Talk:Chicago/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Chicago. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archives: Jul 2007 - Oct 2008

Improvement

This article needs some serious editing and general revamping. For being one of the most influential cities in the world (and a possible Olympics candidate!), we can do way better. Let's get this article featured. --Un sogno modesto 21:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the article says that the West Side is served by the green line. I lived near Taylor Street (Little Italy) and I always took the Blue line. No Green line near there. I remember I could take the Blue line to the city up O'Hare Airport. Somebody who still lives in the city may confirm that or especify wich line goes to where.Solcita 14:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Green line runs due west from the city out to Harlem at 300N.Shsilver 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While I make my changes, I also have the New York City article open in another tab - as comparison. KyuuA4 04:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see better photos of the city. The stock photo of the skyline offers a limited view of the skyline and is not interesting in the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.71.189 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it could always be improved but everything could be enhanced on Wikipedia so instead of writing about how you think it should be better I would encourage you to edit the article and make it better.

Lists

Within the paragraphs, too many lists are used. For example, under Transportation:
The Kennedy Expressway is I-90 from the Loop to the northwest suburbs past O'Hare International Airport. The Dan Ryan Expressway is I-90/94 from south of the "Circle Interchange" to the I-57 split, and from the I-57 split south is the Bishop Ford Freeway. The rest of I-94 is called the Edens Expressway. I-94 is also called the Kennedy Expressway between the Circle Interchange and Peterson (US Rte 14). I-90 becomes the Chicago Skyway when it breaks off from the Dan Ryan Expressway. Other named highway segments are the Stevenson Expressway (I-55), Eisenhower Expressway, Tri-State Tollway (I-294), Kingery Expressway (I-80), North-South Tollway (I-355), The O'Hare Extension (I-190), and East-West Tollway (Reagan Memorial) (I-88). Note that I-57 does not carry an expressway name, and the "Bishop Ford Freeway" name breaks Chicago tradition of applying the "Expressway" label to all of its limited-access highways.
Lists like that increase clutter and decrease article readability. KyuuA4 03:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Architecture

Too much specific information. Need to generalize. KyuuA4 05:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

So, there are separate articles for each of the Chicago neighborhoods, found in the Community areas of Chicago. While they're "summarized" as North, South, West, and Southwest sides, the entire neighborhood section can be compacted still. KyuuA4 03:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Added the cleanup tag because this section very much needs some re-working. It's unfocused. Lacks citation. Too long. KyuuA4 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maps. North Side. South Side. West Side. Is it possible to have a map of the three sections encompassed with a general outline of Chicago proper?KyuuA4 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it could be done. It has been suggested on this talk page already, as a space saver. Speciate 23:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The link here is to the chicago community areas article. There is also a chicago neighborhoods article--both are important since community areas, while derived from the chicago neighborhoods in the early 20th century, do not reflect the changing nature of neighborhoods. I may update the links here Sblument 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sports

Removed anything that seemed "boastful". Such material can be relegated into the Sports in Chicago article. For NPOV, focus more on who the teams are and where they play. The focus is on the city, not the success level of the sport teams. Such information can go into the Sports in Chicago article. KyuuA4 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

I suggest we remove some of the tacky pictures on this page. Especially that crown fountain picture, that picture is so corny that makes Chicago feel like a small town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.12.103 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Corny is subjective. 24.12.251.193 (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Tourism

I suggest the following addition: Along with the famous tourism “hot spots” located in the heart of downtown, one might enjoy walking through the old neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have tons of restaurants and shops that behold history. Buck Town, Wrigley Neighborhood, and the South Loop are only three of 210. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 128.210.86.134 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion to move Chicago to Chicago, Illinois

Over at the naming convention page, a discussion has been started about moving Chicago back to the city, state standard. All views and inputs are welcomed. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please care to explain WTF? this article was moved AGAIN from Chicago, Illinois back to the non-wiki-standard name, Chicago?!?! All these recent page moves are making my head spin. Please stop this cr*p. Dr. Cash 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Having this article at Chicago, Illinois leads people to thinking that this is one of several significant cities named Chicago. Georgia guy 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times over the years. Other major cities (London, Paris, and many more) are titled by the name of the city alone. A good argument is that often people use the word "Chicago" as a place when writing (rather than "Chicago, Illinois"). I prefer the one-word title myself. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Cash, Chicago is not a "non-wiki-standard" title. Specifying the state is the standard way to disambiguate the name of U.S. city, when disambiguation is required. Unfortunately, some years ago a very small number of folks decided to apply the disambiguation naming convention to all U.S. cities, and used a bot to make those changes. But the standard in Wikipedia is to use the most common name used to refer to the subject of an article as the title, unless disambiguation is required. Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, and, arguably, many other U.S. cities should not be disambiguated by state. The title is supposed to reflect the name of the subject. The state is not part of the name of a city, and should only be part of the title if and when disambiguation is required. --Serge 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is; Serge, please stop distorting what we actually do. Almost all municipalities in the United States are at City, State. There is a small movement to move all ones where there is no other municipality of the same name, including Lucas Township, Minnesota to the simple municipal name; there is a larger movement, to which I belong, to take some twenty or thirty cities and move them to City alone. Neither has prevailed; nd given the recent discussion of Boston, Massachusetts, neither is at all likely to prevail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should be Chicago, Illinois for many reasons one reason being the fact that there is a musical titled "Chicago" and the movie based on the musical "Chicago" there is also a band named "Chicago." I think leaving the name in general "Chicago" disambiguated and changing the city Chicago to Chicago, Illinois.

