This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Exelon Pavilions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Exelon Pavilions is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 10, 2010. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should {{ Engineering}} be added to this page?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I undid an edit back to my version since it added a link to a dab pg and incorrectly called the "References" section as "Notes". -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we need one more image. Here are the unused ones I could find
What do others think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Very decent pictures indeed.
12.41.255.10 (
talk) 18:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Following up on Wehwalt's questions at FAC, if it helps: There is one source that claims the limit is effectively 40 feet. (Cartiere, Cameron (2008). The Practice of Public Art. New York: Routledge. p. 141.). Regarding the buildings, some of the older buildings (like the Art Institute) were allowed under less restrictive covenants and because Montgomery Ward chose not to challenge them. The more modern buildings (and expansions to the Art Institute) have been allowed because they were deemed necessary (more precisely non unnecessary) to the purpose of the park. There is an excellent discussion of the legal history here.-- Nasty Housecat ( talk) 15:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I've read all the Grant Park decisions very carefully and can't find any reference to a 40-foot height limit or de minimis exemption. Since the entire Background section seemed to exist primarily to lead to the unsupported conclusion that the pavilions don't violate the Ward decisions, I've deleted it. Dennis McClendon ( talk) 04:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I've again removed the utterly superfluous Background section, because it exists solely to prove something that is demonstrably untrue: that buildings under 40 feet or something are not forbidden by the Montgomery Ward decisions. They clearly are, but that decision is not self-enforcing; some land owner on the west side of Michigan has to sue to enforce the injunction. The first time I deleted this section, I was told that the Ward decisions themselves were not sufficient authority for this proposition, as they were somehow "original research." Now there's a recent law review article examining the cases in detail, which should put to rest this "40-foot" nonsense. https://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v105/n4/1417/LR105n4Kearney.pdf Dennis McClendon ( talk) 13:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I am calling it a night, but there are still a few unresolved issues from the FAC.
I will reread the FAC and add more as needed here tomorrow - thanks especailly to Tony and to all the reviewers, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the featured article? Seriously? No wonder why most people don't care about solar energy.-- 200.95.129.67 ( talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I just removed this from the lead, right after ref 1 (these make enough electricity for 14 Energy Star houses). The statement was added while it was on the Main Page.
"or $2,380 of electricity per year at current Illinois electricity prices. [1]"
The ref http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html is a reliable source, but just gives average prices for electricty by state. The problem is that you have to add the total electricty production of the north and south pavilions (16,000 plus 3,840 kilowatt-hours), then do the math to find out how much their output would have sold for in Illinois in 2010. This seems like original research to me, and even if it is allowed, this is based on 2010 figures and so needs a date (and will quickly become outdated). Is this worth including? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
While doing the math, has anyone botherd to work out that the "14 houses" can only use on average 0.16kWh per hour ? That's a house running on the equivilent of one 100 watt old-style bulb plus one 60 watt. Has Chicago published an exagerated claim ? And does this use of analogy distort the average reader's concept of how much electricity (or how little) we are actually talking about ? -- Rwberndt ( talk) 13:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Exelon Pavilions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I edited the article to change some of the {{ convert}} templates. Following is a record of the old and new converts, and the results they display.
Converts in article as at 28 December 2016
{{convert|19840|kWh|MBtu|0}} |
19,840 kilowatt-hours (67,697 MBtu) |
{{convert|40|ft}} |
40 feet (12 m) |
{{convert|50|ft|adj=on}} |
50-foot (15 m) |
{{convert|139|ft|m|adj=on}} |
139-foot (42 m) |
{{convert|16000|kWh|MBtu|0|lk=on}} |
16,000 kilowatt-hours (54,594 MBtu) |
{{convert|6100|sqft|m2|1}} |
6,100 square feet (566.7 m2) |
{{convert|9|ft|m|1|adj=on}} |
9-foot (2.7 m) |
{{convert|4100|sqft|m2|1}} |
4,100 square feet (380.9 m2) |
{{convert|550|sqft|m2|adj=on}} |
550-square-foot (51 m2) |
{{convert|750|sqft|m2|1}} |
750 square feet (69.7 m2) |
{{convert|3840|kWh|MBtu|1}} |
3,840 kilowatt-hours (13,102.6 MBtu) |
{{convert|19840|kWh|MBtu|0}} |
19,840 kilowatt-hours (67,697 MBtu) |
Converts in article after edit 23 January 2017
{{convert|19840|kWh}} |
19,840 kilowatt-hours (71,400 MJ) |
{{convert|40|ft}} |
40 feet (12 m) |
{{convert|50|ft|adj=on}} |
50-foot (15 m) |
{{convert|139|ft|m|adj=on}} |
139-foot (42 m) |
{{convert|16000|kWh|lk=on}} |
16,000 kilowatt-hours (58,000 MJ) |
{{convert|6100|sqft|m2}} |
6,100 square feet (570 m2) |
{{convert|9|ft|m|adj=on}} |
9-foot (2.7 m) |
{{convert|4100|sqft|m2}} |
4,100 square feet (380 m2) |
{{convert|550|sqft|m2|adj=on}} |
550-square-foot (51 m2) |
{{convert|750|sqft|m2}} |
750 square feet (70 m2) |
{{convert|3840|kWh}} |
3,840 kilowatt-hours (13,800 MJ) |
{{convert|19840|kWh}} |
19,840 kilowatt-hours (71,400 MJ) |
I removed the precision numbers such as |1
because they did not give helpful results, but the main reason for the edit was to remove the MBtu unit because it will be removed from convert per
this discussion. Apparently MBtu is ambiguous and means million BTU in some contexts and thousand BTU in others.
