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.
Archives: May 2005 - Oct 2005
This talk page is being used for two major functions. First, to expand and convert the article Chicago over to the new format agreed to at WikiProject Cities. Second, to faciliate active discussions on the content, formating and all other items associated with the Chicago article. Please feel free to add or edit anything on this page to help in the conversion process. Please remember to sign all comments.
Old talk can be found in the archive box. Add any new comments at the bottom. To keep this page clean and useful please remove items no longer relevant. This includes requested changes that have been complete or items under debate that haven't been active for more than 3 months.
If you are a resident of Chicagoland or just someone with an interest in the city, come join Wikipedia: WikiProject Chicago. This project is seeking to coordinate efforts to expand the coverage of Chicago-related topics on the English Wikipedia and to finally make Chicago a Featured Article. This is a brand new WikiProject, and members are needed, so please come and contribute anything you can.
--Gpyoung 6 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)
An edit without an edit
At the risk of branding myself a clueless newbie, I'm going to have to report something that looked deeply weird, which I was a little concerned by. I came in and saw what appeared to be a revert, but when I looked at the history page I saw no sign of the supposed revert. I went in to edit the supposedly reverted section, and to my amazement discovered that what was appearing in the edit window bore no resemblence to what I had seen on the page, just a few seconds ago. Not only did the history page have no memory of this supposed revert, but neither did this part of the wikipedia system. I hit "save" without changing anything I saw in the edit window, and the phantom revert went away. For now. I wouldn't care to speculate on how long it will stay gone.
Could the Wikipedia system be breaking down, in some way?
Standardization
In an effort to create some standarization in this talk page I'm putting all the sections in Items Under Debate into a format of Vote, Discussion and Decision. This will help drive quicked decisions about the article. Shortly after a change is decided on I think we should move it to the archive. Additionally I think we should decide how long a debated issue should be up for voting. If there is a standard for this already I couldn't find it. Jasenlee 08:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Please vote on my proposal at the city naming conventions, which, if approved, would move this page to just Chicago. Dralwik 30 June 2005 22:27 (UTC)
Population Figures Worldwide are incorrect
The page currently lists Toronto as having a larger population than Chicago, a quick look at the Toronto page lists its population estimated as of 2004 at just over 2.5 million. Chicago has a higher population. Where are these figures coming from, this whole section is being removed for the time being due to the need for fact checking!
The city of Toronto has approximately 2.48 million residents [1] which is lower than the urban population of Chicago which comes in at 2.89 million. When you look at the Metropolitan population areas (includes surrounding suburbs) the GTA ranks at 5.6 million [2] while Chicagoland ranks at 9.65 million. So in this case you are correct. I suspect someone accidently mixed urban/metro population data. Jasenlee20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Requested Changes
This section is for making requests to changes for the main article or for suggesting the creation of related sub-articles. When making a request here for a potential new sub-article you should consider adding it to the list at Wikipedia Requested articles.
Lead Section
Over the last year this page has changed significantly and the Lead Section no longer matches the guidelines for a good lead section. We should focus on working towards revising this.
--Jason 18:24, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Sections to be added/revised/considered
I think the following sections should be considered for this article or Chicago Sub Articles (not lists... prose):
Someone changed the lead picture AGAIN after we already had a vote on the subject. This is borderline vandalism. I have restored the voted on picture back. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE IT!
Chicago vs. Chicagoland
I think it really needs to be decided if the related articles with 'Chicagoland' in their names (Newspapers, Radio Stations, etc.) are going to include the suburbs or not. For example, I would NOT include Hamburger U on the Chicago page (and I'm not even sure I'd include it in a Chicagoland "Institutions of Higher Learning" or some such page, either, as it privately belongs to Mcdonalds Corporation. But there should be a spot for the myriad of colleges (including jr. colleges) in Chicago's suburbs. Northwestern I do find appropriate, because they do have a Chicago campus.
Given that Evanston literally borders Chicago, and that the only way that one can tell that one has left one and entered another is with a road map, I would go so far as to say that it would be silly to exclude schools in Evanston from a Chicago listing. Keep in mind that Chicago, unlike Indianapolis, for example, is not ballooned up by the annexation of large amounts of countryside and surrounding small towns in the name of unigov. It is built right up to its borders, as are the suburbs that surround it, with the result that the real city extends well beyond its legally defined frontiers. It would be more sensible to regard Evanston as being an autonomous neighborhood of Chicago than as a fully distinct city in its own right; the seperation between the two is largely a legal fiction, and has been for as long as anybody can remember. - The noneditor :)
United States Political Party Conventions
Any thoughts to at least a note about twenty-five major party (well, okay, the Republicans weren't yet a major party in 1860, not until Lincoln actually got elected) political conventions being held in Chicago? More than any other US city by a WIDE margin?
DuPage County part of City of Chicago
According to the US census burea (and I've heard brief mentions of this on the local news with regard to O'Hare) a small portion of the City of Chicago is located in DuPage county. I find it quite inexcusable that this is missing from Wikipedia In quite a blatent rip off from the US census burea here is this information. If you want to verify Go here
http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=sp3_pop_est and then go 2003 estimate, then go to search, Chicago both Chicago in Cook and DuPage show up.
