Talk:Chicago/Archive 4 - Wikipedia (original) (raw)

This is an archive of past discussions about Chicago. 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 Archive 6 → Archive 8

Archives: Feb 2006 - Jun 2007

Better City Pic

I LOVE the new picture. -chi787ord, march 4th, 07

After the last one got removed for copy vio, this new one is a bit underwhelming. I'm a bit short on time, but I'd just like to flag this as a must do. (- Simulcra 19:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

I would agree that this one is pretty boring. Perhaps we should open a formal vote (in a week or so?) with images selected from the commons. Jasenlee 18:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did we switch the cityscape and main Chicago picture? The one with the Wrigley Building doesn't give a good overview of the city and is outdated by the inclusion of the now destroyed Sun-Times building. A classic postcard picture of the skyline from the Museum Campus would be best as the main pic. --spyguy 16:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is It Ready?

There's been a lot of sweeping changes to this article since the last nomination - lots of citations, lots of POV edits... what else needs to be done before anothe rnomination? (- Simulcra 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

You might consider moving the article to Chicago. Having the article at the city's actual name would be an improvement. Note that this would go against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), however. Given the prominence of the city, there's no good reason it shouldn't located at Chicago. --Yath 22:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Chicago redirects to Chicago, Illinois... (- Simulcra 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

It seems ready to go. I'd like to know if anyone else sees anything major that needs to be completed. --Un sogno modesto 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No - I've been working on this article for more than two years and it has never been ready. At least by the standards of those with the power to say so. So while I would agree a lot of good changes have taken place I think we should take that as a sign to re-double our efforts and polish the article even more to ensure a positive FAC. --Jasenlee 03:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then what needs to be done? (I've also been working on this article for ~2 years) (- Simulcra 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

You know, I have no idea. I know that's not helpful but I'm just resigned to the fact this will probably never become a FA. Maybe a poor attitude but for some reason this article has always had a dark cloud hanging over it. I've seen some pretty bad FA's that make it but for some reason this one always has something wrong with it. Perhaps we should get the Chicago WikiProject active again and look for ways to make this article not only meet the standards of a FA but stand out by really polishing ever aspect. I know that's a very general response, but again this article never seems to make it. Jasenlee 18:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of St Louis

The first paragraph under the History subhead states that Indian tribes "later ceded the land to the United States in the Treaty of St. Louis of 1750." The United States did not exist in 1750 as such, and the link to the article Treaty of St. Louis tells only of treaties dated between 1804 and 1825. I'd correct this, but am not sure what the facts are. David Fell 18:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Political Machine

I've revised a comment implying that the political machine has returned to Chicago, marked by Richard M. Daley's election after Harold Washington. This is an unsubstantiated claim, and, despite recent developments of city corruption, there has been no connection with the mayor himself, nor has there been any significant evidence of anything *remotely* approximating the political machine of Richard J's reign. (- Simulcra 17:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

-It is unsubstantiated, however unless your a tool you know its true if you live in Chicago. While nothing has directly linked Daley yet to illegal activites, at the very least factual NPOV details about the current corrpution probe (led by Fitzgerald) could be included in this article. If was a better editing wikipedian and had more time I'd do it, but alas I pass the buck hoping someone with more experience comes along.

It is *not* true if you live in Chicago. It's simply a blase attitude taken up by some of the more ardently cynical or curmudgeonly citizens. I reserve my judgment until someone makes a substantiated claim about the issue. I do agree that perhaps a summary on recent corruption probes could go in the article, I'm not terribly well versed in the current events, so I also pass the buck to someone with more knowledge. (- Simulcra 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

"NPOV"

While one of the todo items is to do extensive copyedit and maintain an NPOV, I, for the most part, believe that what is presented in the Chicago article is, in fact, NPOV. Most of it just happens to be uncited or not elaborated upon, so it happens to come along as boosterism, so I believe working on inline citations and elaborations will also take care of NPOV issues. (- Simulcra 02:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

I left that notation on the todo list since currently very few people (myself and Un sogno modesto included) have actually put some time into the article. Hence, if someone else can sign off on the article's not being POV, I will gladly remove that item from the todo list. PentawingTalk 05:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Having read the entire article again, I think we are nearly there on NPOV. A lot of what could otherwise be considered boosterism is cited except in the Transportation section. Unfortunately, unless we get some references for "Chicago is the premier transportation hub in America" or some sort of justification, that just isn't going to fly. Sadly, we can't just draw a conclusion on our own like this line does, despite the following lines and paragraphs. Of course, we could just lose that line. Robovski 04:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one way to attain NPOV is to "pretend" not to live in Chicago. In doing so, phrasing involving the "superlative" could be avoided. For example, Chicago is the primary transportation hub in the United States. Definitely a major transportation hub. But primary? That's pushing it. Lower the pride as well. After all, Go Bears. KyuuA4 07:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture Alignment

Please for the love of God will someone fix the layout of pictures in this article! They're everywhere, on both sides, causing huge amounts of white space. It's beyond my wiki-ability to fix at the current moment. RyanGerbil10 04:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to tweak it a bit and I think the areas I tweaked look better, but there are some huge sections where I don't know how to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Just too overwhelming!(-Simulcra 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Is there a standard on picture alignment and sizing? I happen to think it looks more interesting when there are different sizes and locations much like you'd find in a print encyclopedia. Jasenlee 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My question is, do we need so many pictures? Two for sports (both baseball), two for universities. Keep some of those pictures in other, more specific sections. --spyguy 00:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally you want 'enough' pictures for FA status. As I recall, previously we have failed nomination in part due to not enough free-use pictures. Who is to say how much is too much or too little? All I know is that we should make sure that any picture used is freely usable and preferably not under copyright (using fair-use as little as possible).Robovski 05:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Windy City Name

Wellington (New Zealand) was coined 'Windy City' in 1847, long before Chicago got the name. I think Chicago should change its name to the GANGSTA City. This would bring more tourists into the city and maybe if Chicago council put on free hot dogs and dognuts and coffee at every police station, the cops would get fat and the GANGSTA's could take over again. I like it!! TTT13

This discussion archived to Talk:Windy City (nickname)/Archive 1.

Barry Popik here. No scholar at all believes that "Windy City" was either coined or popularized by New York City newspapers in the 1880s. This must be changed immediately. İt is widely known that I found the first "Windy City" citations, all from Cincinnati, Ohıo and pre-1880. The earliest citation is from May 1876, and this was verified by Nathan Bierma in his Chicago Tribune article on "Wındy City" in December 2004. Wikipedia doesn't have to use my work for free, but everyone else is!

Please try and make your point a little more clearly. I don't know what you're getting at. As far as I can see you're work hasn't been copied but in some cases referenced, which is entirely valid if you are going to publish something. Again, if you have a point to make please make it. Otherwise just edit the article (like everyone else) to meet the standards you think are fitting rather than complaining.

OK, I'll edit it! It must not be stated that New York is the source of "Windy City" because it's not.Barry Popik 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This sentence makes no sense:

However, "Windy City" was used before this by the Chicago Fire.

How could "Chicago Fire" use the phrase? Was there an organization named that? Seems unlikely.

Translations

Should we work more on the translations of the article? I am currently working on the da:Chicago version. --OrbitOne 19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Architecture, Skyscrapers, and Skyline

One of the things that is obviously missing from the Chicago entry is Architecture. This is surprising considering that Chicago is the birthplace of the skyscraper and most likely has the best architecture in the entire country. I think a new section for Architecture is needed. In there we can discuss notable styles, schools, architects, buildings and "firsts," and notable skyscrapers both past, present, and future.

