Talk:Chicago metropolitan area

message: The term "Chicagoland" is commonly used by residents of Chicago and surrounding counties in Illiois to refer to the geographical area around Chicago.  In common practice among residents of the region, the term "Chicagoland" basically includes Cook County, Lake County (Illinois), DuPage County and portions of Will and Kane Counties.  In recent years, due to urban sprawl, the term "Chicagoland" has been occasionally "stretched" to include Illinois counties that do not border Cook such as DeKalb, Kankakee, McHenry, Kendall and Grundy.  However, the the "Chicagoland" does NOT include any adjacent counties in Indiana or Wisconsin.  
Northwest Indiana is part of the Chicago Metropolitan Area according to the U.S. census bureau but it has never been referred to by the term "Chicagoland".  In fact, there is always a distinction on television and in the media between "Chicagoland" and "Northwest Indiana".  Commercials always state "see your Chicagoland or Northwest Indiana Chevy Dealer".  Harris Bank, a major Chicago bank recently acquired Mercantile Bank of Hammond, Indiana.  They consider this their first expansion outside of the "Chicagoland" area.  People in Northwest Indiana seldom say that they are from Chicago.  They simply say they are from Northwest Indiana or just Indiana, if a particular geographical reference is needed people usually reference "Gary". 
The reasons the term "Chicagoland" excludes Northwest Indiana are many.  Geographically, there is an extensive area of steel mills and gasoline refineries separating Indiana from Illinois.  There is also a strong regional pride as Northwest Indiana has its own uniqueness apart from Chicago and its suburbs.  There is a different state lottery.  Laws regarding fireworks and firearms are much more liberal than Illinois laws.  There are strong ties to long standing Indiana institutions such as Purdue University, Indiana University, and Notre Dame.  Important decisions affecting ther region are made in Indianapolis and not Chicago.  Gary is the birthplace of Michael Jackson and well know throughout the U.S., it is in itself a large urban area that can be used as a reference point by Northwest Indiana residents.  Northwest Indiana has its own Newspapers, a couple of radio stations and residents can receive NBC and CBS affiliates from both South Bend and Chicago via cable or antenna.
:That's a big speech considering you're wrong. I grew up in Hammond and we always considered ourselves part of Chicagoland. Commercials on Chicago TV, consider NW Indidan as part of Chicagoland
99.149.196.156 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again. Kenosha is part of the Milwaukee Radio and TV DMA but IS NOT part of the Milwaukee Metro area
99.149.196.156 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Chicagoland" and "Chicago Metropolitan Area":  Two Different Terms

message: The "Zones" graphic at right is included in the article but has no explanation, e.g. what the zones represent or who designated them. You get a little more information by clicking through to the full image, but not much. Anyone care to explain the graphic in the article, or should it be removed? InterruptorJones 08:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Zones" graphic 