Also the website for DuPage county lists the city of Chicago as a community link as well http://www.co.dupage.il.us/generic.cfm?doc_id=1578
Chicago city, Cook County, Illinois Chicago city, DuPage County, Illinois
Total Population
July 1, 2003
2,868,891 230
July 1, 2002
2,882,116 148
July 1, 2001
2,892,940 84
July 1, 2000
2,895,426 18
Comment from actual Chicagoan (Joe): I think that the use of the word "inexcusable" is overkill on this one; the error is a small, technical one. The only part of Chicago overlapping DuPage county is one corner of O'Hare airport, with at most a few houses in it, if even that. By all means correct it, but let's not blow this out of proportion and act like this was a massive distortion of reality. Chicago comes >extremely< close to being entirely a Cook County municipality, in terms of population, and in terms of infrastructure, we're mainly looking at some runways lapping over the county line. Why harp on this little point when there are so many excellent reasons to despise this article?
Items Under Debate
Getting harassed by Boothy:
Have submitted some corrections to the numerous factual inaccuracies included in the Chicago article, and find that they keep getting deleted. Forget this! When one gets to the point where a simple description of the climate is too controversial for some self-appointed censors to tolerate, as is a description of local dishes, somebody obviously has issues that need working out, and they certainly are not going to be worked out on my time. - Joseph
External Links
It is my belief that creating an external links section is an obsolete method of organizing content. Since Wikipedia now gives a visual indicator of an external link I don't think it is necessary to make a separate section for them. I believe it is more usable for readers to have the links in a "See also" section. For example a external link to the Chicago Tunnel Company or the Chicago GIS maps would be more fitting under sections like Transportation or Geography (respectively). Some people have changed this repeatedly but I disagree. The Manual of Style doesn't seem to have any concise guidelines for this. Thoughts?
--Jason 11:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
There are a few good reasons for keeping external links separate from internal ones, placing them at the end of the article. One is semantic: the article itself should be about the subject (i.e. Chicago), whereas a reference or external link usually provides information about the information. This distinction is subtle, but mainly boils down to the fact that although Chicago GIS maps are indeed about Chicago, the link itself is not. Another issue is the fact that people frequently add external links where there should be an internal link, only because the article does not exist. For example, perhaps the Chicago Tunnel Company should have an article? I also noticed City Colleges of Chicago. Also, inline external links don't make much sense in an eventual paper version, and last, perhaps as a result of the above points, mixed internal and external links just don't look clean (IMHO) ;)
Although indeed there doesn't seem to be any written guideline for this, it is the standard practice, and following conventions means readers will know where to look. If readers want more information about geography, they will (only after a few articles' familiarity with Wikipedia) know how to scroll down to the external links section and expect the selection of links to be comprehensive enough.
Have you considered the solution of adding subsections to the external links section? Fredrik | talk 15:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
sources...
it seems to me that a lot of the history section of the article is taken directly from Don Miller's book, "City of the Century" or the PBS documentary based on the book, yet I don't see it listed in the sources.
J. Crocker
Comment - How very interesting, if this should be true. The word for the practice described is "plagiarism". I'll be sure to check out that book and get in touch with the author to advise him of a violation of copyright on Wikipedia, should this prove to be the case.
Anybody still want to give this article an award? (I bring up some of its numerous inaccuracies in the peer review page, and leave them there for anybody more interested in the truth than in postmodernist posturing) - Joseph from Chicago
I wrote a good part of the History section and like anyone else who does research... you read books, watch documentaries, etc. I have looked at both of these so I can definitely tell you nothing has been plagiarized but feel free to contact the author or do your own fact checking. I'm quite confident it is in my own writing. If it seems to follow a similar flow to his works it is because they are both very well done. I'll add a reference to this, which BTW, wasn't common practice on Wikipedia when this was written.
Jasenlee 03:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's plagarized, but, keep in mind the following advice on how to avoid plagarism. [3]
Give credit when you use:
another person’s idea, opinion, or theory;
any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings—any pieces of information—that are not common knowledge;
quotations of another person’s actual spoken or written words; or
paraphrase of another person’s spoken or written words.
Why was beef changed to Beef? Kdammers 2 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)
Chicago Wiki Project
I have been thinking of starting a new Chicago Wiki Project to help expand coverage of the city. It seems to me by looking at the number of Chicago stubs and even some parts of the Chicago main page and sub pages that work can be done to bring them up to par with other articles. I would also very much like to bring the Chicago, Illinois main page up to featured article status as I think it is very close and some good colaberation could bring it over the top. A similar project was started for New York City Articles and has seemed to work out well.
If anyone is interested, send me a message on my talk page
The map of the state looks awfully squat to me. I haven't particularly noticed this on any other images on this computer. Could it be a problem with the original then?
