Bow River and the Trans-Canada Hwy (west of Sarcee Trail), west of Macleod Trail, excluding area defined by the City centre/downtown district. Includes Mission (if not included with downtown), Marda Loop, Glenmore Reservoir, Heritage Park, Chinook Mall, Fish Creek Provincial Park, and Spruce Meadows (technically in Foothills MD, but all access is from the City of Calgary off Hwy 22X).
Note sure 5 districts are needed but the city is expanding out a long way. Agree with the city centre but would be tempted to extend a little further south of 17th to include Mission and Mount Royal. Then just do a North and South. Split of north and south a little more tricky, maybe initially the river then Highway 1 outside of Deerfoot and Crowchild. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Comment - I've always been kind of indifferent to districts in Calgary. The guide has a lot of listings so I think it has the content to support districts, but I've never been sure it would make the guide better. My impression of Calgary (from the occasional visit) is most of the attractions are around downtown/17th/Stampede Grounds, there are some widely dispersed attractions in the suburbs (e.g., Olympic Park, Nose Hill Park), and then fairly urban areas near the city center like Inglewood, Bridgeland, Mission, Kensington/Hillhurst that have some attractions (e.g., Calgary Zoo, Telus Spark) but are unlikely to have enough listings to warrant being districts on their own. I'm not sure including those fringe areas in generic geographic district articles helps the traveller so I'm not sure districts add as much value here as they do in other cities. Other thoughts I have are:
How many listings are there going to be in the City center district? If it's a lot, would it make sense to split it in two with one district focusing on downtown and the other on the Beltline/Stampede Grounds and Mission? The railroad tracks between 9th and 10th are a very visual break (at least to me as a tourist) so I could see that as a boundary if we went that route.
As far as districts go, relying on the quadrants outside of the city center makes sense as they are attached to all or nearly all addresses. Does anyone know if people who live in Calgary would refer to "Northwest Calgary", "Southeast Calgary", etc.? Although, to Traveler100's point, North & South might be better as there isn't a lot in the East. -Shaundd (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I live in Calgary, people refer to the quadrants all the time, unless they're being specific to a neighbourhood. To Traveler100, if you were to do a north-south split, it would be Memorial Dr east of Deerfoot and Hwy 1 west of Sarcee. Splitting downtown into the actual downtown core (north of the CP tracks) and Beltline/Misson might be beneficial. When I get a chance, I could provide a breakdown of listings for some of the districts. --MuzikMachine (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Here's a rough breakdown of the current listings on the main page, I omitted events. For the purposes of discussion I also split downtown (DT) with Beltline/Mission/Victoria Park (BMVP) for statistical purposes, but they could be merged. See:: 4-NE; 4-NW; 5-SE; 9-SW; 10-DT); 3-BMVP Do: 1-NE; 4-NW; 7-SE; 3-SW; 7-DT; 4-BMVP Buy: 2-NE; 6-NW; 8-SE; 4-SW; 2-DT; 4-BMVP Eat: 4-NE; 9-NW; 5-SE; 3-SW; 14-DT; 8-BMVP Drink: 0-NE; 2-NW; 2-SE; 2-SW; 6-DT; 7-BMVP Sleep: 12-NE; 13-NW; 1-SE; 1-SW; 7-DT; 4-BMVP Medical: 1-NE; 2-NW; 2-SE; 1-SW; 0-DT; 1-BMVP There would be room to expand some of the listings, especially Eat, Drink, and Sleep (possible Do). -- MuzikMachine (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Shaundd: That's what I used as a breakdown. It should be noted that the SE/SW zigzags off of Macleod Trail north of Glenmore Trail, you can see the City of Calgary's Administrative Boundaries interactive map to see quadrant, community, and business improvement/revitalization areas. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Cool map. One other possible division I was thinking of would be creating a district that included Bridgeland & Inglewood -- so capturing a number of attractions just east of downtown in one district (rather than splitting between NE and SE). Would this make sense at all? In that scenario I thought the remaining districts would be Downtown, Beltline/Mission, North and South. I'm not stuck on this, just wanted to throw it out it there as I thought splitting the attractions in Bridgeland and Inglewood into different districts looks odd when you draw lines on a map -- although the Bow River is in the middle. -Shaundd (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Shaundd: On the map, Bridgeland and Inglewood are adjacent, but between the Bow River and Memorial Drive (a short freeway between Hwy 2 and Edmonton Tr), they actually are quite separate and not easily connected. If one is going to Inglewood from downtown, they would either walk or take transit along 9 Ave SE. Bridgeland is accessible via the LRT, but Inglewood is quite far from both the Brideland/Memorial and Calgary Zoo stations (you can't access Inglewood from the Calgary Zoo station without paying admission and going through the zoo itself). If you wanted to reduce districts numbers, maybe combine downtown and Beltline/Mission into Central Calgary?? -- MuzikMachine (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for explanation, that makes sense. About the number of districts, five or six is Ok. I'm thinking it's probably simpler though if we keep the districts to central Calgary (including Beltline/Mission) and the four quadrants. We can always start that way and if Central Calgary becomes too big, Beltline/Mission can be split out later. What do you think? -Shaundd (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