It doesn't make any difference. Either way, typing "Chicago" will bring you here, and either way, typing "Chicago, Illinois" will bring you here. I am unable to grasp how people can be hung up on the actual location of the text--Loodog 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC).

That's the point! What if someone wants the band Chicago or the musicals Chicago? When you type Chicago it brings you to the city, it should bring you to the disambiguation unless you type "Chicago, Illinois"

Personally, this reeks of a devil's advocate type of argument, as I'd be willing to wager that 99 out of 100 users who type in 'Chicago' will expect to find the city and not the band. However, if this is a vote, I wouldn't have a problem with the move (it is, after all, Chicago, IL); but if it is simply a matter of arguing ambiguity, 'Chicago' the city was not only here long before the band, its mass-transit system was the source for the band's name. Thus, via transgression, it would be secondary to the city article. But, whatever. Ryecatcher773 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

As I stated, the article smacks of non-neutral point-of-view, what with three instances of the weasel word arguably. There may be more examples, but those are the ones that jumped out of me. As such, I motion for the reinstating of the {{NPOV}} tag. -Dudesleeper · Talk 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've readded the tag. I had removed it since there was no occupanying discussion. Since there is now discussion, I have no problem.--Loodog 23:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but did you mean occupying or accompanying? - Dudesleeper · Talk 03:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For NPOV, it is best to remove anything that is seemingly "boastful" about the City of Chicago. Having lived near the city for the past 20 years, it is easy to feel that sense of city pride. But, that has no place in the article. KyuuA4 02:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm waffling on if this portion in the history section could use rewriting in order to make it slightly more NPOV. It also seems to be extremely glowing regarding the current Mayor Daley, which gives me greater pause.

Current mayor Richard M. Daley, son of the late Richard J. Daley, was first elected in 1989. He has led many progressive changes to the city, including improving parks; creating incentives for sustainable development, including green roofs; and major new developments. Since the 1990s, the city has undergone a revitalization in which some lower class neighborhoods have been transformed into pricey neighborhoods as new middle class residents have settled in the city.

Does it seem skewed to anyone else, or am I reading it with too much of a critical eye perhaps? Panchitaville^talk 06:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding mention of Chicago accent

As a lover of the city of Chicago, and of dialects, I think there should be something added about the dialect of the city of Chicago. I will admit that the dialect spoken by the white people in Chicagoland is not unique to Chicagoland (it is the same as the one spoken in Milwaukee, Detroit,Buffalo, etc. See: Inland Northern American English), however, I think it is worth noting. It is something that people from other places notice when they visit Chicago, or anywhere else in the Inland North. 208.104.45.20 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an observed phenomenon but I'm not sure how important it influences the society and culture of Chicago compared to the rest of the United States. As a Midwesterner, I perceive little difference and with Chicagos massive in-migration from midwestern states, the accent is not exactly prominent anymore. Similarly the Minneapolis article does not reference North Central American English nor does the L.A. article talk about California English, though I get dizzy hearing my clients on the phone out there. .:davumaya:. 22:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chicago Skyline 3x4.jpg

Image:Chicago Skyline 3x4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in thisWikipedia 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

John Hancock Centre

Scyscraper John Hancock Centre is not showed in the article. Only in panorama view, but it's in very long distance and it's seen bad. Please add some good pictures of Chicago's panorama showing John Hancock and Near North Side from Sears Tower. Thank you guys -- Novis-M —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:23, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

We can select a mulititude of images showing Chicago's skyline. The vantage point from the Adler Planetarium is sufficient enough. Regardless of any vantage point, some landmark will always be blocked from view. KyuuA4 22:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

The History and Sports sections contain stubby paragraphs.
The Neighborhoods and Private schools sections are too short.
Web references need to display the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.
"See also" links belong at the top of sections.
The article is under-referrenced. Inline citations are needed for all statements that are likely to be challenged, and for all statistics.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 13:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As there is still much work to do, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. Epbr123 09:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the status on this? Has the article improved much? I pop in every now and then and it looks slightly better shape than before. Shall we start a new thread or have we let this article to the dogs? Lots of people in Chi-town, featured in a movie recently, and still not even back to GA?.:davumaya:. 22:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC) OOPS See Talk:Chicago#Auto Peer Review

some-thing's missing

Didn't there used to be a section on famous people associated with Chicago? Did the list get cut because it was too long? If so, does it exist under some other name? If so, it should be x-reffed here. If not, it should be re-instated some-where and x-reffed here. What about other lists pertaining to the city, e.g., the one on books, movies, etc. dealing with Chicago? I think all the various articles about Chicago should be easily found in no more than two simple steps from this main article. Kdammers 11:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are looking for this, which can easily be found by searching (easier than looking for a link on the main article, which is very long and has tons of links already). If you can find an appropriate place to add a link, though, please go ahead.shoeofdeath 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