I'm not sure what you mean by squat, but I was just about to say that the map seems way too large. -- BMIComp (talk) 9 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)
Article Bloat
We should probably move the History onto its own page. What do you all think? -- BMIComp (talk) 9 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)
Sports
Why isn't the Chicago Wolves (hockey team) listed in the table of sports teams? Is it because the Blackhawks are more popular? Peaceman 6 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)
You're talking about the table of sports teams? I think it's because it's part of a minor league, as opposed to the rest that are in the major leagues. They do mention it in the text and have a link for it though. As far as it's popularity, the wolves are actually one of the most successful AHL teams. (They actually beat the Blackhawks in terms of attendance during some of the games in the 03-04 season) -- BMIComp (talk)16:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
As you probably have noticed, this article has been overhauled and re-organized and, at some parts, re-written. These changes were implemented based on the recommendations of WikiProject Chicago with the intent of making this a featured article. Please feel free to make any necessary changes. I think the article should be online for a while, and then I am going to requst a peer review.
Thanks,
--Gpyoungtalk03:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Lead Picture Vote
A vote will be held on whether to change the lead picture at the top of the Chicago InfoBox tonight at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/PictureVote. The voting will be open for 24 hours from the posting of this notice on the Chicago talk page. Please come and voice your opinion.
An explanation to why this vote is needed is also included on the voting page.
Thanks,
--Gpyoungtalk21:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
If you want to hold a vote hold it on this page, and give far more than 24 hours notice (the last vote went several days and this will require at least that). Many of the editors of this page do not check it every single day, and holding a re-vote on an item voted on in May is a somewhat questionable notion to begin with.
I agree with extending the survey (and feel it should continue until there is consensus). There is no reason why it needs to be held here, however; the project page is a perfectly reasonable place to hold a survey. There definitely is cause to question whether consensus exists to support the current photo, given that the current photo was objected to during the FAC review process. Consensus seems to be that the current photo is of insufficient quality to be used on a featured article. Kelly Martin 13:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Chicago Main Page Picture Vote
This is a vote to decide which image is to be used at the top of the new Chicago article. This has been a very intense issue in the past, however in light of the recent improvments to the article, we feel that a consensus should be finally be reached.
It is understood that there was a vote on this issue already but since then the article has been subject to new improvment work by a new set of editors and we feel the question should be re-examined, especially since Chicagonight.jpg was not one of the images being voted on back then. Also, the current picture has been the source of some objections during the peer review and Featured Article nomination processes, preventing the article from being elevated to featured article status.
Please vote only once and, if desired, include a short blurb explaining why you voted the way you did. Only include votes in support of a certain picture. The two pictures here are Chicago-Illinois-USA-skyline-day.jpg, the original picture and the one that was voted on in the past but opposed in the peer review and featured article discussion, and Chicagonight.jpg, which is the one chosen by the members of WikiProject Chicago.
Update: A new image (#3) has been proposed and seems to have substancial support, so I have made an exception and have included it in the vote and reset the ending time to even the playing field.
Update #2: A new image (#4) has been proposed and already has support for it, so I (Shoffman11) have included it. The ending time of the vote has not been changed. (Shoffman1123:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
Support-I think this is a wonderful picture of Chicago because it shows most of the city all lit up, some buildings even have different color lights. Although I think #3 is an excellent picture and it should be included in the article, its proportions are not right to be in the infobox, it is much too tall and would make the infobox too long, a problem which existed with the original infobox. As for the first picture, I dont think it deserves to be in the article at all, much less the infobox. It strikes me as foggy, out of focus, and unoriginal, but thats just my opinion.
Support. I like this picture because it's: 1. Taken from an unique viewpoint 2. Shows the city at dusk thus showing the buildings lit up suggesting vitality and commerce. 3. Shows the great variety of buildings that is downtown Chicago. I do think #3 and #4 should be somewhere in a prominent place in the article. Dralwik16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm voting for this picture instead of picture number one, it was not an option when I originally voted.
Picture Vote
Above are many comments but not a distinct vote. Please vote below and sign ( ~~~~ ) your comments. Voting will end July 28th, 2005. Remember, this will not necessarily set in stone, if a better picture comes along (as decided by a consensus) in the future, we can always replace the one we choose with that.
Note: Signed votes from above were moved down to the appropriate picture.