I agree. Since we have many great buildings, architects, firsts, schools, and styles. Could we add it? Although I am not an architect nor historian, I can get one started. oclaros1 21:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There's already a Chicago architecture article. I've added a link to it in the "See also" section - I'm surprised there wasn't one already there. That architecture article could use some work, especially if you have some photographs you could upload. I feel like a dummy sometimes when I take out-of-town visitors downtown and I can only name a handful of the buildings. What I would really like to see is a panoramic photo of the skyline (maybe taken from the planetarium) that has all the towers numbered, with a legend below it giving the name of each. Now that would be cool, especially if it could be done for all major cities. InNuce 02:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on some new images and need opinoins. Here they are:

Chicago Skyline stretching from Shedd Aquarium to Navy Pier taken from Adler Planetarium

Chicago Skyline stretching from Shedd Aquarium to Navy Pier taken from Adler Planetarium

Chicago Skyline stretching from Shedd Aquarium to Navy Pier taken from Adler Planetarium

Please let me know what suggestions you have. I think the large version is appropriate without the labels. Once the labels are added going to the cropped version of downtown looks much better. I could use some help naming the rest of the buildings.Buphoff 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Very sharp. Either the first without the captions or the larger last one with the captions should be used (IMO). Robovski 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

New version of Chicago Skyline with building information. Thanks to --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project". Any new labels are VERY much appreciated. Keep um coming Buphoff 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicities

What is meant by Chicago being the second-largest Lithuanian city in the world? (The same question applies to other ethnicites mentioned.) Are these Lithuanians, etc., actual Lithuanians or American-Lithuanians? There is an important difference between people who were actually born in a place and those claiming descent but were born in the US (the latter inevitably claim multiple ancestry and produce inflated numbers, not to mention questions about whether their ethnicity is country of origin or US). Are these Lithuanians/Greeks/Assyrians/etc. former citizens of those countries?

Melting Pot in Chicago? I don't think so!

The term melting pot pertains to the population's cultural and racial merger of any given society. Thus, this term shouldn't apply to Chicago due to the fact that it is one of the most racially segregated cities in the nation. I know this is true because I’ve lived in Chicago my whole life, and it kills me when people call it a melting pot. People living in the city and the neighboring suburbs continue to refer to themselves as Irish, Greek, Mexican, Polish, Italian, and so forth, overlooking the fact that they really aren’t those nationalities because they were not born in those respective countries. If you were born in this country, then that makes you an American, and an American only. No one living outside the United States will recognize you otherwise if you’re traveling with an American passport. Yet, stupid, ignorant people who no longer practice the customs and traditions of their respective ethnicities continue to ethnically differentiate themselves from their fellow Americans. They pass this garbage down from generation to generation. Such a concept retained by a significant number of the populous facilitates a racial apartheid that has not phased out in Chicago since it was founded. Our public schools and neighborhoods are racially segregated, and the multicultural curriculum is nothing more than a humorous joke. The only thing funnier than that is calling Chicago a “melting pot.” So change is called for!

I'm sorry, but is there something wrong with you? This happens in every city and in every Western country with a large influx of immigrants, from New York to Miami to London and Paris. From the 1800's on wards, immigrants from Europe and then later Asia created ethnic enclaves while at the same time trying to assimilate to some degree. I think you also are confusing nationality and ethnicity. Also go read up on apartheid please.

I lived in Chicago for some 20 years, usually amongst many ethnic groups on the NW side. There is plenty of intermixing, I'm half Slovenian, half mix :) I have had arabic, hispanic, asian and black neighbors, and went to school with them all, and to be honest, it seems most of the 'seperate' nature of some neighbnorhoods comes from the 1st generation immigrants with family who find neighbors like themselves for convenience or because the know/are related to someone there (especially true in the Polish communities). Their children are at the same schools as everyone else's and they integrate. Heck, the immigrants tend to integrate pretty well too. I know what it's like being a foriegner in the land you live in, having spent 6 years here in Scotland. As for being proud of having a heritage, there is nothing wrong with identifying with that heritage. America was made from disperate elements and will continue to in the future. Each new group adds it's touch of flavor to the 'pot', they aren't supposed to disappear without a trace. 'American' isn't just one thing. It's a range of things.Robovski 21:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Next time you're in Chicago, consider visiting the southside. Then come back on here and try tell sell this "melting pot" fairy tale. I also highly recommend you read Barry Glassner's book, "Fear." Chicago is RACIALLY segregated for the reasons he described. For now, read these articles: http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/landuse/Vol141/seit.htm, http://www.substancenews.com/content/view/263/81/

I have been to the southside (downtown and lots of the suburbs too for that matter) many times in the course of my long residency and the many visits I made to my family and friends over the years. I attended public schools and while I am white I have black and native american relations. The Slavic part of my family has been in Chicago for 4 generations, and while proud of that, I wouldn't be able to find a one that wasn't an American. I'm going to be straight with you - I'm not going to even click on the links of the articles you have thrown up because either: 1. You have recieved some kind of 'education' recently, perhaps read some things recently that played into experiences you've had or beliefs that you would like to hold true, and now hold this to be gosphel, and this will persist until your next 'intellectual authority' tells you something different or 2. You have had radically different experiences than myself and hold very different beliefs than myself. In either case, I'm not going to change you mind, and you aren't going to change mine. Additionally, I'm at work and there is nothing like a waste of time than to trying to change someone's opinion on an internet discussion forum (which this is not BTW). To be plain, I disagree with you, and you disagree with me. And please sign your comments! Robovski 04:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, someone here is living in a fantasy land, and it's not me! Keep you're fairy tale remarks, I don't care either way. Wikipedia doesn't appear to be a good, CREDIBLE source of information for academia. This site is a waist of time!

I've always wondered what a waist of time would look like. Anyway, the point is that there shouldn't be any original research. Someone should source the melting pot comment, which should resolve the quasi-issue. -Superdosh 00:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm impressed. You claim I live in a fantasy land because I disagree with you based on my real world experiences, can't spell waste, and then continue to fail to sign your posts. I'm leaning heavily towards my first opinion of you. Anyhow, let's see if we can't find some material in support of Chicago and our little 'melting pot' idea beyond various blogs, news reports and news articles...