By clicking on the Chicago, Illinois category, you can find the sub-category Chicago-related_listsShsilver 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New material re climate/geography

I recently made the following post on the Wikipedia Chicago page, just above the section on climate. Only to have this post deleted within 24 hours. Who did this and why. If whoever did this, did not like something about my post, then If that person tells me, I might be eager to change that part of my post. If someone didn’t like the source I referenced, then I ask that person to send me a link to a source that he or she does like, or to substitute this source for mine, themselves. This would be far preferable to deleting this post without trying to notify me, as any vandal would do. This action hurts Wikipedia readers, by preventing them from being able to read information that I believe they would be eager to read. And this deletion with no attempt at notification, is cowardly to boot. Make yourself known, and make the reasons for your actions known.

Here is the post that was deleted.

Downtown Chicago is located 100.1 geographical degrees due east of downtown Rome. (according to measurements taken to the nearest tenth of a geographical degree) ^[1]. No other pair of cities, each of which, is as populous as, or more populous than, each of these cities, is as close in latitude as these cities are to each other. Being located at the same latitude, tells us that on any date, two places will experience the same amount of time between sunrise and sunset. Often two places at the same latitude, will also experience similar temperatures. This is not so in this case, because Rome, (like nearly all European cities), is warmed by the North Atlantic Gulf Stream, (in a similar effect to that felt by all Northern Hemisphere lands located on the Northeastern edge of large oceans, and by all Southern Hemisphere lands located on the Southwestern edge of large oceans. An effect that is caused by the oval shaped motion of currents in our world’s oceans), and because Chicago is not warmed by any oceanic current. -- User:GPelly-Bosela 2007, Oct. 3, 12:17 a. (U.K., Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, and far West African time)

Interesting, but it does not belong in this article.--Loodog 03:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Then where, in your judgement, does it belong? GPelly-Bosela —Preceding signed but undatedcomment was added at 07:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the information would be better in the Geography of Chicago article. Speciate 00:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Two people have recently told me that they consider the above article to be original research. I see a great deal of validity in their arguments, but ... I believe that I disagree with them. While I did discover many facts in this article, through personal investigation, I have always assumed that many other people had discovered many of these facts long before I did. As one example that I was correct in this assumption, I have recently learned that Chicago elementary schools teach that Chicago is located at the same latitude as Rome. (Props to Wikipedian Speciate). I don’t know if anyone before me has discovered that no other pair of cities, both of which are at least as populous as these two cities, is so close in latitude. I believe, though, that any source that publishes coordinates for any group of cities, also publishes, by implication, the differences between these coordinates, and comparisons of these differences, and that, for this reason, any source that publishes coordinates of all cities this populous can, be cited as a source for all that I wrote in the above article. While we may often think that ideas of ours, are original, often these ideas are only new to us. I consider it flattering to me, that these people consider my ideas, to be original research, but in this case, I believe that they are incorrect to believe this. George Pelly-Bosela GPelly-Bosela 07:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (U.K., Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, far West Africa, and nearby island, time)

You've missed that this particular point is official Wikipedia policy. If it's not original research, then you can provide us withreliable, third-party sources showing where somebody else said it. An ISBN and page reference, or a reliable website will do. ➔REDVEЯS was here 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Even then, it reads like "Trivia", to the main Chicago article anyways. Yet, if anything, the comparison with Rome can be included in Climate of Chicago. KyuuA4 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The source can be a book, I'm sure it's out there somewhere. Speciate 18:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-Catholic Private Schools

Are there any non-Catholic Private Schools? So far, Catholic private schools are the only ones mentioned, under Private schools.KyuuA4 21:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are, but the only immediate examples that come to mind are the University of Chicago Lab School, The British School of Chicago and the Ida Crown Jewish Academy. Ryecatcher773 01:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture Change!?

Please put the panorama picture back on the main page....who changed the pic?! :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by24.12.162.158 (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the picture back, this one is much clearer. shoeofdeath 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't we get a better picture than that? There is a great one at: http://www.illinois.com/images/cities/full/chicago.jpg. The one on the site looks plain and boring. The article should have a photo showing a better view of the skyline, at least. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 71.201.71.189 (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Great new caption photo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.71.189(talk) 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just replaced this out of focus image with this one. There might be better ones the then one I used, but certainly the former was not the quality we should expect. --Oakshade (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That Sears Tower detail photo has good perspective, but it is has also the Chicago Metropolitan Correctional Center prominently displayed. That doesn't seem like a good idea. :-D —Rob (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Correctional Center, designed by Harry Weese, is a significant building Rick lightburn (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Recording

The previous Chicago recording is three years out of date but this article during that time has been delisted and in flux, can I have a bit of an idea as to when this article might approach a more stable time? .:DavuMaya:. 07:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind this article is too poor to record right now. .:davumaya:. 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

North Side vs South Side -- yadda yadda etc. etc.