Picture 1
Picture 2 (Partial panorama)
Support-I think this is a wonderful picture of Chicago because it shows most of the city all lit up, some buildings even have different color lights. Although I think #3 is an excellent picture and it should be included in the article, its proportions are not right to be in the infobox, it is much too tall and would make the infobox too long, a problem which existed with the original infobox. As for the first picture, I dont think it deserves to be in the article at all, much less the infobox. It strikes me as foggy, out of focus, and unoriginal, but thats just my opinion.--Gpyoungtalk02:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Picture 2a (Full panorama)
Support. I like this picture because it's: 1. Taken from an unique viewpoint 2. Shows the city at dusk thus showing the buildings lit up suggesting vitality and commerce. 3. Shows the great variety of buildings that is downtown Chicago. I do think #3 and #4 should be somewhere in a prominent place in the article. Dralwik16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Picture 3
I guess I'm the first (only) to prefer this shot, even though I don't think I like any of them enough to actually place a support vote. . OK, apparently I shouldn't comment here without voting; looking some more I will go ahead and support this picture. First, because the Hancock building is the iconic Chicago architectural landmark in my opinion (well, maybe next to the Water Tower), and this is the only shot to feature it (nearly the only one to show it at all). Also because it includes the beach and thus emphasizes the "by the lake" part of "the city by the lake". Yep, it doesn't emphasize the Sears tower but I think it is rather smart to avoid the cliched full-skyline shot (which is pretty hard to do well as other pictures here demonstrate). I'd sure like to move the article beyond pictures of skyscrapers anyway. Also, I would not support any picture that has been edited beyond color balancing or resizing (such as moving a building over). Jgm 23:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC) (updated Jgm03:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC))
Support - I like this picture because it is taken during the day so you can actually make out the buildings (unlike the night shots), it shows the skyline as well as a little bit of Grant Park, it is high resolution (2589x951 vs. 400x136 for Picture 2a), see the point about resolution at Wikipedia:How_to_improve_image_quality, and most importantly because I took the picture :) Shoffman11 20:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC), Edited: Shoffman1121:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
General comments
I like the first picture better an informational point of view but it is lacking in photographic quality. The second picture is better from a photographic standpoint but doesn't show as much of the Chicago city skyline. Neither picture shows the Hancock Building; this omission bothers me. I am going to see if I can improve the quality of the first picture. If the original photographer still has the raw image files, I'd really like to take a shot at making a better rendition. Kelly Martin 00:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I actually took the second one, and I intended to make it panoramic, but the other photo (which included the hancock) wasn't exposed the same so the panorama didn't work out. I personally didn't really like the old one, it's just a little too hazy. I think we just need a more impressive one of the city, whichever that is. Also, someone mentioned that they all look dated; the second one was taken on July 3, 2004. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk)00:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The 51-story 111 S. Wacker and 48-story 71 S. Wacker were both completed in 2005. They might show up in the photo. --Theodore Kloba 15:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Kelly above, and I am undecided as to my vote right now. I'd prefer a photo with less width and more height, as I think it would fit better with the table than a panoramic skyline. Perhaps something like this one. HollyAm00:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I find myself liking that photo better than either of the above or Image:Chicago-Illinois-USA-skyline-day-ccb.jpg, which is a modified version of the first one above (adjusted for color and to attempt to remove artifacts). Kelly Martin 01:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I dislike the origional photograph because it is, as was said before, lacking in photographic quality and I am greatly opposed to including it in the Chicago article at all, especially in the infobox. However, I do agree that it shows more of the city then number two, but not much more (number two doesnt show the Hancock either). If number two can be doctored, then it would be much more appropriate then the current form. But for now, I have to say number two.
I originally took number two as a panoramic (where the hancock was to the left), but the two pictures were not exposed the same so it didn't work out perfectly, and I just used the right of the two photos. However, I'm sure with a little playing around, I or someone else could piece the two photos together seemlessly. -- BMIComp (talk)01:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed; please send me the two pieces, I bet I can do it. Kelly Martin 19:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... They said there would be a vote, but all the choices are skyline shots; kinda like when they hold an election and all the choices are politicians. Seriously, though, if we must have a skyline I prefer the second one because it is the view from within the city, rather than from out on the lake. FWIW, I think all three are somewhat dated, since there are so many new skyscrapers in the past few years, especially along Wacker.
Here are some other possibilities for a "top" photo if we push the skyline-of-choice further down the page (or off onto the subpage about architecture, skyscrapers, etc.):
A view up the S. branch of the Chicago river (maybe from the Congress or Harrison bridge); a view east along the main branch from Wolf point or west from State.
A view out across the city from one of the skyscrapers, maybe along a rail line or expressway.
A view down LaSalle towards the CBOT (nearly as recognizable as Sears or Hancock, older, and vitally important to the City's role).
Really, we shouldn't get too worked up over this minor issue; Seattle, Washington was recently a featured article and it has a really crappy skyline shot right at the top... Hey, while we're at it, let's look at some other world cities and their lead photos:
Istanbul: A mediocre snapshot of Suleymaniye Mosque seen from Tepebaşı.
The seattle one is pretty good if you look at it full sized, but the thumbnail is too small. The only one that doesn't have a good picture representing the city at the top of the article is Istanbul. I just think a different Chicago picture or no picture at all would be better than the current one due to the image quality issues (not a bad picture, just very hazy). It is unflattering to have such a picture as the first thing you see when you look at the Chicago article. -- BMIComp (talk)19:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I have a picture I would like to add if it isn't too late. I won't add it as one of the choices unless somebody says I can. (I'm new Wikipedia and don't want to upset the long time editors of this article). I also have the same picture that isn't cropped if you want to include more of Grant Park in the foreground or the sky. I just took this picture last week (11 Jul 2005) so it is very recent. --Shoffman1118:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I like yours a lot, if it were an option I'd vote for it. I have one from last year I like a lot but it's ultra panoramic and somewhat dark.
