Talk:Chicago/Archive 1

message: # All the pictures are great and should be included in the article, but the proportions of this one make it feel like the best photo for the top spot. Thryduulf 17:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support #1 

message: Isn't this article getting rather long? Perhaps some of this should go into sub-articles? Bkonrad 02:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break up long article? 

message: OK, I changed Indian Territory to Indiana Territory because Illinois was never part of Indian Territory. Then I check the Chicago Public Library website about the flag  and it had the same bogus information. I don't know if it is worth noting in the article. And for what it is worth, to actually be accurate it should be a six-pointed star to include Illinois Territory. Bkonrad | Talk 01:50, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Municipal flag 

message: While it is mildly amusing to read about rotting marshland onions right there at the beginning of the article, surely this could be moved in a separate section rather than cluttering up the introduction? :) --Shallot 13:28, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of the name 

message: Why the page name move? This makes no sense. -Joseph (Talk) 02:30, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
:There was some discussion of this some months ago - no real consensus. john k 02:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a standard of having article names as short as possible and, if there's more than one thing with a particular name, the most well known gets to be shortest and all the others have to each have something to indicate them specifically in their name. The Chicago in question is by far more well known than the band, any other town named that, or any other such thing. -- Djinn112 ♠♥♣♦, 02:57, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Seems like bunk to me. I suggest putting it to a vote. -Joseph (Talk) 03:04, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
It's not bunk, but rather than this, the topic should've been brought up on the cities talk page, where it's been discussed before.  john k 03:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: :Image:Chicago Skyline at Sunset.png - This one is a featured picture.  In order for it to retain featured picture status, it kind of needs to be placed on this article somewhere. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Chicago Skyline at Sunset.png 

message: Niteowlneils, lets put it to a vote here: Chicago or Chicago, Illinois? Dralwik 15:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: I'm taking this off of WP:RM as it is an issue about naming conventions and not an individual move.  The applicable policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) and discussions or votes on the use of "the comma convention" should be taken up there.  This article should therefore not be moved unless that policy is changed. violet/riga (t) 16:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was moved without consensus, so I worry that if I move it, it will just be moved back, and I don't want to get into a move war--since the person moving it didn't wait for consensus then, I have no reason to believe they'd wait now. Also, FWIW, given the large number of other common uses of "Chicago", I believe there's a stronger argument for Chicago (disambiguation) to be moved to replace the redir at Chicago than any other single use, including the city. And while, yes, there are things like Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules, this clarification provides some insight as to the intent (which I read as 'friendly, collaborative edits in the direction consensus seems to indicate'): Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules#from_User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. And, again, when one is making hundreds of edits a day, lack of convention for names would slow things down considerably. Niteowlneils 20:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: That talk-page discussion on the US/Canada policy fizzled out before we could achieve consensus (though we got reeeeeeally close once).  Any chance people from here could revive it?  Violetriga already got a new section started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)#Chicago. - jredmond 20:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with the move on some levels, but think the naming convention should be updated before this move is performed. violet/riga (t) 21:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would basically agree.  The main reason I'm voting for the move, though, is in the hopes that this will force us to some discussion that might result in a change of the naming convention, since the last discussion petered out.  I also think that, given that the current naming convention was arrived at after a poll in which something like five people participated, and in which the vote was something like 3 to 2, and which was later shown (in the discussions about moving the New York City article) not to be supported by consensus, isn't owed any particular deference, except insofar as we should change it if we don't think it ought to be abided by. john k 20:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This spent an appropriate amount of time on WP:RM and the overall decision is that this article should not be moved. violet/riga (t) 16:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stays at Chicago, Illinois, do not move to Chicago.   Petersam 19:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: I was doing some work to restore a bunch of deleted info, and I happened to notice there are two Events sections that need to be merged. I think it should be done by a current or former Chicagoan, or at least someone that's visited there, and I don't fall into any of those categories. Niteowlneils 02:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events Merger 

message: The link to International Appliance Technical Conference & Exhibition or IATC links to redirect back to Chicago, which is rather inapropriate. There should be at least a stub, but I don't know anything about this. Samohyl Jan 12:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: Does anyone know what happened to this section? I'm tempted to create a new section called List of Important Chicago Citizens but don't want to until I know for sure.
--Jason 11:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of Natives (in a different sense), does anybody else find it hilarious that we should say "Chicago was first settled by Europeans when Jean Baptiste Point du Sable, an African American from Haiti, settled on the banks of the Chicago River." H'm, let me think. Du Sable – he's from the Americas – his ancestors were African – so when he moves to Chicago (and marries a Potawatomi woman), it's a European settlement! Of course! I suppose Filipino immigration to Guam must be a tremendous achievement for the Sudanese people. When the Americans storm into Baghdad, they are of course scoring a major victory for the Confucian traditions of Korea. Hooray for wikinonsense! QuartierLatin1968 01:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More clear? Um, just that there's nothing European about Du Sable. He's West Indian by birth, North American by residence, African by descent, Potawatomi by adoption. I see your point that the word "settler" means non-indigenous people. But the word here was actually "settled", which (to me) means something more generic that indigenous people can do. Does the expression "a Native settlement" seem wrong to you? It sounds fine to me – but perhaps this is a generational thing. Anyway, honest versus PC is the falsest dichotomy I've ever heard. It's to get rid of a dishonesty (the silly notion that Du Sable moving to Chicago makes a "European" settlement) that I made the change to start with. If people reflect for a moment about what they actually mean to say, without being bone-headedly insensitive about it, the outcome is usually as politically correct as anybody could wish. QuartierLatin1968 07:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Natives/Important Citizens 

message: There should be something here or at Streets and highways of Chicago about the double-decker streets downtown. Hell, there isn't even an article about Wacker Drive, which is sometimes considered one of the precursors to the modern freeway.
I am also requesting some help. I have tried every once in a while to create an accurate map of the double and triple decker streets, and have always failed due to not having enough data. I have never seen a map that shows these streets properly. I would like some help, in the form of someone in the area that can go downtown and report on specific streets. I can and will create this map if I have adequate data. --SPUI (talk) 02:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea! I can help you with the streets—I'm leaving a longer message on your talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 07:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Double decker streets