Will it be better to sub-divide "Neighborhoods" according to a similar pattern as Neighborhoods of Chicago? Naturally, there won't be a need to sub-divide all the way down to Rogers Park, Forest Glen, etc. A general North, South, West division encourages text like: Although it has endured a rather unfair reputation as being crime ridden and gang infested, the reality of the South Side shows its demographics to be as varied as the rest of Chicago. KyuuA4 08:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that the City itself is divided like that. A strong sense of North Side, South Side community pride (for one example, see the Cubs/Sox rivalry) is prevalent in the city. The neighborhoods are important, but Chicago is also so big that the regional divisions are equally important for describing the city. To take away that would be ill advised as it would remove an integral part of defining the city's real character. It would be like saying NYC is suffcient without discerning between the different boroughs. The Bronx and Manhattan are as different as the North and South Sides of Chicago are. And incidentally, the point made in the sentence you quoted from the South Side subheading is there to distinguish the actuality from the myths, not create a negative context -- Chicago's South Side, from the days pre-dating Upton Sinclair and Al Capone up to and surpassing the rise of the Vice Lords, has endured a local (as well as national reputation) for being the rough side of town. Ryecatcher773 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I have recommended this artivle for speedy deletion because it is a pointless and unjustified attack on the city of Chicago, one that cannot be remedied. Nosaeshtruof 10:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And just which article would that be? Ryecatcher773 17:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Alleys

Should the alleys of Chicago be mentioned? The NYT ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/us/26chicago.html?th&emc=th ) says this: "CHICAGO, Nov. 25 [2007] — If this were any other city, perhaps it would not matter what kind of roadway was underfoot in the back alleys around town. But with nearly 2,000 miles of small service streets bisecting blocks from the North Side to the South Side, Chicago is the alley capital of America." The article is about the City's plan to resurface the alleys.

Not sure why it would warrant mentioning. I've never even stopped to consider too much any alley that's run behind any of the buildings I've lived on in this town. It seems to me that it might be a spectacle worth mentioning for New Yorkers perhaps, as the space usage, particularly in Manhattan, doesn't provide nearly as many alleys as we have here. The big question on whether it should be included would seem to be: does it have any cultural impact, or noteworthiness that contributes to the being of the city as a whole? I'd say no. Every town has alleys, and every town has roads. It's just a trivia piece... and a place to put 2.8 million residents garbage and/or garages. Therefore, my vote (obviously) would be no. The article has already been trimmed of other more notable stuff due to its current length. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Suburban info

Understanding that the Chicagoland area does exist, there seems to be a bit of confusion here. The article that we are looking at is called Chicago. Info contained herein needs to be relevant to the subject of the article, and there is an appropriate and lengthy article already covering the suburbs surrounding Chicago. see: Chicago metropolitan area. Wikipedia quality and standards demand certain things be included (such as citations, particularly for info that is claiming to be factual and isn't widely considered common knowledge); they also remind us what not to bring in (seeWP:NOT for guidelines). No one is trying to hurt anyones feelings here. But this is Wikipedia, not a blog or a forum, but an online encyclopedia. Staying on topic is necessary, and including info not necessary to the article itself detracts from the quality of the article, as well as shows a disregard for basic expository writing standards, which are taught in virtually every high school nationwide (at least in the US anyway). An example of irrelevance in this case: what streets in Naperville are named -- and VanBuren, Washington etc... sure there are streets in Chicago sharing these names, but the same can be said for other American cities as well: they are names of US presidents. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. The Chicago article is already far too long to be adding this stuff too, and the Chicago metropolitan area article needs expansion.Speciate (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

College and University Section

In the interest of an efficient marketplace for ideas, please note here the justification for continued changes to the above section in the main article.

I feel like the article must reflect the obvious differences between UofC and northwestern. Most conspicuously, Northwestern is not even in the city this article describes. I would direct people to the wiki article on Evanston, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanston,_Illinois#Private_and_parochial_schools) to note the absence of any reference of the University of Chicago. Perhaps this reflects a better standard for inclusion?

Moreover, there is clear university ranking consensus between these two institutions. the criticisms of rankings are well known. However, they are the best available objective metric to settle these questions. I would direct people to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings) to see the obvious disparity in peer review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydeparkblvd(talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is a blatantly biased statement, an assumption of authorial intent is not only an unsuitable criteria for determining what a Wikipedia artcile should contain, it is in and of itself impossible (for an explanation of what I mean, I would point you to the writings of Jacques Derridaand/or Stanley Fish). If anything, a negative interpretation is merely a reflection of one's own feelings on a matter. There was no intended ranking in teh article, nor was there an intended bias from what I saw (and I am quite confident in this analysis -- being that I was the one who recently moved the section around a bit to make it more organized, and changed a few words in the name of a non POV tone).