The number of listings so far looks paltry for many of the proposed districts. How much do you expect each district to be expanded in terms of listings in the very near term? That and not the current breakdown would be the key point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi Ikan, I don't think the number of listings is that big an issue. The lowest district has 22 listings (excl medical) and the larger ones are in the thirties. Comparable articles with a similar number of listings are Chicago/Far Southeast Side and Vancouver/Gastown-Chinatown, both of which are guides. I'm cherrypicking a bit, but even at the lower end, Vancouver/Yaletown-False Creek is a good comparison. It has 20 listings and the Eat section never expanded out the way I expected it to, so it is pretty similar to what MuzikMachine said above. Another test I recall Peter had in the day was each district should be at least 20,000 bytes. Vancouver/Yaletown-False Creek is 15/16k, so it's a bit short, but isn't far off (and could be expanded as the number of Eat listings is woefully low). The other two articles are 26-28k. So, looking at the Vancouver and Chicago articles as comparables for where the I'd expect the Calgary districts to end up, I think the proposed Calgary districts are OK. -Shaundd (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Define the exact boundaries of the city center district. I'm assuming the quadrants will follow the official boundaries outside of the city center... although I'm awfully tempted to say Canada Olympic Park should be in the NW because it's just on the other side of the boundary and pretty far from other SW attractions. Done
Create the district articles and copy in relevant listings from CalgaryDone
Fill out the other sections in the district articles (lede, Understand, Get in, etc.) Done
Add dynamic maps to the district articles Done
Add a Districts section to the Calgary article with descriptions of each district (using the Regionlist template) Done
Create and add a Districts map to Calgary (as part of the regionlist template). None of the districts are in OSM, so it'll probably need to be a static map (I can repurpose the existing static map for that) Done
Re-write the See, Do, Eat, Drink and Sleep sections of the Calgary article to highlight the key points Done
@Shaundd: Sounds good. I would support the names and I agree with COP in the NW; the neighbouring Calgary West Campground could be included in the NW as well for the same reasons. How would listings along Macleod Trail (south of Glenmore Tr) and Centre St be handled? They would be right along quadrant/district boundaries, depending on the east or west side of the street. Would they be listed in both district articles? Thanks! -- MuzikMachine (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
In situations like that, we sometimes follow the exact boundary so something on the east side of the street would be SE and something on the west side would be SW. Other times we say both sides of the street go in one district. For Macleod Trail south of Glenmore, there aren't a lot of listings in the vicinity and it looks like most of the listings fall on the east side, so I think we could say all listings on Macleod Trail south of Glenmore go in SE. I didn't see so many listings on Centre St, but my first thought would be to apply the same rule. We wouldn't put listings in both districts. -Shaundd (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Shaundd: That makes sense. I'm thinking that since most Macleod Trail businesses (specifically, restaurants) would serve the more affluent areas to the west, I would be more inclined to have them included with the Southwest. My concern is that if they're included with the SE, the SW listings might start getting pretty thin. I'm also thinking that even though the official quadrant boundary follows the CPR tracks between Fish Creek and Stoney Trail, maybe it should simply continue along Macleod Tr between Glenmore Tr and Stoney Tr. I agree about Centre St N in that it will be less of an issue. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi MuzikMachine, which district were you thinking Southcentre Mall and the Delta Calgary South Hotel fall into? They're close to Macleod Trail but not on it. If they would be best placed in SW, maybe we should say Bonaventure Drive is the district boundary between Fish Creek Park and where the CPR tracks cross Macleod. For simplicity, and to keep the district boundary east of Macleod Trail, I wonder if (starting at 34th & Macleod) we could define the boundary as the CPR tracks, Bonaventure Dr and Fish Creek? Using Fish Creek is a largish departure from the official SW/SE quadrant boundary so not sure if it's ideal. Using Macleod Trail is fine too, I'm assuming any businesses on it would fall in SW, like the parts north of Fish Creek? (BTW, sorry for no response for so long. Work has been a bit crazy so my free time has disappeared)
