Portal talk:Chicago

message: DYK issues
#Alignment not good
#Some pictures not showing
#Got to go get sources still
#:I have sourced all the DYK hooks except for one intersting one in the Portal:Chicago/Did_you_know/6 group. The rest were my own so I knew what dates they were from and could easily find them.  I don't know how to find this one, but am quite certain it is true and find it interesting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Portal drive discussions 

message: I think we should do the following (which I will get started doing)
#Add two new sections (one on each side) for Selected Lists to show off our :Category:FL-Class Chicago articles and Selected Landmarks to show off our :Category:FA-Class Chicago articles and :Category:GA-Class Chicago articles Chicago Landmarks
#:The Selected lists would include all :Category:FL-Class Chicago articles
#:Selected Landmarks would include the following Chicago Board of Trade Building, Chicago Theatre, Haymarket affair, Heller House, Historic Michigan Boulevard District, Hull House, Marquette Building (Chicago), Rookery Building, Union Stock Yards, and Wigwam (Chicago).
#::--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  01:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formating quality content for portal 

message: Gustavus Franklin Swift has been delisted.  Is it important to remove it from our selected biographies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well to keep it uniform best to have all the selected articles/bios etc be WP:GA or WP:FA, so my take would be yes.  Cirt (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are about a half dozen bios that fall under WP:CHICAGO by virtue of having categories that are among WP:CHIBOTCATS.  Several football players who played one season for Chicago professional football teams (Garland Rivers, Bob Chappuis, and Jim Thorpe), as well as Ann Bannon, Marion L. Brittain and Patti Smith all come to mind as persons who have categories that indicate an affiliation with our project, but that have insufficient content related to the project to include in the portal in my mind.  I have included just about all bios except for these.  Do you have an opinion on these articles?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  15:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that they are relevant, and they are of WP:GA or WP:FA quality, then sure.  Cirt (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies 

message: O.K. So what is left before we can nominate this for WP:FPOC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  04:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold your horses, :) - gimme a bit to go through all the new additions and stuff - my apologies but I have been busy with other portals lately.  Cirt (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPO check 