* Thank you! Since this image has support, I have now included it as choice #4 to be voted on. If you really like this picture and want it to be the one chosen to be at the top of the Chicago article, show your support and vote for above. It is important that you re-vote for it since I did not copy your post right above this one. Shoffman1123:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Deletions/Changes in article - Shoffman11
Removed the text "Chicago is twinned with Birmingham, England." from the 20th Century History section because it feels out of place there. Furthermore, there is a whole list of sister cities of Chicago that are listed on a page under See Also.
Moved "Related Topics" and the following links from Climate to See Also. These links were Chicagoland, Chicago neighborhoods, Chicago community areas, Maps of Chicago, Aerial photographs of the city and metropolitan area, Chicago GIS Maps. These do not pertain to Climate, they are better suited to Chicago in general.
On this page's peer review, it was noted that the regional template (ie. The original {{Chicago}}) were much too long. I agree with this, and I have tried to condence it down into a template with only the sub-categories listed (see the new Chicago template). However, someone has added in another very large template from Illinois and one from Chicagoland. I do not think that we should keep these in their current form, perhaps the Chicago template can be expanded to include the main category links from Chicagoland? Please advise.
Thanks,
--Gpyoungtalk00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed them from the main article. These are not intended to be placed on the main article page, they are made to be put onto the discussion page. Tags like {{NPOV}}, {{Disputed}} and {{attention}} are placed on the main article page because they intend to notify the reader with issues reguarding the article. However, the Peer Review and WikiProject notifications are directed towards editors, hence they are placed on the Discussion page. For more information see WP:TM. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING)18:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a vote to decide which image is to be used at the top of the new Chicago article. This has been a very intense issue in the past, however in light of the recent improvments to the article, we feel that a consensus should be finally be reached.
It is understood that there was a vote on this issue already but since then the article has been subject to new improvment work by a new set of editors and we feel the question should be re-examined, especially since Chicagonight.jpg was not one of the images being voted on back then. Also, the current picture has been the source of some objections during the peer review and Featured Article nomination processes, preventing the article from being elevated to featured article status.
Please vote only once and, if desired, include a short blurb explaining why you voted the way you did. Only include votes in support of a certain picture. The two pictures here are Chicago-Illinois-USA-skyline-day.jpg, the original picture and the one that was voted on in the past but opposed in the peer review and featured article discussion, and Chicagonight.jpg, which is the one chosen by the members of WikiProject Chicago.
Voting will end at 22:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
This ending date was decided on after discussion on User_talk:Shoffman11 and elsewhere. Please don't change it back. Chicago is now a featured article candidate and we want picture #3 to be the lead picture. Picture #3 was voted the best picture in a vote taken between July 17 and July 28. We can't keep changing the picture while the article is a FAC. Shoffman1101:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Changing the ending date by nearly two weeks is an absolute outrage. As is making the decision to do so on a users talk page. Additionally, you set the ending for several days ago meaning you prematurely ended it. Shame on you, I am going to protest its nomination on this fact alone. This is absolutely ridiculous. I agree that it shouldn't have been changing, wait until the voting was ended. This is an absolute travesty! The picture should be changed back to picture 1 immediately and the voting date should be set back to August 13th. When you set a voting date you have to stick with it, that's the point. Ending balloting early because your fortunes change is not how it's done. This is absolute ridiculousness.
I'm not the one who changed it in the first place. Somebody else changed it first in the next section where the actual voting was held. Talk to User:Gpyoung and/or User:Bmicomp.
I have to agree regarding changing of the ending date for the voting. This just shows the sad state of thise wikipedia page when a set voting date is changed. It really should be changed back to the 13th. damouse
There seems to be a misconseption about which date was the Original ending date. When the vote was first set up, it was to end on July 28th. However, someone took it upon themselves to change it, without any discussion, to August 13th. The discussion on the user talk pages was for the purpose of restoring the original ending date, not to change it. I agree that once a date is set it shouldn't be changed; that is why it was changed back to the 28th. If people really want the date changed to the 13th of August, please state that in a discussion prior to changing it. Once agin, at no point were we trying to disenfranchise people of their oppertuniy to vote, we were just restoring the original ending date which was July 28th. I think we can all agree that this petty dispute is not helping Chicago's bid for Featured Article status and that we should get over our SMALL differences and disagreements and put things in perspective. --Gpyoungtalk18:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Update: A new image (#3) has been proposed and seems to have substancial support, so I have made an exception and have included it in the vote and reset the ending time to even the playing field.
Update #2: A new image (#4) has been proposed and already has support for it, so I (Shoffman11) have included it. The ending time of the vote has not been changed. (Shoffman1123:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
Support-I think this is a wonderful picture of Chicago because it shows most of the city all lit up, some buildings even have different color lights. Although I think #3 is an excellent picture and it should be included in the article, its proportions are not right to be in the infobox, it is much too tall and would make the infobox too long, a problem which existed with the original infobox. As for the first picture, I dont think it deserves to be in the article at all, much less the infobox. It strikes me as foggy, out of focus, and unoriginal, but thats just my opinion.