I am constrained to web resources freely available while searching at work - I would like some better source material as my references are great for supporting Chicago as an immigrant destination/gateway but doesn't cite Chicago specifically in the assimilation needed for 'melting pot' very well (or at all). I will point out that the melting pot article itself is currently disputed. Robovski 02:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry man but...why are you waisting your time? Maybe Chicago isn't this Utopian community where every block has one family of each race but it is defiantly a melting pot.Buphoff 21:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It might also be interesting to point out that Chicago, Illinois has also been host to the largest number of Democratic National Conventions (11), and the largest number of Republican National Conventions (14). Though I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the, "Windy City," nickname, it does connect to politics. Found this interesting little tidbit of trivia playing NTN the other night (and confirmed by looking at the lists of RNC & DNC conventions). Dr. Cash 21:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This statement:A 2006 estimate puts the city's population at over 3 million. is unsubstantiated and should be properly cited. Until then, I have removed it. Chicago has steadily lost population through the past three decades ( with one exception). The 2004 US Census estimate has it at just over 2.7 million, down from the 2.8 (2000) number. The mayor does not like to admit the population loss, and it is an ongoing issue in this city, so please cite the source for this and the conditions for this 1/4 million rise in two years.(Gary Joseph 02:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

I would like to point out that the estimates often underestimate Chicago's population. The 1998 estimate for Chicago was 2,802,000 people, 94,000 less than what the census in 2000 said. I think that it would be more accurate to use the 2000 census data. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"

It doesn't make any sense that we are still using the 2005 estimate, 2,842,518, in 2006! There IS a 2006 estimate of Chicago's population, which is 2,873,790.[1] Also, the median family income NEEDS to be updated to $46,748. Now, these "statistics" are from CNN Money, which is an impartial source. No "boosterism" is involved here. Therefore, we should be using these facts or statistics in the introduction, the "demographics" section of the article, and in the table. Thank you. (Mike Madsen 10:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

We should mention the number of people that relocated to Chicago because of Hurricane Katrina. (Ferris Bueller 7:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

That does not make any sense. The 2000 Census did show a rise in population in the city. Anything could have happened in the two years between the 1998 estimate and the 2000 Census ( like a housing boom that added thousands of people back into the city and the new census demographic collection method). There is a whole world difference between a difference of 94,000 and 250,000 in a number that averages 2.7 million. I agree, we should stick to the 2000 number. But I notice 67.162.109.134 put that over 3 million back. I am only saying that if we stick to the US Census and the bureau's estimates, lets do that. But inserting a number that violates those should be cited. It goes back to Wikipedia's credibility. (Gary Joseph 07:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is not up for members to speculate on 2006 population projections, especially when the source of the projections tends to be from the mayor's office or other sources that have boosterism as their objective. That being said, we should be relying on official census counts, as those are the counts that actually matter, and 2000 is the last hard one. As for using estimates, the use of non-decade US estimates is a debatable issue, especially since the methodology is not only different from the decade-based counts, but also known to be inherently flawed on urban centers that feature a high immigration rate. That being said, the 2006 estimates can be debated, the 2000 numbers cannot, so let's just stick with the 2000 numbers. (-Simulcra 01:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

OK, someone is either making up nonsensical data or there's some obscure census data. However much some of us really want Chicago to bloom, I have found nothing so far demonstrating that "It was estimated in 2006 that the population of Chicago was slightly over 3 million." The latest census estimates put Chicago on a consistent decline, and even older Illinois estimates, which I had looked at before a long time ago and can't seem to find again (which aren't 2006) put Chicago projected, in 2006, at less than 3 million. It doesn't even make sense on a theoretical level; it took 10 years) to grow by like 112k people, I highly doubt that all of a sudden Chicago took that same level of growth in a little more than half that. Someone find some solid data backing up that statement, because I'm removing it for now. (- Simulcra 21:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Well, this article won, so its the collaboration. So what's the story, what all do editors here feel should be improved or worked upon, or do we need pictures or what? Homestarmy 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Chicago's the headquarters of the ELCA. As a Lutheran, that seems pretty important to me. Wait, I'm trying to escape the religious articles. Never mind. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Got any sources for that? :) Homestarmy 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's right on their website. Also, I've heard that the Patriarch of Babylon (head of the Assyrian Church of the East) is in exile in Chicago. Surely we can say something about religion in the demographics section. Anyone have statistics on the religous affiliations of Chicago residents? Grigory DeepdelverTalk 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I couldn't see Chicago anywhere on that page. Homestarmy 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't look hard enough. If you want an exact page, try the contact page. To wit:

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

8765 W. Higgins Road

Chicago, IL 60631

Grigory Deepdelver AKA ArcholaTalk 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you need directions, here a map. Now, can we talk about the other denominations and other religions in Chicago? Grigory Deepdelver AKA ArcholaTalk 00:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, most city pages really don't talk about religious breakdowns very much, and this article is already increadibly long. the headquarters thing and that other thing are probably important, but I don't think i've seen any other city articles with anything like breakdown charts by denominations or stuff like that. Homestarmy 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at other city articles, but it seems odd to me not to mention religious demographics. Grigory Deepdelver AKA ArcholaTalk 00:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If this article is too long already, perhaps we could mention religion in Demographics of Chicago? That article only mentions ethnicity BTW, why not full demographs? Grigory Deepdelver AKA ArcholaTalk 00:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I can support that - I think we shouldn't lose the information, but if the article is too long it can certainly become an article linked from the main article. Robovski 04:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The article Kontroll links to Chicago International Film Festival and Gold Hugo Award (probably Golden Hugo Award) – they are presently red links. Does this festival exist? Is it notable? If so, is this the exact name? I'd like to make its link blue if there's any mentioning. Adam78 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be Golden Hugo Award given at the Chicago International Film Festival. The Award dates at least as far back as 1977.Shsilver 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Found something New York City has on crime statistics, don't have time now, but maybe someone can finish filling in the numbers and other information.

Are you asking for similar numbers in Chicago? If so, why don't you work on this yourself? Jasenlee 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What about pictures of the 2006 immigration protests? Chicago had some of the largest. Big event in the city's history.

I think it premature to label any 2006 event a big event in the city's history. Historians have not yet had a chance to evaluate the historical significance of such recent events. To make such a claim would probably violate Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view. DHimmelspach 23:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the assessment made by DHimmelspach.

75.21.73.84 01:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)I also agree. In the scheme of the entire width and breadth of the encyclopedic entry "Chicago", the incident mentioned is an isolated political event in a small fraction of the city's history.

So the biggest issue is underreferencing, which makes alot of sense. There are alot of unqualified statements and qualifiers that seems like boosterism without any proper support. When I have some time (definitely not this week, busy with ScavHunt) I'll start validating stuff, but I myself am not too well versed or experienced at doing inline citations. (- Simulcra 21:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

If you can just add in links next to information, I can see if I can get the time to convert them to inline citation for you. Homestarmy 23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no page on the Burnham Plan; there is no mention of Daniel Burnham in this article nor does there seem to be any discussion, anywhere, of the extensive system of boulevards and parks which owe their existence to Burnham. John Reid 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I encourage you to make one. Jasenlee 18:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A titanic effort that must begin with a good map of the Burnham Plan; that must begin with a free-license contemporary city map. I'm working on that bit. A decent article on the Plan is going to require more than my 2¢. John Reid 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Some sections have overlinking. I cleaned up a bit at the top and in Climate. For instance, I removed rain and snow since they're covered under precipitation. Same goes for seasons. I took out NYC & LA because they're mostly relevant as populous cities, and they're covered in that link. Parts of this article are dense with links and hard to read. --Howdybob 07:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a request open at Requested pictures for maps of Chicago. I've found there are already quite a few maps on wiki and I've been catting them to Category:Maps of Chicago, Illinois. I've also been drawing new maps to a reasonably consistent scheme. I don't think there's any need for us to serve highly accurate, detailed maps; there are specialized resources for that. But I see plenty of value in maps in general.

So far I've uploaded an essentially blank map (customize to suit yourself), a freeway map, a waterway map, and one that combines both sets of features. Next on my list are a major street map and a parks and boulevards map. I may do a ward map and an L map. Anything past that will probably be by request only, so put your thinking cap on.