However (and this is a big however), I agree with you on the geographical aspect. Northwestern's main campus isn't even in Chicago. The university only warrants a mention in this article because of its satellites within Chicago city limits. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks, I added Loyola to the 'top echelon of doctorate-granting research universities' and alphabetized the order. This is a really liberal list, folks in other parts of the country may only consider UofC to be in this category and most or all of Northwestern's PhDs programs are based in Evanston, along with the undergraduates. Having UIC and DePaul in the list without the higher ranked Loyola would be really incongruous.68.40.203.124 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)djk

Photographs

Did anybody notice that some guy(s) has placed a bunch of his own photos on the page? They are the ones with the ugly silvery tint. We should take look at what pictures we have on the page, with an eye to avoiding redundancy and undue weight on downtown. Speciate (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The goal should be to get the article back to Good Article status. Policing up stuff that negates the quality content should be the priority. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the pics are too large, I think. Orestek's pic of the footpath in Portage Park is nice, but uninformative, and doesn't give a feel for the average Chicago park. I removed one horrid pic just now. Wasn't there a better pic before, or do we even need another downtown one?Speciate (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the picture I just replaced the Portage Park pic is more along the lines of what you mean. There is no question what city the park is just by looking at it. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Also, the landscaping is typical. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to respond

1) There was no picture before since I just recently wrote this section myself. I added the pic not to promote my own pictures but to add something eyecatching to the section as well as to have images of something other than a gentrified area of Chicago-
2) I agree with too much emphasis on Downtown, so why add in another one of Lincoln Park, that is not very attractive by the way. THERE IS NOT ONE PICTURE OF ANYTHING ON THE ENTIRE NORTHWEST SIDE OF CHICAGO IN THIS WHOLE ARTICLE! Do we really need another picture of Lincoln Park, which is practically part of Downtown? Its not very aesthetically appealing either,isn't there something else we could replace it with?--Orestek (talk) 09:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for example the picture of Portage park which you took. The problem with the footpath picture was that it looked like somebody's garden.Speciate (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

...and the current pic looks like the entrance to a cemetery. Look, I understand that most of the article has pics from downtown, and being a South Sider I can fully appreciate not seeing my own part of the city photographically represented, but this isn't about hurting feelings --- it's about what's best for the article. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's everybody look around for more pics on Wikipedia and on the Commons. Speciate (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple more here. I haven't looked in Flickr... Speciate(talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a number of photographers in the Chicago area, someone's bound to have something suitable in their archive. I don't have many park photos (unless a wintery one will do [1]), but I would be happy to go and get some when spring arrives. —Jeremy (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is someones collection of share alike photos that may be useful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown onWP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 feet , use 000 feet , which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 feet .^[?]
When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See alsoUser:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Potawatami Hooker?

In History? Should this be "prostitute"? Is there a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by65.43.214.45 (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just some vandalism from earlier today that had been missed. It is now fixed--thanks for pointing it out. —Jeremy (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Deprecation of Image:2008-04-27 1500x900 chicago sepia view from within.jpg

In my opinion, this sepia-toned image is not a good one to headline the article. It's overly hazy and blurred, the monotone is dull, and aside from a few distinctive buildings (Hancock, Stone Container, Donnelley) lurking amid the clutter, it could be a shot of Any City, USA. Wouldn't a more iconic view, such as a daylight one from the lake that encompasses all of downtown from the Sears Tower to the John Hancock, be more appropriate? Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And my point is that the one that was put in its place is visually no better. The kind you describe already exists in the article, except it's too wide to fit into the infobox. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Chicago is not a black and white city, it is in color. This image is artsy, not encyclopedic. Furthermore it is unclear from the picture exactly what city it is of, which is ridiculous considering the number of identifiable buildings in Chicago. Yes it contains the Hancock building, but it is blurred, out of focus, and barely identifiable. This is, quite frankly, a bad image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.143.59 (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And your blurry night shot is worse. I've put back the one from prior to April 10, a technically much better photo than your blurry night shot was, and more readily indentifiable as Chicago than either recent one was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not my blurry night shot, just the last one used before that sepia travesty. The one you just added looks fine to me. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 130.126.143.59 (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sehr gut. I see someone else tried to switch back with no explanation. I reset it again. The technical quality of the current one is clearly superior to the other two, and clearly more recognizable as Chicago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also this one, which was in the article awhile back and was taken out for some reason. I don't know how well it would work in the infobox, though:

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks the Sepia Tone shot is somehow appropriate is absolutely out of their mind. Besides sepia tone, it really isn't even all that good of a shot, to be honest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.0.130 (talk)

That photo is better focused than the fuzzy color nightshot that was there. There's nothing "unencylopedic" about either one. But they both have their flaws, while the one I restored from prior to April 10 is a better picture for this article than either of the two in question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, I like your change. The one above is good too, if a bit grainy as a thumb (enough so that I'm hesitant to put it in place), but I think it's better than the current night shot for one reason: the current photo contains a certain detail that seems likely to trigger edit wars with Cubs fans. Perhaps we could come up with something a little more ecumenical? Kevin Forsyth (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Cubs fan for life, and I don't have a problem with it. Anytime a Chicago team is in the playoffs (Cubs, Bears, Bulls, whatever) that downtown building does their bit with the office windows. But I figure the above will do as an alternative if someone can't handle the current one. Also, the skyline is still there, last I heard, so if someone wants to go downtown tomorrow and take a better photo, they can do so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The current photo, "Chicago blue", is not technically as good as the "Chicago3" I had re-posted, but it's still recognizably Chicago and it omits the issue that over-sensitive Cubs fans had about the Chicago3 photo. As discussed earlier, the sepia-toned photo that an IP just tried to repost, and the blurry night shot from the JH that another IP keeps pushing, are unsuitable as the main photo of this article. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?} 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Name change