message: I created the zones image based roughly on the image found at http://www.wildonions.org/chicagoland-rings.jpg. The image zones as are follows:
* 1 - Downtown Chicago
* 2 - Chicago
* 3 - Outer Chicago City Limits and Inner Suburbs
* 4 - Ring Suburbs
* 5 - Newly Developing Suburbs
* 6 - Possible Future Development in Chicagoland
Obviously this is debatable on what zones could be defined as. 
It was hard for me to define what they were in the image caption's box. If you click on the image and find details, it will explain what the zones are, but this is harder to get to.
--Isipeoria 06:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to say this about your hard work, Isipeoria, because I like the presentation -- but it's perilously close to original research.   If you could provide some external source for this division, i.e. if your map were only presenting a disntinction drawn by some other source, then it would be more WP-appropriate.  It's a shame, because I think it's a well-done graphic and I like the zone concept you're promoting, but probably doesn't belong in WP.   Cheers, PhilipR 03:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: drawing circles on a map is not the kind of original research that worries Wiki. It's fine. Of course it repeats the zones theory of the Chicago school of sociology which had similar maps in the 1920s. Rjensen 02:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inferring that you're asserting that this sort of OR doesn't worry Wikipedia (not other wikis or wiki software).   Wikipedia is a heterogeneous community and I question your authority (or that of any individual) to speak for it in its entirety, so instead I turn to the published standards.   I'm not exactly losing sleep over it, but the inclusion of graphical elements that represent an arbitrary division determined by the author does appear to fall under WP:NOR's injunction against a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."    If the Chicago School drew similar maps to indicate some variable, why don't we recreate one of those, or at least try to cite whatever variable they were indicating on their maps?   Even if they just drew arbitrary lines, their lines are more worthy of inclusion in WP by virtue of their stature as sociologists.   Or if the source is wildonions.com and that site has some claim to authority in interpreting the divisions of Chicagoland, then cite it in the article.   All this is not to say that I don't appreciate the author's work involved, and perhaps with a clearer definition of "ring suburbs" etc. or better sourcing it could become encyclopedic.   - PhilipR 04:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a "novel" interpretation to say someplace is 50 miles from the Loop. Drawing the 50-mile line is pretty uncontroversial--the variable is simply distance. The theory for zones has been standard in sociology for 80 years (using Chicago zone maps): "Ernest W. Burgess's famous map of the concentric zones of city development, probably the most famous single visual document in the history of sociology.". Rjensen 09:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no doubt of the soundness of the idea, nor of its clear relation to earlier work.  This is not a crackpot theory, which is what NOR was originally designed to combat, but, absent a source for those zones and their labelling, I am afraid it does count as OR here.  This sort of concentric zone analysis is commonplace now.  If the idea and those distances are described anywhere, then we are on solid ground, and the original graphic is a GFDL thing, not an OR thing.  Failing that, I am afraid it is the sort of thing we need to avoid doing in order not to tempt people to do the things we really don't want them to do.  Robert A.West (Talk) 10:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of Zones Graphic 

message: There should be some information on demographics? Is there an easy way to acquire the knowledge?SenorAnderson 01:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: As a non-resident of chicago I notice that the description of Chicagoland and the first graphic on the page do not indicate the same area, it would be nice if someone could make the two match or give some explanation as to why the graphic is different.Stardust8212 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I've said many times in other parts of Wikipedia, Chicagoland is simply a conceptual idea.  For purposes of uniformity I think we at Wikipedia should come to a consensus on what we believe is a good metric for membership into Chicagoland. Personally, I think it should have to do with more variables than the percentage of residents that commute to the city of Chicago for work. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The second pic, in my opinion, is far more accurate. The Person Who Is Strange 21:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining Chicagoland 

message: The top of the infobox: Chicago, Naperville, Michigan City
The infobox itself: Chicago, Gary, Naperville
The article text: Chicago, Gary, Kenosha
Someone want to pick three and keep them standard? OzLawyer 11:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that that we can precisely define the term "Chicagoland".  In fact, I believe it would be somewhat presumptuous of us to even try since the definition varies from user to user.  Fr'instnace, there are 7.7 million Google hits for the term.  One of the first usages precisely refers to the seven-county area, but most of the others very vaguely use the term instead of "Chicago area".  MrHarman 04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the Census often picks weird cities to represent the anchor cities of the metro area.  They limit it to Naperville and Michigan City.  I don't know why.  Why they don't include larger, more established cities like Aurora, Joliet, Gary, Elgin, Kenosha, and Waukegan is beyond me, yet they all can be considered anchor cities, as they are large, well-established industrial centers, somewhat equally positioned on the peripheral edge of Chicagoland. Abog 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anchor cities 