I use Macromedia FreeHand for all my vector illustration; I have no way to output SVG or convert to it. So, I've uploaded medium-resolution PNGs. If anybody wants to discuss SVG conversion, just ask. John Reid 12:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition this article doesn't once mention "Gold Coast." A map showing the different areas of Chicago (Boy's Town, Near North, Gold Coast, Lincoln Park, Old Town, etc.) with brief explanations would nice. --E. Seneca, 26 June 2006

That is found under Neighborhoods of Chicago, whose link is in the see also section. PentawingTalk 23:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

On 06nov2006 user provided links to two map views of Chicago under 'External Links'

After working on other U.S. city articles (several towards FA) and looking through this article, I have come to the conclusion that it will never make it to FA in its current state. Hence, I have begun to clean up this article as well as place a "to do" list of what is needed. However, given that I am not from the Chicago area, I would appreciate some help with the material (formatting and wording I can help with, as well as referencing).

In the end, I hope that when the article is nominated for FA, it will finally pass, in contrast with its previous failures (more than three times if I recall correctly). PentawingTalk 21:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm a Chicagoan, so if you'd like, instant message me sometime and we can discuss some of the issues with the page in more detail. --InShaneee 21:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just leave a message on my talk page at the moment (a preference when it comes to Wikipedia). PentawingTalk 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a message to anyone thinking of attempting another FAC nomination - please look at the to do list at the top. If there are still unresolved items, it is best not to make an attempt until all items have been finished. PentawingTalk 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I got much of the article summarized, copyedited, and referenced. However, there are still some citations that are needed (notably for crime statistics) that I am unable to locate at this time. If someone can find these citations, go ahead. PentawingTalk 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Chicago was the center of the Bauhaus, more exactly the New Bauhaus also. It is missing in the article. I don't know much about it, and didn't find much either and I don't want to write false or incorrects things into the article. So I just mention, hope someone, who has bigger knowledge in it reads this and writes it. --195.56.26.179 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the city's BIG TIME COURPTION? I mean we INVENTED (at least the term) ghost voting

I think 'ghost voting' has been around for some time. For example, it was prevelent in England and Ireland long before it was happening in Chicago. Lochdale 23:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I made somewhat of a living knowing the climate of the Chicago area, and I know for a fact that the data in this article are not correct. I will look for the right numbers, but I know August is the wettest month, it's mentioned in the weather section of the Chicago Tribune fairly frequently, and is so recorded in the sub-article, which I wrote. Hopefully I'll get the right numbers. If anyone knows where these numbers we have now came from, could you please contact me on my talk page? RyanGerbil10 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Most city pages use Weatherbase.com . It would also be good if someone could make the table smaller (see NYC or Paris for examples)--spyguy 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are some of these photos somewhat sub-par to be included on the main Chicago page?

Examples:

1)The huge panorama captioned: The skyline of Chicago at sunset

A decent photo, but it seems oddly out of place at the end of all the mayoral talk.

2)Caption: Children playing in Chicago's Millennium Park

If this is next to demographics, wouldn't it be better to have a photo of something like Greektown, Chinatown, Devon, etc.?

3)Caption: Chicago Board of Trade

I agree with the subject, but a clearer and newer photo is necessary.

4)Caption: Chicago City Hall, shortly before construction was completed in 1911.

Again, why not post a recent photo of City Hall and not a historic one?

5)Caption: CPD Officers making an arrest.

This one I found really odd. A pic of police arresting a guy does not really look that great on a polished main article. Perhaps an alternative would be a shot of a Chicago police car, or say an officer on a segway.

6)Caption: Cook County Hospital

Although I like the building, this hospital is defunct. A photo of one of the newer structures in the Illinois Medical District or one of Northwestern's many facilities in Streeterville (like the new Prentice) would be better.

7)Caption: The Lake Shore Drive (LSD) Bridge over the Chicago River.

I don't get this one. It is not even a historical photo. It must have been taken in the late 1980's as I don't see many major building.

I do not mean to detract from the photographers. Most of the photos are quite nice, it is just that they are either too old or seem to have little to do with the topics nearby.

I understand, but I at least want to draw some attention to those photo issues. I will hopefully find some new photos to add that can be freely distributed.--spyguy 01:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1)The huge panorama captioned: The skyline of Chicago at sunset

Although I agree that this could seem misplaced; I actually think that it makes a good break in the article--a chance for someone reading the whole article to pause for a moment.

4)Caption: Chicago City Hall, shortly before construction was completed in 1911.

The city hall is currently covered in scaffolding (as you can see at Image:Critical Mass Chicago.jpg. I tried recently to photograph one of the sides that doesn't have much visible construction work, but the layout of the loop makes this difficult. I intend to try for a photo from Daley plaza once the scaffolding comes down.

5)Caption: CPD Officers making an arrest.

I agree; I have always forund this an odd photo to include in this article.

6)Caption: Cook County Hospital

The old prentice is ugly (I have a photo of it if you really want one); the new prentice is unfinished. The other northwestern buildings aren't much to speak of (I work there).

7)Caption: The Lake Shore Drive (LSD) Bridge over the Chicago River.

I have some more recent photos of this bridge. I didn't upload them because we already have this photo. However, if it is felt that this one should be replaced, I can offer some alternatives.

We have hundreds of Chicago pictures available to us at the commons. Take a look at the gallery at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chicago%2C_Illinois and the subcategories of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Chicago and see if you can find anything that you like better. JeremyA 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've substituted a couple of possible alternatives from the commons for the 'crime' and 'transportation' sections. JeremyA 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good so far, though could you provide an image of a Chicago police car instead? Just a preference. PentawingTalk 03:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a police car photo. I'll try to remember to take one the next time I am out with my camera. JeremyA 02:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen some police cars on the commons, and I have a decent one myself. However, I do like the picture you have now. The fact that it is more verticle also helps spacing-wise when next to the article.

If you could, please shoot a picture of the new Prentice (glassy side corner). I know that it is officially under construction, but from the exterior it is mostly complete. Unrelated, if you have any nice photos of the Palmolive/Playboy Building could you also upload those to use on some architecture/tallest pages.Thanks --spyguy 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to get this. I have uploaded a photo of the new Prentice to the commons at Image:Prentice Chicago.jpg. It's not the best photo—finding a good angle proved more difficult than I thought. —JeremyA 04:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Is it alright if I put it on the front page next to the health and medicine section? The old Cook County Hospital is in disrepair and no longer used, so it does not really project the image of cutting edge medicine in Chicago. Thanks again. --spyguy 01:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we put the old picture of the skyline as the main pic on the top on the main page again? This one is alright, but it's very grainy, compressed, and shows only a little bit of the skyline, and not really from a famous angle either. The other picture (at least at a small size) looked pretty cool and did justice to the skyline. --spyguy 02:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the previous image is marked as "copyrighted," which can pose a problem (generally, for topics such as cities, PD or GFDL-licensed images are preferred since one can easily take a picture and release it freely under such licenses). PentawingTalk 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Then I suppose we'll have to keep this one until we can come up with a good alternative.