Support. I like this picture because it's: 1. Taken from an unique viewpoint 2. Shows the city at dusk thus showing the buildings lit up suggesting vitality and commerce. 3. Shows the great variety of buildings that is downtown Chicago. I do think #3 and #4 should be somewhere in a prominent place in the article. Dralwik16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm voting for this picture instead of picture number one, it was not an option when I originally voted.
Picture Vote
July 28th 2005: Voting Has Ended. The clear winner is Picture #3, which will be moved into the infobox at the top of the Chicago article.
--Gpyoungtalk17:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Above are many comments but not a distinct vote. Please vote below and sign ( ~~~~ ) your comments. Voting will end July 28th, 2005. Remember, this will not necessarily set in stone, if a better picture comes along (as decided by a consensus) in the future, we can always replace the one we choose with that.
Note: Signed votes from above were moved down to the appropriate picture.
Picture 1
Picture 2 (Partial panorama)
Support-I think this is a wonderful picture of Chicago because it shows most of the city all lit up, some buildings even have different color lights. Although I think #3 is an excellent picture and it should be included in the article, its proportions are not right to be in the infobox, it is much too tall and would make the infobox too long, a problem which existed with the original infobox. As for the first picture, I dont think it deserves to be in the article at all, much less the infobox. It strikes me as foggy, out of focus, and unoriginal, but thats just my opinion.--Gpyoungtalk02:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Picture 2a (Full panorama)
Support. I like this picture because it's: 1. Taken from an unique viewpoint 2. Shows the city at dusk thus showing the buildings lit up suggesting vitality and commerce. 3. Shows the great variety of buildings that is downtown Chicago. I do think #3 and #4 should be somewhere in a prominent place in the article. Dralwik16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Picture 3
I guess I'm the first (only) to prefer this shot, even though I don't think I like any of them enough to actually place a support vote. . OK, apparently I shouldn't comment here without voting; looking some more I will go ahead and support this picture. First, because the Hancock building is the iconic Chicago architectural landmark in my opinion (well, maybe next to the Water Tower), and this is the only shot to feature it (nearly the only one to show it at all). Also because it includes the beach and thus emphasizes the "by the lake" part of "the city by the lake". Yep, it doesn't emphasize the Sears tower but I think it is rather smart to avoid the cliched full-skyline shot (which is pretty hard to do well as other pictures here demonstrate). I'd sure like to move the article beyond pictures of skyscrapers anyway. Also, I would not support any picture that has been edited beyond color balancing or resizing (such as moving a building over). Jgm 23:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC) (updated Jgm03:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC))
Support. I wasn't sure which to vote for, but I'm also supporting this one for its professional quality, and I also think its dimensions would look good in the info box (although, I noticed that other city articles seem to just have a floating lead picture instead of one inside an infobox so maybe that is something to consider). Ultimately, the lead photo selection is a minor issue, but it seems we're all in agreement that picture #1 does not enhance the article. #4 is better quality than #1 and is recent but I would have liked to see the lake in the shot personally. I'm not voting for #2 because, while I love the city all lit up at night, my poor eyes do not get enough visual information from these relatively darker shots. But really, any of them, besides #1, would be okay by me. HollyAm02:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Absolutely the best, and actually the only one of professional publishing quality; though the other ones show wider views, they are depressingly lacking in contrast. This one is sharp, vibrant, saturated. Wow. I think it's important too that the caption should state something like "view south toward downtown from near north side" -- or something, to be clear this is only a section of the city. DavidH 01:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
DavidH, the vote has already ended as of 28 July 2005. Please see the first sentence of this sub-section. Your vote will still stand because Picture 3 has already won. -- Shoffman1101:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Support - I like this picture because it is taken during the day so you can actually make out the buildings (unlike the night shots), it shows the skyline as well as a little bit of Grant Park, it is high resolution (2589x951 vs. 400x136 for Picture 2a), see the point about resolution at Wikipedia:How_to_improve_image_quality, and most importantly because I took the picture :) Shoffman11 20:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC), Edited: Shoffman1121:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
'Support A clean good, panoramic view of the city, Far better than any of the other options.
18:03, July 26 2005.
