This is an archive of past discussions. 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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?
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)
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!
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.
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)
I think the following sections should be considered for this article or Chicago Sub Articles (not lists... prose):
There are two other templates proposed for all cities at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Please comment there so we can have one standard structure or template for cities. Petersam 07:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
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!
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.
I agree.
I agree as well. -- Jason 23:50, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
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 :)
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?
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
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
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)
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)
-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Why was beef changed to Beef? Kdammers 2 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)
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
-- Gpyoung 5 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)
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?
We should probably move the History onto its own page. What do you all think? -- BMIComp (talk) 9 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)
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)
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, -- Gpyoung talk 03:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
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, -- Gpyoung talk 21:22, 13 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, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Click here to go voting section
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. ( Shoffman11 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
Add Comments and click here to go voting section:
Still the best picture, the only one with a complete skyline. Edit: My vote is being changed to recently added picture #4.
Add Comments and click here to go voting section:
--
Gpyoung
talk 02:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
This is the image in #2 composited with its long lost left-side companion; as a result, it includes the Hancock Building.
Add Comments here and click here to go voting section:
Added 7/13/05
Add comments and click here to go voting section:
Added 7/20/05
Add comments and click here to go voting section:
I'm voting for this picture instead of picture number one, it was not an option when I originally voted.
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)
Picture 2a (Full panorama)
Picture 3
Picture 4
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.):
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:
-- Theodore Kloba 15:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Shoffman11 16:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
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, -- Gpyoung talk 00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have copied these symbols to the top of the main article. Is there any reason to keep them on the talk page also? Robert McClenon 18:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
That answers that. Robert McClenon 19:24, 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)
Click here to go voting section
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. ( Shoffman11 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
Add Comments and click here to go voting section:
Still the best picture, the only one with a complete skyline. Edit: My vote is being changed to recently added picture #4.
Add Comments and click here to go voting section:
--
Gpyoung
talk 02:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
This is the image in #2 composited with its long lost left-side companion; as a result, it includes the Hancock Building.
Add Comments here and click here to go voting section:
Added 7/13/05
Add comments and click here to go voting section:
Added 7/20/05
Add comments and click here to go voting section:
I'm voting for this picture instead of picture number one, it was not an option when I originally voted.
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)
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)
Picture 2a (Full panorama)
Picture 3
Picture 4
18:03, July 26 2005.
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.):
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:
-- Theodore Kloba 15:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
Jasenlee 22:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Jasenlee 20:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
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:
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Shoffman11 01:48, 31 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:
Reverted to: |
Reverted from: |
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. Mindfrieze 23:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
There are two images on this page that are nonfree and should be replaced with free images. They are Image:ChicagoWinter.jpg and Image:Chicagocityhall.jpg. Please make an effort to obtain replacement images for these images. Kelly Martin 16:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I've added Metra and PACE to this section as stubs. Tedernst 21:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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?
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)
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!
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.
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)
I think the following sections should be considered for this article or Chicago Sub Articles (not lists... prose):
There are two other templates proposed for all cities at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Please comment there so we can have one standard structure or template for cities. Petersam 07:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
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!
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.
I agree.
I agree as well. -- Jason 23:50, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
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 :)
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?
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
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
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)
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)
-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Why was beef changed to Beef? Kdammers 2 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)
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
-- Gpyoung 5 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)
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?
We should probably move the History onto its own page. What do you all think? -- BMIComp (talk) 9 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)
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)
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, -- Gpyoung talk 03:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
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, -- Gpyoung talk 21:22, 13 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, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Click here to go voting section
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. ( Shoffman11 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
Add Comments and click here to go voting section:
Still the best picture, the only one with a complete skyline. Edit: My vote is being changed to recently added picture #4.
Add Comments and click here to go voting section:
--
Gpyoung
talk 02:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
This is the image in #2 composited with its long lost left-side companion; as a result, it includes the Hancock Building.
Add Comments here and click here to go voting section:
Added 7/13/05
Add comments and click here to go voting section:
Added 7/20/05
Add comments and click here to go voting section:
I'm voting for this picture instead of picture number one, it was not an option when I originally voted.
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)
Picture 2a (Full panorama)
Picture 3
Picture 4
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.):
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:
-- Theodore Kloba 15:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Shoffman11 16:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
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, -- Gpyoung talk 00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have copied these symbols to the top of the main article. Is there any reason to keep them on the talk page also? Robert McClenon 18:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
That answers that. Robert McClenon 19:24, 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)
Click here to go voting section
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. ( Shoffman11 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
Add Comments and click here to go voting section:
Still the best picture, the only one with a complete skyline. Edit: My vote is being changed to recently added picture #4.
Add Comments and click here to go voting section:
--
Gpyoung
talk 02:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
This is the image in #2 composited with its long lost left-side companion; as a result, it includes the Hancock Building.
Add Comments here and click here to go voting section:
Added 7/13/05
Add comments and click here to go voting section:
Added 7/20/05
Add comments and click here to go voting section:
I'm voting for this picture instead of picture number one, it was not an option when I originally voted.
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)
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)
Picture 2a (Full panorama)
Picture 3
Picture 4
18:03, July 26 2005.
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.):
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:
-- Theodore Kloba 15:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
Jasenlee 22:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Jasenlee 20:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
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:
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Shoffman11 01:48, 31 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:
Reverted to: |
Reverted from: |
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. Mindfrieze 23:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
There are two images on this page that are nonfree and should be replaced with free images. They are Image:ChicagoWinter.jpg and Image:Chicagocityhall.jpg. Please make an effort to obtain replacement images for these images. Kelly Martin 16:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I've added Metra and PACE to this section as stubs. Tedernst 21:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)