--spyguy 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed from Architecture section. This passage can be reinserted in to the article at a more appropriate section. KyuuA4 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

From Architecture section

The city's streets are organized in a grid pattern. The pattern is modified by the shoreline, the three branches of the Chicago River, the system of active/inactive rail lines, several diagonal streets (including Lincoln, Milwaukee, Clybourn, Elston, Archer, Broadway, and Ogden Avenues), the expressways, and hundreds of bridges and viaducts. In addition, the baselines for numbering streets and buildings are State Street (for east-west numbering) and Madison Street (for north-south numbering). Street numbers begin at "1" at the baselines and run numerically in directions indicated to the city limits, with N, S, E, and W indicating directions. Even-numbered addresses are on the north and west sides of streets; odd-numbered addresses are on the south and east sides. Chicago is divided into one-mile sections which usually contain eight blocks to the mile, with the exception of the streets for three miles immediately south of Madison. Between Madison Street and Roosevelt Road (formerly 12th Street), twelve blocks are used per mile, between Roosevelt and Cermak Road (22nd Street), ten blocks make one mile, and between Cermak and 31st Street, nine blocks make a mile.

Madison Street, in addition to simply being an origin point for north-south numbering, also divides the city into two well-established areas, the North Side and the South Side. The rivalry between the North and South Sides are distinct, etched from different ethnic origins and historical developments, as well as culminating in the contemporary rivalry between the two Chicago baseball teams; the Chicago Cubs are considered to be the representative team for the North Side, whereas the Chicago White Sox are considered to be the South Side's counterpart. Despite the primary focus on the North-South rivalry, there are other significant geographic divisions of the city, notably the West Side, which broadly encompasses the area west of both the north and south branches of Chicago River. The Northwest and Southwest sides of the city area also referenced with frequency, though they tend to be subsumed under one of the three aforementioned areas.

The statement "...the world's first skyscraper was constructed in 1885 using steel-skeleton construction..." in the History section doesn't seem to jive with the list at Skyscraper#History_of_tallest_skyscrapers. I'll look into it when I get the time, but I just thought I should bring it up since it could represent (or misrepresent) a "first". See WikiProject Fact and Reference Check if you want to help with this sort of thing. Thanks. • CQ 19:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the passage to emphasize the first steel-framed skyscraper in Chicago rather than the world. Is that better? PentawingTalk 23:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference: [[2]]

The skyscraper was invented in Chicago and that was the world's first skyscraper. It was only 12 stories, but it was the way that it was built that makes it a skyscraper. It may not apply to the common definition of a skyscraper being a really tall building, but it was the first building ever built using the technology that allows a building to become really tall. It was never the tallest building in Chicago, thus its exclusion from the history page, but no buildng built before it was an actual skyscraper. - Ben 2/18/07

The following discussion is an archived debate 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.

The result of the debate was Moved. Yanksox 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois → Chicago – WP:NC(CN); chance for confusion with other things called "Chicago" is minimal.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that this move was also proposed earlier this year. That straw poll ended in February with no consesnus to move the article. Talk:Chicago/Archive3#Chicago, Illinois --> Chicago. -Will Beback 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

What is conventional is for the title of any article in Wikipedia to consist simply of the shortest form of the name, and any necessary disambiguation information to be specified in parenthesis following the name of the subject. All arguments that city and community names should be inconsistent with that clear, simple, professional, consistent and proven convention are very weak at best, and seem to be based on a comfort level with city, state referencing, and a lack of appreciation for the fact that the reference location form is inappropriate in the name context of a city. --Serge 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that the title should be the "shortest form of the name", I do have a nit to pick here. The universal form to disambiguate a city in North America, both on Wikipedia and in written and everyday speech, is to use "city, state". I have honestly never heard or seen anyone in North America use any other form. Whatever the outcome of this is, the comma convention must be used when required. Kirjtc2 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirjtc2, I believe you're confusing the concept of name disambiguation in Wikipedia (for which the unique convention to use commas for city article names is inconsistent with the convention used consistently by all other categories of articles in Wikipedia - specify the disambiguation information in parentheses) with the format commonly used in general usage to specify the location (not the name) of a given city. --Serge 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Serge, where do people ever refer to the city of "Springfield (Illinois)"? That's a very odd construction. Is this how you intend to "professionalize" the encyclopedia? -Will Beback 21:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No where, of course. But if that's an issue, an "odd construction", then, if you value being consistent, you have to challenge the parenthetic remark method used by all other Wikipedia article titles to disambiguate. Like it or not, it's the standard disambiguation convention in Wikipedia, and I don't see why city article titles should be exceptions to it, particularly with a method that obscures the distinction between the name of the subject and the information that disambiguates it, which is exactly what the cityname, statename format does, particularly for non-American readers. There is no resaonable expectation that a concatenation of the name of a subject (like Springfield or George Armstrong) with relevant disambiguation information in a parenthetic remark (like (Illinois) or (actor)) produces a title for the article that is ever used to actually reference the subject of the article (Springfield (Illinois) or George Armstrong (actor)). --Serge 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The term in parentheses is not part of the name. It is simply a way to differentiate things with the same name. This means that the name is "Springfield". The Wikipedia engine was designed to use parentheses for disambiguation. Think of the parenthetical term as an html comment -- one is not supposed to see it when it is rendered (via the pipe trick). --Polaron | Talk 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And that's a big difference between disambiguating with the standard method, Name (Disambiguating Info), versus doing it with Name, Disambiguating Info. The parenthetic method leaves a clear distinction between the subject Name and and the disambiguation info. The comma method blurs the distinction, particularly in the case of CityName, StateName. --Serge 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's good enough for the USPS, city, state is good enough for Wikipedia. I prefer Chicago over Chicago, Illinois based on common usage, and Roselle, Illinois over Roselle (Illinois city) based on... well... the post office's common usage. (not trying to be facetious) —Rob (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, city, state is a valid reference to the address or location, but it's not the NAME of the city. The title of an article about a city is not supposed to be a location or address reference to that city; it's supposed to be the NAME of that city, period. When disambiguation information is necessary, why not add it in the conventional manner (with a parenthetic remark), rather than in an unconventional way to disambiguate that blurs the distinction between the city name and the disambiguation information? --Serge 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Just wanted to say I think it's great this got moved and please let me know if the tide turns elsewhere. Jibbajabba 09:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The unconventional U.S. Cityname, Statename naming "convention"

I would just like to point out that a growing number of Wikipedia editors are recognizing that the U.S. City naming "convention" to use Cityname, Statename for an article about Cityname is problematic for at least the following reasons.

  1. Use of two comma-separated names (cityname and statename) in an article name about an entity whose most common name is the first name (cityname) is an unconventional "convention" for Wikipedia (unless there is an ambiguity).
  2. Even when there is an ambiguity, the other name is normally specified in parentheses, e.g., Name (disambiguation name), not by a comma.
  3. The "convention" is inconsistent with other Wikipedia naming conventions, including the naming conventions used for articles about cities in most other countries.
  4. The "convention" is inconsistent with professional publications, including newspapers, magazines, and all other encyclopedias (both print and online).
  5. The arguments for the "convention" (consistency, "predisambiguation") favor editors over readers in violation of Wikipedia policy.
  6. Avoiding the most common/known/used name in order to avoid potential (not actual) ambiguities is... odd.