Shouldn't the title of this article be Chicago, Illinois? I was reading the Seattle page and it is called Seattle, Washington. I'm not sure what the general rule is for titles or if there even is one. (Phillip Shaw (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

See the extensive discussion on this: Talk:Chicago/Archive4#Requested_move. It is convention for US cities to be at City, State, but any city listed in the AP Stylebook (and Chicago is one of them) is allowed to be listed at City.--Loodog (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Perhaps i'm rehashing an old subject, but the image content on this page seems to be unstable, and lacking of any standards of quality. I realize that many people are excited to share their photos of chicago to a wide audience, but that's wikimedia's purpose. On several occasions I've been tempted to launch a whole scale removal of images that were either redundant, photographically botched, or were in any other way misplaced. However I thought it would be best to see if there are others with disagree or agree with my sentiments. thanks Astuishin(talk) 04:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When I've challenged the deletionists about too many amateurish photos in wikipedia, they respond that that's the way they want it. Hence the ugly, papparazzi-type photos of celebrities, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}06:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural influence, worldwide?

Previous post: The following sentence needs changing: "Since the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, one organization regards it as one of the ten most influential cities in the world." I can find no indication on the linked website that the 1893 World's Fair had anything to do with Chicago being named an Alpha World City. Can someone--perhaps with a better knowledge of the writer's intent--clean this section up? Also, I think the organization's name would work better than "one organization." (140.247.10.146 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

The introduction claims a worldwide influence in Culture. The reference given proofs an economic influence only ! The GAWC/Global City concept is purely based on economic data as well. With all respect to Chicago´s contributions, it is rather national. NYC and L.A are far more influential on a global level than Chicago. Lear 21 (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was about to take this out but fear what editors might backlash. Can someone offer a source in the next few days AND why this is a necessary mention? Who rates alpha world cities and what does it mean? And more importantly, how long ago did this rating system develop. Otherwise it shall be stricken. .:davumaya:. 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking for an FA-style article to model after?

Minneapolis :) .:davumaya:. 07:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco, California is better. (Of course I'm somewhat predisposed to that conclusion). And, besides, it just passed a Featured Article Review process. --Paul (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Houston, Texas, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Providence, Rhode Island, and Boston, Massachusetts are all fine articles. I suggest you look through all of them for ideas, though obviously Chicago is a different city with different things to be emphasized. Also, you may want to look throughWP:USCITY to see guidelines and suggested topics to explore in each section. To be a FA, you just need to have a well-written terse article that summarizes the notable aspects of the city with minimal boosterism and sources for all statements requiring it. Though, this article needs to secure GA status first.--Loodog (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of San Fran article, I just asked them about the Alpha-city mention and they said its irrelevant. It's like being awarded by a lame magazine for being the most friendly city or something apparently. I think the intro nonetheless could use a bit of ego-popping, the range and scale of activity and events in Chicago needs no opinions to justify its weight. .:davumaya:. 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It always better to explain why a city shines than just claim it does. Look at Boston: "After American independence was attained Boston became a major shipping port and manufacturing center, and its rich history now attracts 16.3 million visitors annually." Doesn't that say more than "is a World City"?--Loodog (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article keeps getting down-graded by wikiprojects and why below they are bickering over Barack Obama. I fear this article will never achieve GA let alone FA with this kind of attention being paid to it. .:davumaya:. 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. was recently promoted to featured status about two weeks ago or so,... Dr. Cash (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second...

I've read somewhere that O'Hare is actually not the second busiest airport in the world, but the busiest airport in the world. Should it be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.177.220 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe so. Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport is busier than O'Hare. What is in the article right now is correct. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 14:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama

I think the reasoning presented at the Obama talk page also applies here, that most sources describe him as the first leading African American US presidential candidate, delegating further descriptions to the body of Obama's article. Balsa10 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that is biased and goes against the neutrality of the article. Obama is a bi-racial man that clearly represents two groups of people. It is ignorant to say he is just an African American man that is mis-leading especially if someone reads this and has no idea who Obama is. I belief this the right way to go about this instead of being ignorant and going by the one-drop rule which is discriminatory in every way possible.Mcelite (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Transutopian in going by the reasoning at Talk:Barack Obama's FAQ:

Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Thus we use this term in the introduction. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.