Johnuniq (
talk) 10:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Exelon Pavilions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Exelon Pavilions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Exelon Pavilions is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 10, 2010. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should {{ Engineering}} be added to this page?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I undid an edit back to my version since it added a link to a dab pg and incorrectly called the "References" section as "Notes". -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we need one more image. Here are the unused ones I could find
What do others think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Very decent pictures indeed.
12.41.255.10 (
talk) 18:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Following up on Wehwalt's questions at FAC, if it helps: There is one source that claims the limit is effectively 40 feet. (Cartiere, Cameron (2008). The Practice of Public Art. New York: Routledge. p. 141.). Regarding the buildings, some of the older buildings (like the Art Institute) were allowed under less restrictive covenants and because Montgomery Ward chose not to challenge them. The more modern buildings (and expansions to the Art Institute) have been allowed because they were deemed necessary (more precisely non unnecessary) to the purpose of the park. There is an excellent discussion of the legal history here.-- Nasty Housecat ( talk) 15:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I've read all the Grant Park decisions very carefully and can't find any reference to a 40-foot height limit or de minimis exemption. Since the entire Background section seemed to exist primarily to lead to the unsupported conclusion that the pavilions don't violate the Ward decisions, I've deleted it. Dennis McClendon ( talk) 04:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I've again removed the utterly superfluous Background section, because it exists solely to prove something that is demonstrably untrue: that buildings under 40 feet or something are not forbidden by the Montgomery Ward decisions. They clearly are, but that decision is not self-enforcing; some land owner on the west side of Michigan has to sue to enforce the injunction. The first time I deleted this section, I was told that the Ward decisions themselves were not sufficient authority for this proposition, as they were somehow "original research." Now there's a recent law review article examining the cases in detail, which should put to rest this "40-foot" nonsense. https://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v105/n4/1417/LR105n4Kearney.pdf Dennis McClendon ( talk) 13:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I am calling it a night, but there are still a few unresolved issues from the FAC.
I will reread the FAC and add more as needed here tomorrow - thanks especailly to Tony and to all the reviewers, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the featured article? Seriously? No wonder why most people don't care about solar energy.-- 200.95.129.67 ( talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I just removed this from the lead, right after ref 1 (these make enough electricity for 14 Energy Star houses). The statement was added while it was on the Main Page.
"or $2,380 of electricity per year at current Illinois electricity prices. [1]"
The ref http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html is a reliable source, but just gives average prices for electricty by state. The problem is that you have to add the total electricty production of the north and south pavilions (16,000 plus 3,840 kilowatt-hours), then do the math to find out how much their output would have sold for in Illinois in 2010. This seems like original research to me, and even if it is allowed, this is based on 2010 figures and so needs a date (and will quickly become outdated). Is this worth including? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
While doing the math, has anyone botherd to work out that the "14 houses" can only use on average 0.16kWh per hour ? That's a house running on the equivilent of one 100 watt old-style bulb plus one 60 watt. Has Chicago published an exagerated claim ? And does this use of analogy distort the average reader's concept of how much electricity (or how little) we are actually talking about ? -- Rwberndt ( talk) 13:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Exelon Pavilions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I edited the article to change some of the {{ convert}} templates. Following is a record of the old and new converts, and the results they display.
Converts in article as at 28 December 2016
{{convert|19840|kWh|MBtu|0}} |
19,840 kilowatt-hours (67,697 MBtu) |
{{convert|40|ft}} |
40 feet (12 m) |
{{convert|50|ft|adj=on}} |
50-foot (15 m) |
{{convert|139|ft|m|adj=on}} |
139-foot (42 m) |
{{convert|16000|kWh|MBtu|0|lk=on}} |
16,000 kilowatt-hours (54,594 MBtu) |
{{convert|6100|sqft|m2|1}} |
6,100 square feet (566.7 m2) |
{{convert|9|ft|m|1|adj=on}} |
9-foot (2.7 m) |
{{convert|4100|sqft|m2|1}} |
4,100 square feet (380.9 m2) |
{{convert|550|sqft|m2|adj=on}} |
550-square-foot (51 m2) |
{{convert|750|sqft|m2|1}} |
750 square feet (69.7 m2) |
{{convert|3840|kWh|MBtu|1}} |
3,840 kilowatt-hours (13,102.6 MBtu) |
{{convert|19840|kWh|MBtu|0}} |
19,840 kilowatt-hours (67,697 MBtu) |
Converts in article after edit 23 January 2017
{{convert|19840|kWh}} |
19,840 kilowatt-hours (71,400 MJ) |
{{convert|40|ft}} |
40 feet (12 m) |
{{convert|50|ft|adj=on}} |
50-foot (15 m) |
{{convert|139|ft|m|adj=on}} |
139-foot (42 m) |
{{convert|16000|kWh|lk=on}} |
16,000 kilowatt-hours (58,000 MJ) |
{{convert|6100|sqft|m2}} |
6,100 square feet (570 m2) |
{{convert|9|ft|m|adj=on}} |
9-foot (2.7 m) |
{{convert|4100|sqft|m2}} |
4,100 square feet (380 m2) |
{{convert|550|sqft|m2|adj=on}} |
550-square-foot (51 m2) |
{{convert|750|sqft|m2}} |
750 square feet (70 m2) |
{{convert|3840|kWh}} |
3,840 kilowatt-hours (13,800 MJ) |
{{convert|19840|kWh}} |
19,840 kilowatt-hours (71,400 MJ) |
I removed the precision numbers such as |1
because they did not give helpful results, but the main reason for the edit was to remove the MBtu unit because it will be removed from convert per
this discussion. Apparently MBtu is ambiguous and means million BTU in some contexts and thousand BTU in others.
Johnuniq (
talk) 10:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Exelon Pavilions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)