Thankfully, the "convention" is just a guideline, not a required standard, so we can ignore it here, for all of the above reasons, if nothing else. If you are interested in joining other Wikipedia editors to professionalize Wikipedia by following conventional naming conventions in the area of U.S. city and community names, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. --Serge 21:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The convention should be followed unless there is a good reason otherwise. This page is not the right place to change the convention. -Will Beback 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is illogical and unreasonable to follow an unconventional "convention" that is itself contradictory to every relevant convention within as well as outside of Wikipedia. This might not be the place to change the "convention", but it's as good a place as any to ignore it. Again, it's not a mandatory standard anyway; it's a "guideline". --Serge 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, this is an instance of two conventions that contradict each other.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Strict adherence to artificial conventions is not a substitute for correctness. The name of the city is just "Chicago". As mentioned above the convention used by US cities is not the usual way Wikipedia does disambiguation anyway (and should probably be changed). While not needed for Chicago, parentheses should be the disambiguation method (and not the comma construction) since one can utilize the pipe trick. --Polaron | Talk 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually based on the city seal, the correct name is City of Chicago. Vegaswikian 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Using parenthese for disambiguation is problematic becuase we use that style for physical landmarks. Otherwise, It'd be hard to know if "Lake Forest (Illinois)" covered a lake or a town. Secondly, there's nothing artificial about referring to "Chicago, Illinois". Lastly, note that many naming conventions do not adhere to the most popular name. This is true for aircraft (Hughes H-4 Hercules, not "Spruce Goose") and royalty (Diana, Princess of Wales, not "Princess Di".) Those are not artificial conventions either. -Will Beback 23:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If further disambiguation is necessary then use "(Illinois town)", etc. as the qualifier. Also, whether it is a landmark or a place will be indicated in the intro text anyway. Plus, a reader wouldn't know off hand that there is a difference in disambiguation style for landmarks and for places. There shouldn't be anyway. Unless the city's official/legal title is "Chicago, Illinois", the state name does not need to be there. Yes, it is true that most popular names are not always used. But in the examples you cited, those are official names/titles which is another option for titling articles. --Polaron | Talk 23:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"City of Chicago" would not be a helpful title, so I don't think the "official" name makes sense either. I don't see how anyone could be confused by "Chicago, Illinois", or why that article name is a problem. Do folks really worry about this? One purpose of the U.S. city naming convention is to avoid these endless discussions over what to name city articles. Let's just accept it and move on. -Will Beback 00:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's compromise by moving it to Chicago first, then accepting that and moving on.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's compromise by accepting the convention for U.S. cities. There's no need to change the article name. -Will Beback 01:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If accepting the unconventional "convention" for U.S. cities would not be inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, then I would agree with you. But since doing so produces original names inconsistent with not only most other naming conventions in Wikipedia, including those of other countries, but also inconsistent with every other published encyclopedia (online and text), reason, logic and objectivity make it impossible to agree with you. The name of the subject of this article is Chicago. If consistency and conventions are truly values, and since there are no ambiguity issues (Chicago currently redirects here), Chicago must be the name of this article, period. --Serge 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As we've said over and over again, if you want to change the convention than you are free to try to propose changes. In fact, you have proposed changes and they haven't been accepted. -Will Beback 20:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I and others are proposing changes. The vote above is an example of that. Conventions aren't proposed, they develop; guidelines are proposed, and may or may not be followed by convention. The current guidelines specify (but do not require) the Cityname, Statename format for U.S. city articles. If the consensus here or anywhere else (like New York City) is to ignore those guidelines, then that's what changes the convention, not yet another vote by the policy wonks on the guidelines. --Serge 21:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Will says Let's compromise by accepting the convention for U.S. cities. There's no need to change the article name. How in the world would that conceivably constitute a compromise? I don't think compromise is actually possible here. Either all US cities (except, apparently, New York) have to follow the "City, State" convention, or they don't. There's not much room for a compromise there. john k 22:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that my comment was in response to Nat Krause's proposed "compromise". -Will Beback 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's also not a compromise. john k 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Springfield, Illinois is perfectly conventional usage. In any context where the state may be uncertain, it is standard American usage. (The extension of this to other countries, like "Paris, France", has a rustic tinge; but Paris, Texas is correct.) Septentrionalis 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Context is everything. Indeed, Springfield, Illinois is perfectly conventional usage, when referencing the location of the city named Springfield in the state named Illinois. But the name of the city is Springfield, not Springfield, Illinois. Yet the opposite is suggested when we name the article Springfield, Illinois. Note that no other encyclopedia does this, for good reason. On the other hand, if we specify the disambiguation information in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia disambiguation conventions, in parentheses, then we have Springfield (Illinois), which clearly distinguishes the name of the city, Springfield, from the disambiguation information, which in this case happens to consist of the name of the state in which it is located. To be entirely clear, perhaps it should be something like Springfield (city in the U.S. state of Illinois). But, just like for any other Wikipedia article, regardless of what the disambiguation information is, it should be clearly demarcated inside parentheses, to distinguish the name of the subject (Springfield) from the disambiguation information. Use of the CityName, StateName location reference format for article names fails to do that. --Serge 16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion continues at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions (places)#Still_no_answer_to_original_question. --Serge 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

In the article it says that Chicago is one of three cities to have two Major League Baseball teams. I know that the Anaheim Angels changed their name to Los Angeles Angels, but they do not play in LA or it's surrounding area. Anaheim isn't even in the same county as LA. I don't think you can consider them the same as New York and Chicago where both teams actually play in the city or in a suburb of the city. I suggest making that distinction in the article.Ramsquire 21:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If so, please make the distinction yourself. Mrmaroon25 04:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The current headline photo (Image:5562e5mtfv0j6a.jpg) that was added by Chicagoloverforever (talk · contribs) on 17 August has duboius copyright status, so I think that we need to find a replacement. Prior to 17 August the image Image:Chicago Skyline.jpg was being used. This itself was a replacement for a deleted image. Going back still further I found that we used to use Image:Chitown jc01.png—I actually prefer using a distant skyline shot like this one rather than an aerial view for the headline image. Any thoughts? (There are, of course, a lot of other possible images that we could use at the Commons—commons:Category:Aerial views of Chicago & commons:Category:Chicago skyline might be good places to start)—JeremyA 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about two things:

1.) The current image doesn't meet WikiCommons/Wikipedia standards.

2.) Images in the past have been, quite frankly... boring.

If we make a change here let's take a vote and pick something that doesn't suck. I'm getting tired of this argument.

Jasenlee 05:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm deleting this image, I'll replace it with the previously used image, Image:Chicago Skyline.jpg. howcheng {chat} 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to work on a large City Strawpoll to end the feuding about larger cities in the United States. Please visit the page, User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox and leave comments on the talk page, but dont edit the actual page. After it has been modified to satisfy the community, I will go ahead and open it. But, please review it and comment, to avoid controversy over its structure. I hope to open it in a few days after discussion, so please be timely in making your comments. Thanks. --Ericsaindon2 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the lowest to highest elevation in the city to the city infobox a while back, and I notice that it has been deleted. It has been replaced by a single elevation. (I assume this is some average.) Why has this been done? Other cities have it both ways, but if both numbers are known they should be used. --Kalmia 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

These suggestions were made by DaveOinSF via my Talk page. --Un sogno modesto 04:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Chicago in Arts & Literature?

It would be nice to see something here about representations of Chicago in literature and Film. You could link to a list, or perhaps even mention a few such representations of the city in this article itself. A shame to see no Saul Bellow or _The Blues Brothers_ here, even through a link to another page.