message: Hi! Can someone please give me a link where I can find many pictures about Chicagoland? Benok 16:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of Chicagoland 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Chicagoland → Chicago Metropolitan Area — Chicagoland is a folk definition, and is disliked by many Chicagoans, not just me. Cf the Greater Los Angeles (vs "The Southland") article for a similar debate. (comment copied from an edit summary by User:Speciate) --Polaron | Talk 22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since this is not a vote, please explain the reasons for your recommendation.
* Support My reasons are in the Discussion below. I would prefer that a Chicagoland page remain, with the informal nature and conflicting definitions of the term carefully and fairly spelled out. Speciate 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
I will list as many of my objections to the term Chicagoland as I can remember:
*Chicagoland is ill-defined, but the Census bureau has a tried and tested statistical system for defining metro areas. 
*People from Kenosha took the time to write (above) that they feel that Kenosha is not in Chicagoland. 
*People have stated that it sounds like Disneyland, which to them is part of the Disneyfication of America. 
*It is ahistorical to mention Chicagoland in articles which are about events that happened before the term was invented. 
*People from outside the US don't know what Chicagoland is, and as can been seen from the competing definitions in the first two paragraphs, we don't either. 
*Nobody has provided a more reliable definition since this page was created.
*The constant revisions to the page adding and deleting counties from the definition are more evidence for its weakness. 
*We don't even use the right map--Michigan City and three counties in Indiana are left out. I take this as evidence that the most expansive definition is not believed by even the promoters of the Chicagoland page. But we would have to use the most expansive definition to be concordant with the Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City Combined Statistical Area as it is currently redirected.
*I signed all my comments, so all the other comments on this talk page objecting to the term are from other people. Please read what they have to say. 
*The Template:Chicagoland had the awful title "Metropolitan area of Chicagoland." It is difficult for people to avoid using the redundant (and ugly) turn of phrase "the Chicagoland area" when writing an article. Having wikipedia's imprimatur on Chicagoland will only encourage them.
*Worse yet, people end up saying a town is "a suburb of Chicagoland", which would mean it is the suburb of a suburb. Ugh.
*As I and other editors have put in the article, there is a strong tendency for the term to be used in commercial speech. I (and I am sure others) view the term as crass for this reason.
*Using the term allows for laziness on the part of article writers who cannot be bothered to look up the actual town in which an event occured.
*If one enters the term into the Chicago Sun-Times search page, only 8 hits occur, consistent with the term being a Tribune invention. Their editors must be trying to avoid its use. 
*The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce (the largest CC in the Midwest) has as very restrictive defintion, and they have it as part of their name.
*The Illinois Department of Tourism's definition is relevatory, since it excludes the city and the outlying counties. (I put the links in the article.)
*Until recently, the article for the 708 area code stated that the 708 was Chicagoland, consistent with some people considering Chicagoland as the suburbs only. 
*Some people use Chicagoland to refer to the suburbs sans the City, and/or as a sort of mental White flight from the scary city. As evidence, note that they have segregated the African-American suburbs into the Chicago Southland. 
*Wikipedia's mission is to create an encyclopedia, not to rub other people's noses in our insider knowledge. 
There is one anonymous user who has a problem with me who has been reverting all my efforts to create a more encyclopedic definition of the Chicago metro area. I realize that some people may have a fondnesss for the term, but I am not proposing its elimination, merely that its use be limited to the informal. I have a fondness for the term Chi-town, but I would not like to see it all over Wikipedia. Both "Chicagoland" and "Chi-town" are unencyclopedic.  
Please take a look (in the history) at how I redesigned the Chicagoland page. I think it looks good. If you like, take a look at my other efforts on behalf of WikiProject Chicago; I have always tried to be a good editor. 
Speciate 23:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
There is evidently a will to move the page away from Chicagoland. Whether the term "Chicagoland" is dealt with in a separate section or a separate article are beyond the scope of a move request. I have also taken the liberty of converting the proposed title to lower case, in line with the majority of United States metropolitan areas. This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since this is not a vote, please explain the reasons for your recommendation.
* Support My reasons are in the Discussion below. I would prefer that a Chicagoland page remain, with the informal nature and conflicting definitions of the term carefully and fairly spelled out. Speciate 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments:
I will list as many of my objections to the term Chicagoland as I can remember:
*Chicagoland is ill-defined, but the Census bureau has a tried and tested statistical system for defining metro areas. 
*People from Kenosha took the time to write (above) that they feel that Kenosha is not in Chicagoland. 
*People have stated that it sounds like Disneyland, which to them is part of the Disneyfication of America. 
*It is ahistorical to mention Chicagoland in articles which are about events that happened before the term was invented. 
*People from outside the US don't know what Chicagoland is, and as can been seen from the competing definitions in the first two paragraphs, we don't either. 
*Nobody has provided a more reliable definition since this page was created.
*The constant revisions to the page adding and deleting counties from the definition are more evidence for its weakness. 
*We don't even use the right map--Michigan City and three counties in Indiana are left out. I take this as evidence that the most expansive definition is not believed by even the promoters of the Chicagoland page. But we would have to use the most expansive definition to be concordant with the Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City Combined Statistical Area as it is currently redirected.
*I signed all my comments, so all the other comments on this talk page objecting to the term are from other people. Please read what they have to say. 
*The Template:Chicagoland had the awful title "Metropolitan area of Chicagoland." It is difficult for people to avoid using the redundant (and ugly) turn of phrase "the Chicagoland area" when writing an article. Having wikipedia's imprimatur on Chicagoland will only encourage them.
*Worse yet, people end up saying a town is "a suburb of Chicagoland", which would mean it is the suburb of a suburb. Ugh.
*As I and other editors have put in the article, there is a strong tendency for the term to be used in commercial speech. I (and I am sure others) view the term as crass for this reason.
*Using the term allows for laziness on the part of article writers who cannot be bothered to look up the actual town in which an event occured.
*If one enters the term into the Chicago Sun-Times search page, only 8 hits occur, consistent with the term being a Tribune invention. Their editors must be trying to avoid its use. 
*The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce (the largest CC in the Midwest) has as very restrictive defintion, and they have it as part of their name.
*The Illinois Department of Tourism's definition is relevatory, since it excludes the city and the outlying counties. (I put the links in the article.)
*Until recently, the article for the 708 area code stated that the 708 was Chicagoland, consistent with some people considering Chicagoland as the suburbs only. 
*Some people use Chicagoland to refer to the suburbs sans the City, and/or as a sort of mental White flight from the scary city. As evidence, note that they have segregated the African-American suburbs into the Chicago Southland. 
*Wikipedia's mission is to create an encyclopedia, not to rub other people's noses in our insider knowledge. 
There is one anonymous user who has a problem with me who has been reverting all my efforts to create a more encyclopedic definition of the Chicago metro area. I realize that some people may have a fondnesss for the term, but I am not proposing its elimination, merely that its use be limited to the informal. I have a fondness for the term Chi-town, but I would not like to see it all over Wikipedia. Both "Chicagoland" and "Chi-town" are unencyclopedic.  
Please take a look (in the history) at how I redesigned the Chicagoland page. I think it looks good. If you like, take a look at my other efforts on behalf of WikiProject Chicago; I have always tried to be a good editor. 
Speciate 23:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
There is evidently a will to move the page away from Chicagoland. Whether the term "Chicagoland" is dealt with in a separate section or a separate article are beyond the scope of a move request. I have also taken the liberty of converting the proposed title to lower case, in line with the majority of United States metropolitan areas. This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Well, I have been looking and looking at this article. Can it be explained to me when DeKalb County was included into this area? I guess, living in Ogle County, I have never viewed our neighbor county as part of the Chicago metropolitan area. When and where was this added in? No only that, but your map doesn't even include DeKalb as being red.--Kranar drogin 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see from the discussion above, our map is wrong. I lack teh skillz to fix it. The debate (above) about how to define metro areas was settled in favor of using the Federal Gov't definition, which includes DeKalb: []. I think it was included in the 2000 or 1990 Census. Speciate 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[DeKalb County, Illinois]] 