This case is just a brief mention of Obama in another article. You believe it shouldn't conform with this. I disagree, but won't revert again, and hopefully others will chime in with their reasoning. Balsa10 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with what saying bi-racial it's fact and not based on what people want to call him. It's clear and precise and makes everybody happy. His mother is not excluded and no one can say that the article is biased in any way.Mcelite (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Under common usage, he is simply black. People identify him as simply "black" notwithstanding his mother's race because he's "black enough" to have an appearance that would be discriminated against. Obama calls himself black or African American, as do 66% of American blacks. As does our article on him. Surely, consistency is in order.--Loodog (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That is ignorant. It doesn't matter that 66% of African Americans consider him black. That's nothing but ignorance caused by the one-drop rule. It's so stupid he's a bi-racial man that represents 2 groups of people. It's nothing different than the pressure that celebrities have felt that have African American heritage e.g. Tiger Woods, Vanessa Williams, Halle Berry, Alicia Keys, Della Reese, and so on. Also how can you say he's black enough when his mother is caucasin with no admixture.Mcelite (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that we call him black (or "african american") in his article. Our article on african americans says "it remains common for those who possess any visible traits of black heritage to identify or be identified solely as blacks or African Americans." Whatever we decide, it should be consistent.--Loodog (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I agree that it needs to be consistent yet, it doesn't matter. His African American heritage is just as important as his caucasian heritage. People make it hard for anyone with African American heritage being bi-racial or multi-racial to claim their other heritage. People get offended because they feel they are denying their heritage when the person is trying to be proud of all of their heritage. Obama is a great man that is intelligent to use his heritage to make a change and represents America's change. I still say it should state bi-racial in this article and his main article.Mcelite (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say they're going to care more about the issue there. If you can get a consensus there to change it to biracial or mulatto or half african american, I'd completely support it saying that here.--Loodog (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I followed a notice on the Obama talk page over to here. A consensus there is very unlikely - as long as the candidate himself and the vast majority of mainstream reliable sources refer to him as African American, and treat the primary racial breakthrough as being the first major party candidate who is, that's going to be the phrase to spotlight. Obama is remarkable for plenty of other reasons, and it's a first for mixed race / biracial people as well - and we explore all of that too one way or another, just farther down in the lead and body of the article. I hate to be so wishy-washy but I don't see any problem going either way, or neither, here. A phrase like "First African-American (and first mixed race candidate as well)" would be just fine because it's such a brief mention that the whole matter could be condensed. But it would also be okay to omit the mixed race thing as being too much detail for this article. Whichever outcome is respectable IMHO. The current version, "the first leading man of African-American and Caucasin descent United States Presidential contender", has a typo and also reads like there's a grammatical error as well. "African American and Caucasian descent" is a little muddled. I think what's meant is "of both African and Caucasian descent". Or perhaps "European"? As much as I like the terms "of African descent" and "of European descent" (or ancestry, etc.) for their precision, we rejected those over at the Obama article because they're relatively new terms without universal adoption as yet. Mulatto is fine in some contexts and circles but offensive and archaic in others, so that term is too loaded. I suppose we're suffering from not having adequate universally acccepted language to deal with matters of race. So give it your best! Hope that helps, Wikidemo (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wikidemo. It's just that this is something that needs change. He's a great man and I understand completely why people want to only call him African American or only feel that is the only thing important. I think showing that he is a representation of two different groups is a magnificant thing.Mcelite (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is Obama and his race even mentioned in the lead? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article itself and the only place Obama is mentioned is in the lead. If Obama isn't important enough for the article, why is he important enough for the lead, which is probably the most valuable real estate in an article? Personally, I'd move that entire sentence down to the History section and call it good. While Obama's and Mosely Braun's status as first AA, are historically important from a political standpoint, they are not very historically important from a Chicago standpoint. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the lede by noting that Chicago has produced two Dem presidential nominees (Douglas and Obama), dropping Mosely-Braun (she's a minor figure) and adding Jesse Jackson and the first mayor Daley, in order to stress the city's leadership role in Democratic party history.Rjensen(talk) 04:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why can't the term mixed race be used like in the UK. I mean saying Obama is the first.... of mix raced descent reads well, highlights his mixed racial heritage and allows for further explaination later —Preceding unsigned comment added by77.103.88.63 (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is completely rediculous. This is a black man. 100 years from now no one is going to remember him as the first "biracial" president, hes going to be remembered as the first african-american president, which BY DEFINITION he is. If you look at his census filing he files as black. Honestly you could call almost every black person in the USA biracial, very few dont have white somewhere in their history.MarkStevens (talk) 05:34, 30 Jan 2009 (UTC)

Can you people please resolve this issue in a timely matter based upon Consensus in other articles? I see the strain of trolling (ie: Mcelite's comments). This matter though related is not entirely relevant to the fact that the entire article is suffering and does not warrant this much attention on one person in history who honestly will be the last thing a peer reviewer will be looking at. .:davumaya:. 20:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Festivals

Should there be a subsection on Chicago Festivals in the article?--Orestek (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else find the last paragraph of the header a bit inane? It doesn't seem to me that a depression era reputation for corruption or a presidential candidate are important enough to be included in such a prominent space. Also, it seems fairly pointless to point out that the city is a "Democratic Party stronghold" since this is hardly unusual among large American cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.89.213 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The montage photo