Removed "racially motivated" from this phrase in the Cityscape section. There are many causes for "gentrification" - financial and cultural are probably the most important - but "race" as a motivation seems unlikely (and certainly unsubstantiated). Undeniably, gentrification usually means significant - even radical- change in the racial make-up of an area, but that is an effect rather than a cause. Perhaps "racially significant" rather than "motivated"?Bog 14:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

**WHY ISN'T THERE ANY MENTION OF TELEVISION SHOWS BASED OUT OF CHICAGO, OTHER THAN OPRAH???!!!**The Jerry Springer Show, Judge Mathis, Ebert & Roeper, Sports Action Team, Sexual Healing, and Soundstage are all popular television shows that are based out of Chicago. Also, popular radio personality, Mancow does his show from the WLS studios. Jonathan Brandmeier does his morning show on 97.9 The Loop. ALL television and radio shows should be mentioned in either the culture section or the media section. User:Senita Fetibegovic 23:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The RTA is not another service board but the coordinating organization for the three service boards. It seems that there was some confusion between RTA and some of the service boards. gidonb 00:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I have no actual data, I would suspect as many people pronounce the city's name Chi- caw-go as Chi-cah-go. As far as I can tell, this is not a North Side/South Side or a black/white phenomenon. Any thoughts?

I've heard people say "Chick-a-go" - doesn't mean they were right. And remember, please sign your comments. Robovski 01:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In some ways, it's like the five boroughs of New York. Brooklynites have a distinct accent from Manhattanites and the Bronx. I've heard it different ways, but I definitely can tell who is from the South Side -- and especially from Bridgeport (where I live), by the way people pronounce it: Chic-CAW-go. Mayor Daley is probably the best known example I can think of of the Bridgeport accent. The SNL "Da Bears" sketch comes pretty close to getting the South Side accent right. Mostly though, I think that it's more noticeably a South Side thing than a North Side thing for the same reason Manhattan sounds different from Brooklyn and the Bronx: Manhattan, like the North Side of Chicago, is home to a lot more non-native Chicagoans. South Siders tend to be "lifers" and inasmuch, have not experienced a watering down of the accent due to large numbers of imports from Iowa, Indiana, Michigan etc. That's just my theory though. Ryecatcher773 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Rainbow/Push Coalition and the Nation of Islam have its national headquarters on the south side. Rainbow/Push Coalition's headquarters is located at 930 E. 50th St. and the Nation of Islam's headquarters is located at 7351 S. Stony Island Ave. Also, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan DEFINITELY need to be mentioned, since those two are basically the leaders of their respective organizations. All of this needs to be mentioned because it is VERY SIGNIFICANT!!! User:Senita Fetibegovic 18:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada. --Serge 05:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

From Humboldt Park, Chicago:Most of the neighborhood was annexed into the city in 1869, the year the park was laid out. The fact that this area stood just beyond the city's fire code jurisdiction as set out after the 1871 fire made inexpensively built housing possible.

Where exactly are the borders of this jurisdiction? Have they changed over the years? --Kalmia 05:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

North side Ethnic Make-up

Not sure why Africans (mostly Nigerians) are not included in the overview of Chicago's north side. Panda

Why is Chicago's article "Chicago" while the page for Los Angeles is "Los Angeles, California"? Similarly, Philadelphia and New York City (I can understand why New York City's article doesn't have the state name) have no state names in the article title. Yet most other cities do have the state name in their Wikipedia entry titles. Could someone explain to me why this is or if there is a guideline for the naming of city entries? --Lyght 23:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Because Chicago was considered notable, and someone petitioned for the change, and that change was supported by enough wiki editors to happen. See the Requested Move header above. Robovski 23:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The current guideline at WP:NC:CITY indicates all U.S. cities should be named by the so-called "comma convention", but this is somewhat controversial because following this context-specific convention results in titles like Los Angeles, California that are in conflict with the general naming guidelines that apply to all of Wikipedia, like WP:NAME, which calls for use of the most common name, and WP:DAB, which says titles should not be disambiguated when not necessary. There is a lot of discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). In any case, all guidelines allow for exceptions, and for this guideline the current exceptions include New York City, Chicago and Philadelphia. --Serge 01:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in moving it to Chicago, Illinois, we can propose a move. -Will Beback · † · 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think its fine the way it is. Chicago is a big enough city that the state name attached to the title of the article. Maybe the "Los Angeles, California" entry should be changed to get rid of the state. Nick.dilallo@gmail.com 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. In fact, there is an active survey at the top of the Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (settlements) page where it has been proposed to rename all major/well-known U.S. cities that do not have ambiguity issues, including Los Angeles, to get rid of the state in their article titles. I encourage you to share your thoughts and opinions about the issue there. --Serge 04:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so even if Chicago is an exception to the U.S. city naming conventions, that doesn't mean that all instances of [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]] need to be changed to [[Chicago]]. Some editors are doing so. Powers T 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so this isn't a 'Good Article'. Today's Featured Article is San Francisco, California and I think this article is as good. Why can't we go for it? Robovski 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And Cleveland, Ohio becomes featured today. KyuuA4 07:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Right on, Robovski. Senita Fetibegovic 23:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, great article, very useful. Sure seems like a feature to me! ThaddeusFrye 08:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps erasing the statement: "Chicago is one of only a few cities to have its major sports teams play within its city limits." I think it is WORTH NOTING and VERY RELEVANT!!! Senita Fetibegovic 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

that's not even true though--64.107.62.162 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly feel that southwest should be integrated into south side, as historic divisions of the city has been North and South (with a bit of West). It's not wikipedia's place to try and establish new paradigms of information, so unless you can show me definitive proof of alot of independency that the southwest side has gained in comparison to the south side, this section should be integrated. (This is the same reason why Northwest Side doesn't get its own section.) -(Simulcra 00:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

There is a slight difference, and I have taken the liberty of trying to better define the Southwest Side a bit -- I have always had issues with the name myself. The Southwest Side is an actual designation used by natives, as well as news and traffic people, but it really is kind of a convoluted notion. The main thing about the Southwest Side is that white residents anywhere from Midway to Beverly, usually west of Kedzie, often refer to it as the Southwest Side to define it from the infamous South Side that always seems to pop up on the news with the preceding shooting on the South Side, gang violence on the South Side, etc. Same way the yuppies who moved into teh Western edge of New York's Lower East Side began calling it the "East Village" to sound more affluent/attractive. It may not be independent, but it's still listed on maps and tourism brochures. Ryecatcher773 19:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I just thought it might be noting that under the section of Southwest side which references Brighton Park as a Polish enclave, needs to be re-written. Today Brighton Park is a mostly Mexican neighborhood .

I don't have too much time, but someone needs to go through this section. Over time, it has become bloated. Bloat isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the entire section is poorly structured and has terrible flow. -(Simulcra 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

It's a template for editors, not readers, so it belongs on the talk page. It doesn't seem to flow well up there; do what you will. TimBentley (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Many editor templates are properly placed on article pages. Deletion review notices for example are really for editors. They annoyingly end up on article pages, however. :I posted queries at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities and Wikipedia:Village_pump. TonyTheTiger 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.210.245 (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