message: I like some of the images that you have chosen.  However, I don't like the new layout.  I think we should have certain images that we want people to see at all times. I would greatly prefer the following to the random redesign. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  08:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the version of the randomized intro.  It is used in Featured Portals - Portal:Oregon, Portal:Iceland, Portal:Philosophy of science, Portal:Indiana, among others.  Cirt (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not my stylistic preference.  The point is the reader who comes to the portal to get a summary of Chicago should not have to refresh to find our most important images.  We should show them where we are located, what our symbols are and depict the city in a single shot.  From an encyclopedic perspective, the above is superior.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P. S. not the border is optional.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However with the randomized version, every time the reader comes to the portal they get a fresh new look. The randomization of the intro increases dynamism.  I still think we should keep it the way it is.  The version with all the images together in the intro looks quite frankly cluttered and unseemly.  Cirt (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't we already giving the reader six other dynamic sections.  How about six part dynamics and one part encyclopedic?  I think you are going overboard with your with the use of a techinically sophisticated feature, which in the context of introduction as a sort of a WP:LEAD serves no encyclopedic purpose and instead is what one might term a gimmick.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  22:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: N.B.: for the record the above edit was modified with italicized text added at the time of this time stamp.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  13:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, we could possibly use the uncaptioned images to make it look less cluttered.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not sure if you are serious or not, but I said to the best of my ability, that in the context of the main image the dynamic feature is of little encyclopedic value and thus classifies as a gimmick.  Where dynamic selected features has the encyclopedic value of introducing content to a reader, in the context of a main image in an introduction, it is inappropriate.  Think of the introduction as a WP:LEAD for the portal.  By reading the lead the reader is prepared for the subject matter of the portal.  However, if we randomly present this introductory material each reader will have a different preparation for the article.  In the LEAD is common for great thought to go into formatting the proper introductory material for rapid synthesis.  We should carefully choose that which we present in order to prepare the reader rather than randomly do so.  A dynamic main image here is no more appropriate than would be randomizing any component of a lead in a WP:FA or WP:FL.  Read the first paragraph at gimmick and tell me if it is not spot on for the dynamic feature here.  It does not in any way help us introduce the city to show them that we can do this fancy dynamic image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  07:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your previous comment above was inappropriate. Please strike it out. The randomized feature is not "my gimmick", as you refer to it, "I think you are going overboard with your gimmicks." -- I did not develop this idea of randomization in the intro, therefore how could it possibly be my "gimmick", but rather a feature used in multiple other Featured Portals ?  If you can not be civil then it is not worth my time to work on this portal.  Cirt (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the statement to say precisely what I mean, which is in the bounds of civiliity as I understand them.  I value your contributions to the Portal and hope my effort at elucidation is instructive rather than insulting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  13:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Referring to the use of a randomized feature which is used in multiple other Featured Portals as a "gimmick" is still not the best way to further polite dialog about this issue. I have asked for input from an experienced portal contributor, , as this is getting to a point where this discussion could use input from someone experienced in getting many portals to Featured Portal Status, and will await his comment.  Cirt (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks RichardF. I don't quite think the portal is ready for a peer review just yet, but glad to have your input here.  Cirt (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would a typical portal intro word count be?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a word counter, but one or two paragraphs are very typical. RichardF (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: RichardF - I had shortened the intro text from four paragraphs down to two, using the WP:LEAD from the article Chicago.  I now see that this edit was undone by .  Normally if the information is taken from the WP:LEAD of an article, it can be assumed that the information is sourced in that article, but now with this expanded info, this appears to all be completely WP:OR (Not to mention that you said above that even the prior version that I had used, with two paragraphs, was way too long and would have encountered trouble at a Featured Portal Candidate discussion).  Cirt (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The WP:FPO city Portals I have looked at (Portal:Houston, Portal:Indianapolis, Portal:Indianapolis and Portal:London) do not use the dynamic feature.  I do acknowledge that they all have intros substantially shorter than this one.  I will shorten.  I did revert cirt's intro text change because he had copied it from  Chicago which had been demoted from A-Class to GA-Class to B-Class in the last year (see edit summary). I copied the long version of this there instead.  I will shorten once you give me a word count or shorten to as long as Houston without response.  I will revert the intro image if cirt is not going to be involved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Tony, you have not exactly been the most civil of people here, and I generally don't think you'r in any position to insult and/or offend Cirt, given the fact he knows what he is doing. Cirt solely went through and brought the sixty or so amount of selected articles up to standard, and without him, this portal would probably only have a small chance of being featured. I can see your point, but please, don't criticize and mock others. You, like I am not perfect either. Qst (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't intend to insult and I did not mock him in any way. Cirt has reformatted my work very well, and beyond my capabilities, but he did not do it by himself.  Is there anything in particular that you believe is mocking?  The use of the word gimmick is my attempt to point out that no other WP:FPO cities have dynamic images.  I think the feature is essential to the rest of the portal but not the intro.  I continue to view an intro like a WP:LEAD although Portal people like them a lot shorter.  If english is not your primary language and you interpreted something I wrote as mocking I apologize to you, but I owe Cirt no apology.  I am not going to say I like having the best image only appear 20% of the time in the intro. If Cirt wants all his portal friends to come by and say they like the feature wherever he puts it and to scream at me that is fine.  As always things go by consensus whether it be honest opinion or concerted effort.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? I'm not willing to sit here and argue with you, but I think you do owe him an apology, and yes, my native language is English, thanks. And Cirt did not ask me to come here and comment, so don't make "portal buddy" accusations, please. Qst (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I would like to note that User:Cirt's work has been invaluable in terms of bringing this portal up to current standards.  I appreciate User:Dihydrogen Monoxide appreciation for my work on behalf of WP:CHICAGO.  I actually interpret his response as a neutral or weak support although it may be read by others as a support for my side of the debate.  In terms of what is best for the project, his argument is neutral.  Me ego could stand rotation method in the intro if it were deemed to be standard policy or preferable.  I view Cirt as an equal and a co-author in terms of development of this portal. Any argument based on who did the more important work is a very tough call and I am not even sure I want any judgement on who do more/better work. The portal would not be featured quality without his technical expertise.  I happened to know where to find all the DYKs because they were almost all my own.  However, the way I maintain the WP:CHIFC and WP:CHIGA sections anyone could have found most of the rest except for the quotes which preexisted our recent efforts to pursue WP:FPOC.  Anyways, thanks for all the time and consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: After TonyTheTiger invited me to comment on this, I think I am standing neutral as to whether lead and its images should be randomized. Both have its pros and cons, and I can't see one outweighs another. And please watch your tone, TonyTheTiger. Some of your comments above are on the borderline of being incivil. OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro images 

message: Another option for the intro image would be to use :Image:Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg. I tested it at my sandbox. RichardF (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interesting compromise.  However, that image is used in so many Chicago articles that I thought a better compromise might be :Image:Chicago Downtown Aerial View.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a suggestion.  :-) RichardF (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panoramic intro image 

message: Hi, Sorry if this isn't in the right place, but what is the syntax? (The article in question is Esther "Eppie" Pauline Friedman Lederer.)Also, I've already requested a peer review in the biographies portal box thing, is it overdoing it to request one via the Chicago portal as well? Thanks very much.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I request peer review for articles which are Chicago portals? 

message: Is there some reason why the article "Tiffany Building (San Francisco)" is listed there as within the WikiProject (Chicago)?  I didn't spot a connection.--Pechmerle (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiffany Building (San Francisco) - why? 

message: :File:Forster young.jpg is used on Portal:Chicago/Quote/8. The image has been deleted. Should the link be removed or replaced with another photo of Forster? —HueSatLum 22:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced it with the portrait from the article. Any good? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  —HueSatLum 14:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted image 

message: Hello, Chicagolanders. I have nominated Portal:New York City for Featured Portal status. Since your fine portal is an FPO, I'd appreciate your comments in the discussion, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:New York City. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:New York City]] FPO nomination 

message: The portal lead states that Chicago is the "Second largest great lakes city."  Here is a list: List_of_cities_on_the_Great_Lakes.  Is any of the cities is larger?  If not, the portal lead ought to be corrected. - 173.28.93.51 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second largest great lakes city? 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals is back!
The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018.
Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, and design the portals of the future.
As of April 29th, membership is at 56 editors, and growing.
There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for each component of portals.
Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.
And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.
From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject.      — The Transhumanist    03:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status report from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals|Portals WikiProject]]