Chicago is known for beautiful skyscrapers, but oh well, the montage image of awfully cropped images does not display the beauty properly. Besides, the image is used as an excuse for insisting montage image in lead on other articles. I think one powerful image of showing Sears tower, Water tower, or a skyline including Michigan Lake is enough. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The montage is way too "busy", for sure. It also looks kind of like a cover you would see on one of those souvenir booklets you could buy at the airport. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not pay for such booklets with poor images.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the image used previously was far superior to the montage. I suggest that we change back to it —Jeremy (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent photo. Chicago's lakefront is its showcase. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of such a montage. A great example of how it showcases a city's best known and most recognizable features is the montage of photographs from New York's page--obviously this is the article's central focal point and the first thing that catches someone's eye when they view the page. In that sense a montage is more illustrative than just a single picture of the city's skyline. I think this can work for this page if we can agree on which photo's can be compiled. The one in place now just has some pictures of buildings and one of the Trump Tower under construction...uhh, how exactly is such a picture important? We can have the same layout as the current picture but instead include distinct and recognizable places like Millenium Park, Wrigley Field, Navy Pier, Buckingham Fountain, etc. For example, I just quickly put together a few photos that I found already on Wikipedia: http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7220/68080989lz8.png -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 20:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if you put this montage photo in front of me and asked me to identify the city it depicted, with no other clues, I couldn't do it. As an outsider who's never been to Chicago and thus doesn't have the daily familiarity with the city that many of this article's more regular editors have, the montage comes across to me as a generic urban American streetscape. The image that iconically conveys Chicago to me, the one that my "only knows Chicago from what I've seen in the media" eye could instantly pick out as Chicago, is "waterfront with Sears Tower". A tighter closeup of the Sears Tower comes close, but the one photo here that an outsider could clearly identify as the Sears Tower practically disappears in the photo arrangement, because (a) it's thin, and (b) because it's on the outside edge of the montage, the overcast sky basically melts into the white page background. In fact, it disappears so thoroughly that I had to triple-check the Sears Tower article just to make sure I wasn't about to say something really stupid.

The idea of montages has potential, but the montage that's on the article right now doesn't strike me as being the most effective demonstration of that. Wrigley Field is a step in the right direction, for sure, but some of mcshady's other image choices still kind of read "generic urban" to me. Just $0.02 for the pot, anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say that there are some really nice individual photos in that montage that are evocative of the city in a way that a skyline shot can't be (I'm thinking in particular of the "beneath the El" shot). So kudos are due to the photographer(s) and contributors, despite the criticism here. However I agree that they just don't work in a montage, particularly at this resolution. Which brings up some interesting questions: where there are a lot of quality, usable pictures available for a given subject, how many should be included in the article? On one hand some seem to favor one main image per article and I'm sure somewhere there's a dictum such as Wikipedia is not a photo album, on the other hand there are at least a dozen "iconic" images of Chicago that could be included without redundancy. Jgm (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Evocative of the city if you live there or have been there, sure, I don't doubt that. But most of them aren't iconically representative of Chicago in the sense that a person who's never been there could look at the montage and easily recognize it as Chicago from what they've seen of the city in the media. They're not world-famous images that are instantly recognizable the way LA's Hollywood sign, Toronto's CN Tower or London's Big Ben are — they're "deep Chicago" images that are only recognizable as Chicago if you've been there. The audience for this article isn't just Chicago locals — it's a global audience which comprises exponentially more people who couldn't look at the montage and recognize it as Chicago than people who could. The "under the EL" shot, for example, could just as easily be under the Scarborough RT or the SkyTrain for all a novice knows. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be kind of a silly argument, since I think we are all in agreement that the montage is sub-optimal, but: saying that we should only select images that someone who has never seen a particular city would recognize as being of that city is ludicrous -- would you say that we should only include facts that a person already knew and agreed with before they came to the article page? It goes back to my question above, which is, rephrased: what is the purpose of images in a mostly-text encyclopedia? Are they just a logo for the article, a way to add visual variety (in which case one, or even a few, "iconic" images would be appropriate), or are they intended to impart information -- say, "a thousand words" worth each -- (in which case any number of photos, iconic or not, would be appropriate). Somewhat strangely, in my view, Wikipedia to date has taken the former approach; I say strangely because it seems a vestige of the print-pedia format. Jgm (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate that montage so much. The pictures are poor, the cropping is silly, and it comes off as overly dramatic for no reason. Just anyone please flip out the photo for the original skyline photo. davumaya 20:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations missing

While it is general WP etiquette to simply label dubious statements with a fact check, in most cases, it is also just as appropriate to remove the sentence itself and force the user to resubmit the fact with their source. Considering that Chicago is a fully bloated article and needs trimming down more than content, we need to be harsher on new IPs and users that if you are going to stuff more in, you ought to really back it up. The lead especially should never have a citation tag. davumaya 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Amen, and thanks for your fix. Don't know why I was feeling so charitable as to use the fact tag. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)