message: I appreciate the effort, and I don't want to come across as overly hostile... but the new image (Chicagoland Area Update.GIF) we're using to define "zones" of Chicagoland doesn't really do justice to the situation.  In one sense, it actually is fairly accurate.  However, it seems like a violation of the "DO NOT include original research" rule.  It is obvious someone just took a map of the area- went on MS paint.. and drew what they thought made sense.
More importantly, Algonquin / Crystal Lake are not "suburbs" on the map, but Joliet is.  I know we are trying to reconcile reality with the zones theory - but realistically the Northwest suburbs stretch further.  Suburban sprawl is pretty constant to about Route 47 in southwestern McHenry County - so I don't know why that should fall into the same "zone" as Kankakee (which is clearly more disconnected from the city, development-wise).  If we are doing this (arbitrarily drawing lines on a printable map) from now on, I suggest we move the suburbs circle a bit to fit in line better with all the suburban sprawl, and then you can save the metro area line to cover the surrounding towns and villages.  That way, you don't have the "suburbs" line cutting through densely populated Elgin (clearly a suburb) in the northwest... and simultaneously passing south of Mokena through a big rural area.
A box would almost fit it all better, as most of the suburban sprawl terminates just west of the Fox River - from Oswego in the south to Crystal Lake in the north.
What I actually suggest we do is leave this map or that previous zone map up, but also include a POPULATION DENSITY map.  Or, maybe layer a zones map with a population density map.  People should be able to look at an image and say, oh, I see how that development is all connected.
Thoughts?Rob Shepard (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the New Image?

