Talk:Chicago/Archive 2

message: 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  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  while Chicagoland ranks at 9.65 million. So in this case you are correct. I suspect someone accidently mixed urban/metro population data.   Jasenlee 20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population Figures Worldwide are incorrect

message: I think the following sections should be considered for this article or Chicago Sub Articles (not lists... prose):
* History
* Law and government
** Crime (proposed)
** Social & Contemporary Issues (proposed)
* Environment (proposed)
** Geography
** Climate 
** Bodies of water 
** Agriculture (proposed)
** Flora (proposed)
** Maps (proposed)
** Urban Area
** Suburbs
* Economy
** Major industries and products
** Taxes
* Demographics
** Households 
** Age 
** Income 
** Demolingustics (proposed)
* Education (proposed)
**Public education (proposed)
**Private education (proposed)
**Charter schools (proposed)
**Libraries (proposed)
**Colleges & universities
*Communications and media
*Arts & culture
** Museums & Galleries (proposed)
** Zoos * Aquariums (proposed)
** Cultural Centers (proposed)
** Buildings & Landmarks (proposed)
** Music (proposed)
** Film & TV (proposed)
** Theater & Stage (proposed)
** Folklore (proposed)
** Cuisine (proposed)
** Parades & Holidays (proposed)
* Sports
** College (proposed)
** Professional 
** Stadiums (proposed)
* Health & medicine
* Transportation
** Taxis (proposed)
** Bicylcing (proposed)
* Tourism and recreation
** Events & Festivals (proposed)
** Shopping (proposed)
** Attractions 
* Infrastructure (proposed)
** Utilities (proposed)
* Religion (proposed)
**Notable houses of worship (proposed)
* Sources and further reading (proposed)
----
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)
thread_title:  Sections to be added/revised/considered 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Items Under Debate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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. 
: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. 
-- BMIComp  (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, yeah I noticed it in the text afterwards.  Peaceman 20:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-Write 

message: Add Comments and click here to go voting section:
*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.
--Gpyoung talk 02:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture 2: Chicagonight.jpg:

message: 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:
*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. Dralwik 16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture 2a: Chicago-night-sky.jpg:

message: Added 7/13/05
Add comments and click here to go voting section:
:NOTE: This article deleted for lack of source/copyright information. howcheng  {chat} 23:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture 3:Chicagoskyline2005.jpg

message: 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.--Gpyoung talk 02:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Vote 

message: * 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.
* Alphabetized links in "See More"
*Other minor copyedits
Shoffman11 16:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions/Changes in article - Shoffman11 

message: On this page's peer review, it was noted that the regional template (ie. The original ) 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)
thread_title:  Chicago/Illinois Regional Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 ,  and  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)
thread_title:  Peer Review and ChicagoWiki symbols 

message: Add Comments and click here to go voting section:
*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.
--Gpyoung talk 02:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture 2: Chicagonight.jpg:

message: 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:
*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. Dralwik 16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture 2a: Chicago-night-sky.jpg:

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  -- Shoffman11 01:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! DavidH 07:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Picture 4
#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)
thread_title:  Picture Vote 

message: A vote has been held on Talk:Chicago%2C_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)
thread_title: Lead Picture

message: 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:
Ref: http://introvert.net/blog/category/flag/
Reverted from: 
Ref: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-il-ch.html
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)
thread_title: Image of Chicago Flag

message: 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)
replies: text: I have replaced :Image:ChicagoWinter.jpg with a similar photo that I took—:Image:ChicagoWinter1.jpg. It's not quite the same, and maybe a better replacement can be found, but it is GFDL. I don't have a photo of city hall, but I'll try to remember to take one next time I am in the area.  JeremyA (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Martin 11:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonfree images 

message: I've added Metra and PACE to this section as stubs. Tedernst 21:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mass transit