One more POI question -- which district does Talisman Center go in? Is it part of Mission and so would fall into the City Centre district? Otherwise, it's going to look odd as a little piece of SW kind of by itself. -Shaundd (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi Shaundd, no worries, life has a tendency to take over. I'm okay with using the CP/LRT tracks and Bonaventure Dr as the dividing line. Fish Creek runs w-e, were you referring to the Bow River? I'd be okay with sticking with Macleod Trail south of Canyon Meadows Dr (the southern terminus of Bonaventure Dr), it goes from an arterial with business frontage to an expressway and functions more of a dividing line. If you want to continue the model further north, maybe have the division follow Bannister Rd, Midpark Blvd, and Sunpark Dr (and axis) to the Macleod Tr/Stoney Tr interchange (~1 block to the east). The Talisman Center should probably be in City Centre. The southern boundary of City Centre could depart from the Elbow River to follow 25 Ave S between Spiller Rd (south) and the Elbow River bridge. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good, MuzikMachine. Let's go with Macleod Trail being the SW/SE boundary south of Canyon Meadows Dr, and 25 Ave S being the City Centre boundary between the Elbow River & Spiller Rd. I think that covers off all of the boundaries. -Shaundd (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Shaundd: I am working on the district articles and was just wanting to confirm if we want to keep Downtown and the Beltline under Calgary/City Centre or split them? If a split was done, the CP tracks would be the dividing line but I'm fine either way. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi MuzikMachine, there's enough content in the City Centre guide that it could work either way. The City Centre guide isn't too large by any stretch, so I think we should probably keep it as one guide unless it would make more sense from a traveller's perspective to split it. I'm not familiar enough with Calgary to know if that's the case, though, so I'll defer to what you think is best. BTW, great work on getting the district articles done! -Shaundd (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Just an update, I've started removing listings from the main Calgary page, at this point I'm commenting them out and can be deleted once it finalised and major listings are highlighted. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
South (**Modified**) - Elbow River, 25 Ave S (Spiller Rd south to bridge across Elbow River); either straight line aligned with 26 Ave SW (cutting through Upper Mount Royal), or following Premier Way/30 Ave SW
West (**Modified**) - 14 St SW, 17 Ave SW, Crowchild Tr
Calgary/Northwest: official quadrant boundaries, slightly modified west of Sarcee Trail to include attractions on the south side of the Trans-Canada Hwy (16 Ave NW), specifically Canada Olympic Park (WinSport)
Calgary/Southeast / Calgary/Southwest (**Modified**): official quadrant boundaries, less Calgary/City Centre; modified so most of Macleod Trail listings to be in SW
Macleod Trail (City Centre/25 Ave S to 34 Ave S)
CP/LTR Tracks / Bonaventure Dr (34 Ave S to Canyon Meadows Dr)
Macleod Trail (south of Canyon Meadows Dr)
Official quadrant boundaries - for reference, the official quadrant boundaries are (originating from the Centre Street Bridge across the Bow River):
NW/NE - Centre St N / Harvest Hills Blvd N: Centre Street Bridge/Bow River to north city limits
SW/SE
Centre St S alignment: Centre Street Bridge (Bow River) to Elbow River
1 St SE/Macleod Tr: Elbow River to 42 Ave S
CPR tracks: 42 Ave S to 58 Ave S
Centre St S: 58 Ave S to Glenmore Tr
Macleod Tr: Glenmore Tr to James Mackevitt Rd
CPR tracks: James Mackevitt Rd to Spruce Meadows Tr (Hwy 22X)
Sheriff King St: Spruce Meadows Tr (Hwy 22X) to south city limits
NW/SW
Bow River (main channel): Centre Street Bridge to Shouldice Park (south of 16 Ave NW)
Sarcee Tr: Shouldice Park (opposite to the Bow River) to 16 Ave NW
16 Ave NW/Trans-Canada Hwy: Sarcee Tr to west city limits
NE/SE
Bow River (main channel): Centre Street Bridge to CPR Bridge (note: passes south of St Parick's and St George's Islands, site of the Calgary Zoo)
CPR tracks: Bow River to Centre Ave E alignment
Centre Ave E alignment: CPR tracks to Memorial Dr/36 St E intersection
Looks good, MuzikMachine. For the City Centre boundary, is there any chance of there being listings in Mount Royal? (I don't see any now but could there be in the future) And for 14th St SW, would any listings on the street (both sides) fall in the City Centre district?