message: I think the south-east section needs improvement.  No mention of the major moraine there is mentioned (See article on the dunes park for info).  Also, it is said there are no bluffs or such, yet I know it is a steep walk down to the shore in some places.  I don't think these are dunes, but some-one familiar with the park or with a good reference should check. Kdammers (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  geography 

message: That image in blue that shows about 16 counties over Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana with the statement "Chicagoland -as defined by Construction Data Company" needs to be removed and replaced with an image hat shows the actual counties of metropolitan Chicago. What is Construction Data Company?... just some company that does conmstruction work? It doesn't matter what they define as Chicagoland because they are not a government entity. There should be two images, both defined by the federal government. The first: the counties that make up the CSA. The second: the counties that make up the MSA. This should be defined in print under the images with their respective populations. -Likewie, if it is decided that the graph by Construction Data Comapny will remain (which I do not see why it should since they are a construction company) then the article MUST mention the population of that area defined by them, which would be over the 9.8 million people the article states is in the CSA. Otherwise, Wikipedia is doing a disservice to its readers because it is making readers believe there are 9.8 million people in those entire 16 counties when there are actually more people in that area.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction Needed 

message: There is a discussion that may be of interest to this project at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Suburban Faith Based Peace Coalition.  Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chicago metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100708022036/http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/files/2009/CSA-EST2009-alldata.csv to http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/files/2009/CSA-EST2009-alldata.csv
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100417125748/http://esa.un.org:80/unpd/wup/unup/index_panel2.html to http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/unup/index_panel2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061110194948/http://www.enjoyillinois.com/3-day/regionchicagoland.aspx to http://www.enjoyillinois.com/3-day/regionchicagoland.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The last two worked, but neither of them seem very useful. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: hi, the article states on population estimate of 9,554,598 based on this source from 2013 the table on the right states 9,729,825 from 2011 (don't know which source). What is the correct number and which source should be used? Thanks!  Golan's mom 09:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population estimate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chicago metropolitan area. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129082905/http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
*Added  tag to http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/maps/metro/33000us176m.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Chicago metropolitan area. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029205946/http://chicagolandchamber.org/wdk_cc/chicagoland/chicagoland_landing_page.jsp to http://chicagolandchamber.org/wdk_cc/chicagoland/chicagoland_landing_page.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715111913/http://www.bidtool.net/products/coveragearea.aspx to http://www.bidtool.net/products/coveragearea.aspx
*Added archive https://archive.is/20060812133837/http://www.chicagoareaplanning.org/about/default.asp to http://www.chicagoareaplanning.org/about/default.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110702045339/http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2010/mar/Top-Metros/ to http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2010/mar/Top-Metros/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150117194235/http://www.wbez.org/series/curious-city/why-so-few-white-kids-land-cps-%E2%80%94-and-why-it-matters-111094 to http://www.wbez.org/series/curious-city/why-so-few-white-kids-land-cps-%E2%80%94-and-why-it-matters-111094
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The redirect Gary Metropolitan Area has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Gary Metropolitan Area]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The primage image for this article should be a map. I want to know what area it is, at a glance! Benjamin (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I had to undo some edits from the weekend, not because of any issues with the content, but somehow the infobox was broken.  Usually this is due to inconsistency with the brackets.  Please try again with breaking the brackets. StillWatchesCartoons (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Broken