General comments
I like the first picture better an informational point of view but it is lacking in photographic quality. The second picture is better from a photographic standpoint but doesn't show as much of the Chicago city skyline. Neither picture shows the Hancock Building; this omission bothers me. I am going to see if I can improve the quality of the first picture. If the original photographer still has the raw image files, I'd really like to take a shot at making a better rendition. Kelly Martin 00:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I actually took the second one, and I intended to make it panoramic, but the other photo (which included the hancock) wasn't exposed the same so the panorama didn't work out. I personally didn't really like the old one, it's just a little too hazy. I think we just need a more impressive one of the city, whichever that is. Also, someone mentioned that they all look dated; the second one was taken on July 3, 2004. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk)00:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The 51-story 111 S. Wacker and 48-story 71 S. Wacker were both completed in 2005. They might show up in the photo. --Theodore Kloba 15:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Kelly above, and I am undecided as to my vote right now. I'd prefer a photo with less width and more height, as I think it would fit better with the table than a panoramic skyline. Perhaps something like this one. HollyAm00:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I find myself liking that photo better than either of the above or Image:Chicago-Illinois-USA-skyline-day-ccb.jpg, which is a modified version of the first one above (adjusted for color and to attempt to remove artifacts). Kelly Martin 01:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I dislike the origional photograph because it is, as was said before, lacking in photographic quality and I am greatly opposed to including it in the Chicago article at all, especially in the infobox. However, I do agree that it shows more of the city then number two, but not much more (number two doesnt show the Hancock either). If number two can be doctored, then it would be much more appropriate then the current form. But for now, I have to say number two.
I originally took number two as a panoramic (where the hancock was to the left), but the two pictures were not exposed the same so it didn't work out perfectly, and I just used the right of the two photos. However, I'm sure with a little playing around, I or someone else could piece the two photos together seemlessly. -- BMIComp (talk)01:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed; please send me the two pieces, I bet I can do it. Kelly Martin 19:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... They said there would be a vote, but all the choices are skyline shots; kinda like when they hold an election and all the choices are politicians. Seriously, though, if we must have a skyline I prefer the second one because it is the view from within the city, rather than from out on the lake. FWIW, I think all three are somewhat dated, since there are so many new skyscrapers in the past few years, especially along Wacker.
Here are some other possibilities for a "top" photo if we push the skyline-of-choice further down the page (or off onto the subpage about architecture, skyscrapers, etc.):
A view up the S. branch of the Chicago river (maybe from the Congress or Harrison bridge); a view east along the main branch from Wolf point or west from State.
A view out across the city from one of the skyscrapers, maybe along a rail line or expressway.
A view down LaSalle towards the CBOT (nearly as recognizable as Sears or Hancock, older, and vitally important to the City's role).
Really, we shouldn't get too worked up over this minor issue; Seattle, Washington was recently a featured article and it has a really crappy skyline shot right at the top... Hey, while we're at it, let's look at some other world cities and their lead photos:
Istanbul: A mediocre snapshot of Suleymaniye Mosque seen from Tepebaşı.
The seattle one is pretty good if you look at it full sized, but the thumbnail is too small. The only one that doesn't have a good picture representing the city at the top of the article is Istanbul. I just think a different Chicago picture or no picture at all would be better than the current one due to the image quality issues (not a bad picture, just very hazy). It is unflattering to have such a picture as the first thing you see when you look at the Chicago article. -- BMIComp (talk)19:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I have a picture I would like to add if it isn't too late. I won't add it as one of the choices unless somebody says I can. (I'm new Wikipedia and don't want to upset the long time editors of this article). I also have the same picture that isn't cropped if you want to include more of Grant Park in the foreground or the sky. I just took this picture last week (11 Jul 2005) so it is very recent. --Shoffman1118:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I like yours a lot, if it were an option I'd vote for it. I have one from last year I like a lot but it's ultra panoramic and somewhat dark.
* Thank you! Since this image has support, I have now included it as choice #4 to be voted on. If you really like this picture and want it to be the one chosen to be at the top of the Chicago article, show your support and vote for above. It is important that you re-vote for it since I did not copy your post right above this one. Shoffman1123:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Intro, copyediting help
Want to contribute here, haven't been around long, and because this is up for featured article, want to say something first. Objections and comments welcomed.
Style things: Punctuation should be consistent, U.S. style (periods and commas inside quotes in all cases). Numbers under 10 should be written out (seven); 10 and over should be digits (20). Missing end periods and other minor things need fixing.
Intro again: Too long. Needs to be brief and bold and grab you. Chicago's a giant towering on the shore of Lake Michigan. Then get into details, nicknames, and so on. I can put a suggested rewrite here, or just attack it.
I think you are right and should take a run at making it a bit more lively. Jasenlee 22:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Does the megalopolis really extend to Milwaukee? Seems like there's quite a gap after the Wisconsin border. But if that's consistent with the census or advertising market classification, OK.
Yes, Megalopolis is an actually classification given to regions where a primary city (Chicago) is within the proximity of smaller secondary cities (Milwaukee). I disagree with this being removed and if others do as well I believe we should add it back in. Perhaps the intro is not the best part but I believe it is noteworthy. Jasenlee 22:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
No. Milwaukee is not an especially close neighbor of Chicago, and there is still a good, wide stretch of undeveloped countryside lying between the two cities. If the concept of "megalopolis" has been extended to take in an arbitrary lumping together of unconnected metropolitan areas like that, then it has ceased to have any coherent meaning.
Is "Desplaines" street really all one word like that?