I'm not sure we need to describe the quandrant boundaries in the Getting around section. I guess it's useful because nearly all addresses have a quadrant attached, but it could easily become too detailed. If we did, I'd prefer to keep it to a high level (e.g., east/west is largely divided by Macleod Trail, Centre St and Harvest Mills Blvd, and north/south is largely divided by Memorial Dr, the Bow River and Highway 1). -Shaundd (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Shaundd: For sure, re: quadrant boundaries I was thinking a simple, high level description like you described. Mount Royal is an exclusive, estate, residential neighbourhood, so future listings unlikely unless someone opens a B&B in their pool house:). Regarding 14 St SW, I was thinking listings around 17 Ave SW and north would still be city centre (with maybe a 2-3 block buffer), but anything further south, which there isn't much, could be in the SW. I did forget the nieghbourhood of Sunalta, which includes the Pumphouse Theatre (near Bow Tr & Crowchild Tr) and is more characterized with the City Centre than suburban SW, so I slightly modified the western boundary. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
City Centre Downtown Calgary, the East Village, Beltline, Mission, and Victoria Park. Attractions include Glenbow Museum, the Stampede Grounds, Olympic Plaza, Prince’s Island Park and the nightlife along 17th Ave.
Northwest The northwest quadrant of the city with the Canada Olympic Park (Winsport), Nose Hill Park and the University of Calgary. Closer to downtown is Kensington with shopping, restaurants and cafes.
Northeast Close to downtown is Bridgeland, plus the Calgary Zoo and Telus Spark science museum. Further out is Calgary International Airport and the airport hotels.
Southeast The southeast quadrant of the city with a couple of notable parks — Inglewood Bird Sanctuary, Elliston Park (site of Global Fest) and Fish Creek Provincial Park. The district also includes Inglewood, one of the city’s oldest neighbourhoods with eclectic shops, restaurants and galleries.
Southwest Mostly suburban residential area with a few older neighbourhoods close to the city centre. It includes the Marda Loop area, Heritage Park, the Military Museums and Spruce Meadows. The area is home to shopping destinations like Chinook Mall.
@MuzikMachine: I added a district map to the top of this section. Do you mind taking a look and letting me know if anything needs changing. The map shows Nose Hill Park right now, but I'm thinking of removing it as I find it distracting (and it's so big, it potentially looks like a district). -Shaundd (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Shaundd: Looks good! I agree that maybe Nose Hill Park should go, especially since Fish Creek Prov Park isn't included which is also large. A couple other thoughts:
The CTrail lines have largely moved from their numerical to colour references. While 201 & 202 are still their official, numerical designations, most people refer to them is the Red and Blue lines respectively. I'm wondering if that should be referenced in the map.
Hwy 1A has been recently decommissioned from 17 Ave SE, there are still remnant signs on Hwy 2, but everything else in Calgary and Chestermere is gone (and its municipally maintained). It might be good to show 17 Ave SE as a regular street. Hwy 1A remains on Crowchild Tr.
Thanks, MuzikMachine. I made the changes you suggested, plus changed the colours a bit. Hopefully it's good to go. Let me know if you see anything else that needs changing. -Shaundd (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MuzikMachine: I added the regionlist template with some rough district descriptions to the top of this section. Feel free to edit them... I'm not intimately familiar with Calgary so they're pretty bland right now. -Shaundd (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have created a dynamic map mainly for the mapmasks in the districts articles. It is up to you to use the dynamic overview map or not. --Renek78 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Renek78. Not sure if you saw the discussion above, but we ended up moving away from the official quadrant boundaries for parts of NW/SW and SW/SE. Is it possible to change the mapmasks so they align with what was agreed and match the static map? -Shaundd (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi Renek78, that's the NW/SW change. There's also the SW/SE change where land between Macleod Trail and the C-Train/CPR tracks & Bonaventure Dr above Canyon Meadows Dr is moved from SE to SW.
BTW, thanks for creating the mapmasks. I had it on my to-do list so you saved me some time. For the Districts overview on the Calgary page though, my intention is to use the static map. -Shaundd (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, nearly correct.:-) From about 34th to Bonaventure, the boundary doesn't follow Macleod Trail (we want both sides of Macleod in SW), it follows the C-Train and CPR (train) tracks. I'm not sure what your base map is when you create the mapshapes, hopefully it shows the C-Train route or stations and the railroad tracks, they vary from being 1-3 blocks east of Macleod Trail. Those tracks are the boundary between 34th and Flint/Bonaventure. Thanks -Shaundd (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
I have not read through the article, but it's a long, detailed article with plenty of content. Seems to be a good choice for a star article. It's currently at guide status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
No doubt a great article! I haven't looked at it in detail, but there are a few general issues which I think could be improved:
Many lists are longer than 9 items. We should either brake these lists into sub-headings, or remove the least important venues.
Some of the sub-headings are non-conventional and overlapping, making them a bit confusing and difficult to use. E.g., some mid-range eateries serve international cuisine, and vice versa. Perhaps the subheadings "International", "Take-out only restaurants" and "Bed & Breakfast" could be integrated into the budget/mid-range/splurge eat and sleep subheadings?
The images are rather unevenly distributed with few in the first third of the article, and none in the last third. Perhaps they could also be made a bit more varied, as about half of them portray the skyline, and and the rest mostly portray the zoo or the stampede grounds.
Dividing restaurants or accommodation by type (for instance, splitting sleep into "camping", "B&B", "motels", "economy limited service hotels" and the like) is valid and may well be preferable to a split by price range. The city tourist info site is https://www.visitcalgary.com and much of what's in this article was written by User:Country Wife, who did an impressive job of polishing this article for Destination of the Month before riding off into the sunset, never to be seen again. It might be worth rechecking prices, hours and other info in individual listings as the bulk of the work was done soon after the big floods of 2013. Overall, though, this is one of our better articles and is worthy of promotion. K7L (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
K7L you're absolutely right that divisions by accommodation/cuisine type are fully valid! But to clarify, my point was rather that it might be easier for readers if we used one mutually exhaustive and mutually exclusive system of organizing the venues, rather than having multiple different systems. I.e. that the article uses either type or price range, but preferably not both.
However, since the original nomination I see that a lot has happened with this article. First of all, there is a current discussion on districtifying the city and turning it into a huge city. As a huge city, all its districts would have to be at guide status for the main article to be worthy of star status, which would require a considerable amount of work. Secondly, Ground Zero has been doing a lot of improvements to the article lately, but did not, after careful reading, consider it worthy of star status and removed the starnom tag. Thus, there is no consensus behind a promotion to star status. I therefore suggest that we formally slush this nomination for now, and reconsider it once its districts are all at guide status. MartinJacobson (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for finding the removal of the star nomination tag in the edit history. Really, there should have been discussion here before that tag was removed, but I agree with you that considering the above, it should be slushed. I'll wait a couple more days for any more input, though. @Ground Zero: Any thoughts? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I did remove the star nom because I thought it was obvious that an article that was so out of date and with so many formatting flaws (time and date, capitalization) could not be a star article. I am surprised that it was nominated when it was in such poor condition. The very first paragraph focused on events that took place six years ago! I did a major overhaul, so maybe it is closed to being a star. I haven't been to Calgary since 2001, so I'm not the best person to evaluate if it is up to date now. Ground Zero (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
No, it's fine. I got totally the wrong picture. Accordingly, I'll slush this from star status immediately. An article with those kinds of problems probably shouldn't be featured. Thanks for cleaning it up, though! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Done