Odd I know, but is in fact one word. Use Yahoo Maps as a reference point if needed. Jasenlee 22:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Although Yahoo Maps has many inaccuracies is shouldn't be regarded as an ultimate source, it is correct in this case (according to Streetwise Chicago, by Don Hayner & Tom McNamee. Des Plaines River Road, which is also (partly) in Chicago, uses the proper spelling of Des Plaines.Shsilver13:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
A bit too much high-school-essay phrasing: "due to" used repeatedly for "because." Needs some tightening up so it really sings. Instead of "...a new way of procuring clean water was needed," something more like "Chicago thirsted for a new clean water supply." Also, "Chicago holds a distinguished place in the United States for higher education as the home of such distinguished schools as...." -- too much distinguished without distinction.
Agreed, much of this will shake its self out over time. I would encourage you to take a crack at polishing some of it. Jasenlee 22:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily go chronological. Might be better to have the current culture and demographics, the vitality, come before the history and geography, unless the city format requires that order.
Overall, too many Wikilinks. It's a mess of different colored type. Others might disagree, but there's a point where helpful links turn into eye-crossing clutter. People can type "transportation" and similar generic terms in the Search box if they really need to. I say cut about half of them, just to make it less multicoloricious.
I disagree, I take the perspective of reader usability on this one. While I agree it may seem like a sea of blue links I don't think users should have to search for the articles they want. In many cases a user may not even know an article exists if it isn't linked and searching for it requires extra clicking and the hope that they will use the right keywords. Wikipedians in many cases have carefully selected and formated links to drive users to the right pages. Let me use a simplistic example of this... under the Cuisine section you will find a hotdog link. While most American's know what a hot dog is someone from a foreign land reading this might not. Now if it wasn't linked they could search on a hotdog and find out what it is by reading the general Wikipedia hotdog article. But in this case would they know to search for a Chicago Style Hot Dog? Probably not. Because of the editing on this paticular link they are driven to more specific information directly related to what they are reading. Jasenlee 22:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I did some major editing on the Great Chicago Fire article today. DavidH 02:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
OK, this is what happens when you can't sleep and there's an article crying out for just a little polishing. I attacked. Hope I made real improvements. I kinda want to make one more but will probably quit for now. That first sentence I think should have just the one, best-known nickname, the Windy City. Forget Second City, since it ain't really second no more, and it sounds weird with "...the Second City is the third largest city....". As you'll notice, I threw away NY and LA, cause why take the spotlight off the city of big shoulders and talk about who's number 1 and 2 in the first graf? DavidH 07:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Your comments are great and I don't think you came off like someone attacking at all. Your thoughts will only help improve the article and I encourage you to lend a hand in doing so. Now for the the Second City nickname, here are my thoughts. It isn't obsolete and is widely used despite the fact that Chicago is third largest city in the United States. It is a point of pride for most Chicagoans. The history of the nickname has more to do with other factors than just population data. It is referred to as such for the following reasons:
It was once the second largest in the U.S.
Citizens of Chicago carry a midwestern blue-collar attitude shrugging off the East vs. West coast battles. Meaning we don't mind being second to either L.A. or New York City if you want to group them into one. Hard to explain but those are my thoughts.
The city was reborn after the Great Chicago Fire making what we have today the second version of the city.
There are several famous organizations associated with the city, such as the Second City improvisational comedy troupe which has many famous alumni including Amy Sedaris, Shelly Long and a score of Saturday Night Live performers.
Thanks Jasenlee, as you can see, I've made a lot of edits to the intro and other sections. Now that the whole intro is shorter, I think the two nicknames can stand in the first sentence.
On the Wikilinks, I know people differ on this. But I took some out, because a link to the "water" article seems a bit silly in a sentence about how "high water" made it hard to get around before the city was raised. I mean, are people really going to think, "Gee, I wonder what "water" is? I guess I'll click the link." To me, it's a little like a TV show -- you want your audience to read the article, not be so helpful with links that they keep changing the channel. Anyway, great input, thanks for reading and taking time to respond. DavidH 00:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely on the water example. It used to be that every year would be linked. It was completely useless.
A vote has been held on Talk:Chicago,_Illinois between July 17 and July 28 to decide the lead picture for the Chicago article. The vote ended on July 28. Discussion was held on User_talk:Shoffman11 and elsewhere regarding the ending date of the vote and July 28 was reached as a compromise (the vote was originally going to be open for only 24 hours, but it was extended). Chicago is now a featured article candidate. Please don't change the lead picture any more, it has been decided by a community vote. Copied from article talk page:
July 28th 2005: Voting Has Ended. The clear winner is Picture #3, which will be moved into the infobox at the top of the Chicago article. --Gpyoung talk 17:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted back to the previous version of the Chicago Flag, which I believe is a more accurate design. These are the two images in question with potential references following:
The flag I reverted to is based heavily on the language of the original flag's designer, Wallace Rice, however, both flags shown comply with the municipal code describing the flag.
I agree, though, that it would be nice to have a flag in svg format. I created a similar version in AutoCAD that I'll try to export sometime soon. Mindfrieze23:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, JeremyA. I'd get a picture of City Hall myself but at the moment they're doing repair work on the facade and any photo would be mainly one of scaffolding. While that might be interesting, I'd rather wait until they're done. Kelly Martin11:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