It is not true that all electricity in Northern IL is provided by ComEd. Some suburbs obtain electricity from Wisconsin. I don't know how that works, but I know the suburb I lived in obtained its electricity from Wisconsin and operated its own electric utility company, so all residents and businesses paid the city for their electricity. I changed this in the Utilities section to say "most of Northern IL" Stevevance 19:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the top New Year's Eve 2007 destination, according to hotwire.com. [3] Senita Fetibegovic 00:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Stick with the 2006 population estimate of 2,873,790[4], not the 2005 population estimate of 2,842,518. It's either that or just go with the 2000 Census, which is 2,896,016. WE NEED CONSISTENCY HERE!!! Senita Fetibegovic 18:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Get ahold of yourself - there is no need to shout. 2. I don't know if we should be quoting an estimated population over the 'verified' census information. I agree with the need for consistency, is there a consistent way this is handled for US cities? Robovski 00:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Other cities do use the most recent reliable estimate (see 1.New York City, 2.Los Angeles, California, 4.Houston, Texas, 5.Philadelphia, 6.Phoenix, Arizona, 7.San Antonio, Texas, 9.Dallas, Texas). However, they all use the last U.S. Census data available, which to my knowledge is from 2005. A CNN source is not the best source to use for this because 1. There is a better source available (U.S. Census Bureau, whose sole purpose is to count people). 2. They don't tell what their source is for the data or what the methodology was. Therefore, the most recent reliable estimate is from 2005. When the 2006 estimate (actually it will likely be for July 1, 2006) comes out from the U.S. Census Bureau is released, let's add it, but not until then. (And I would be shocked if the U.S. C.B. estimate is 2,873,790). Ufwuct 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for getting carried away. It's just that I'm so passioniate about Chicago. I will learn to calm myself down. Senita Fetibegovic 20:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A few weeks ago there was some objection to my placment of {{CHICOTW}} on the article page to make people aware of the New and Improved Chicago COTW. Now that I have several weeks of RESULTS and have the COTW page cleaned up, I hope that I might be able to ask for support for placement on the article page instead of the talk page. The increased exposure would do wonders to promote my attempt to help cleanup Chicago related pages. I think any article should promote the most important COTW that supports it. TonyTheTiger 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be debate over this on the page.

I'll conceed that Chicago is the financial center by headquartering of companies, but to call it the cultural and business capital of the midewest negates the influence of Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cleveland, Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis, Wichita, Des Moines, Madison and Omaha, all of which have profoundly more impact on the areas around them than Chicago does. Tell me Bloomington feels the cultural influence of Chicago, or that the people of Mentor drive to Chicago to do their shopping.--Loodog 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Being the business capital of the Midwest has little to do with shipping. It has to do with things like the number of Fortune 500 companies that make their headquarters or maintain central offices in Chicago. It has to do with the importance of the Chicago Board of Trade and the Stock Exchange. Being a cultural capital includes the quantity of museums, world-class cultural events and organizations, like the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the Lyric Opera of Chicago, as well as the ethnicity of the town (largest Polish population outside of Warsaw, large Korean, Chinese, Greek, Italian, etc. populations). And calling Chicago the capital in these areas no more "negates" the influence of other cities than calling New York the business and cultural capital of the East coast "negates" the importance of places like Boston, Philadelphia, or Washington in the same areas. And yes, people do come to Chicago for shopping from across the Midwest and, in fact, the world. Shsilver 13:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell me Bloomington feels the cultural influence of Chicago -- well yes. I used to live in Bloomington Indiana and recall they had bus trips scheduled so you could shop and see a play or ball game and get back that night. I recall one party about 1980 where everyone was discussing the battles between Mayor Washington and the Chicago City Council -- even the mayor of Bloomington was there talking about Chicago politics! For many decades the Tribune was the best selling Sunday paper in a huge region of about 8 states (including Indiana where I read it every Sunday too), Rjensen 16:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bloomington, Minnesota was meant.--Loodog 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of much in the way of national television that is set in or made in say, Bloomington? Chicago is a thriving media center, producing televsion, radio and movies for both local and national (and sometimes global) consumption. Chicago also has a long and influential architechtural heritage. But to say Chicago is the cultural capital of the Midwest does not reduce other cities in thier own local influence - it just makes them less prominent in comparison. Robovski 23:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that a city such as Bloomington does not feel cultural influence from Chicago in any sort of comparable way to that it experiences from Minneapolis. You can not find Chicago there.--Loodog 23:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But Minneapolis probably does have a strong cultural influence from Chicago, even if Bloomington, MN might not have as direct an influence. The Chicago influence, therefore, exists in Bloomington, but filtered from Chicago. However, I imagine that cable and satellite stations in Bloomington, MN do now, of in the past have, carried WGN from Chicago (I know it was carried in Bloomington, IN when I lived there. And I'm pretty sure that WTTW, Chicago's public television station, produces more shows that are shown on TPT than vice versa. Shsilver 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is just absurd to say that Chicago is not the cultural capital of the Midwest. For one thing, it is at least twice the size of most other Midwestern City (usually 3 or 4 or 5x the size). On it's own, this doesn't determine a city's cultural capital, BUT it's safe to say that the more people in one place, the more artists in one place. We all know that Chicago has a thriving theater scene--probably the 2nd best in the nation--and one of the best symphonies in the world. The fact that the Chicagoland area is so large alone points to the impact it has on surrounding areas. Let's not forget that cities like Minneapolis or Indianapolis are much smaller and the areas they impact are not nearly as far away as Bloomington, IN is from Chicago (Bloomington is 4.25 hours from Chicago!) shs2hm1a35@hotmail.com | shs2hm1a30@yahoo.com | 104i9v@udptech.com

DuPage County part of Chicago

After viewing this page for the first time in quite a while I noticed that the DuPage county part of Chicago was again not listed on the sidebar, this has been removed repeatedly usually by users who are unaware of that part of the city does in fact lie in DuPage. The most recent discussion regarding this was in Febuary of 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago&oldid=40465243#part_of_O.27Hare_in_Dupage. Please stop removing it! Thanks 23:25, 15 January 2007

UFO

On Nov. 7, 2006, a GIANT UFO was seen at O'Hare Airport. See UFO.

How about some more Asian love? Is it worth noting that Chicago has the third-largest Chinese population[5], along with the third-largest Korean population?[6] Illinois also has the third-largest Filipino population[7], though the majority of it is in the metro Chicago area (95,298 in the whole area and 32,266 in the city as of the 2000 Census)?[8] If all of this is lengthy for the Demographics section of the Chicago page, then this information should definitely be on the Demographics of Chicago page. Senita Fetibegovic 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A photo of Kirk Hinrich of the Chicago Bulls is needed to replace the promo photo in the infobox. Are there any locals who could manage to do this for the wiki? Thanks.--Alf melmac 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Chigago Tribune has reported that a HUGE UFO was seen over O' Hare Airport. This is on several places on Google. Can this be placed in a Trivia section or UFO Incident section ? This UFO matter is all over the place. Martial Law 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think something like this is probably better for Wikinews as it is a minor current event. Perhaps you could link to the article in the Chicago Portal. Jasenlee 04:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think we should add a section about ways Daley has done to clean up the city and make it a "green city." In the main article, we somewhat hint that work is being done for the environment but we never mention what has done and what is being done. --71.82.169.229 07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Senita Fetibegovic 15:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this down to get some feedback.

Why is it sideways? It's been like this for a few days now... Chupper 04:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK now it's been more than a month... Any ideas here before I change it, folks? Chupper 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a good college in Chicago that is good for music study? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KHislove (talk • contribs) 13:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Columbia College. - Senita Fetibegovic 18:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user added crime statistics. I marked Chicago's statistics as unsourced (anyone know where these came from? CPD?) and deleted comparisons to NYC and LA. (Immediately beforehand, the article mentions that Chicago computes its crime stats differently. Doesn't that imply that the comparisons would be invalid? Or were these numbers drawn from a source that recomputes these statistics consistently?) LukeDouglas 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Chicago does not refer to the metropolitan area of Chicago. The name Chicago is given specifically to the city itself, which tends to be why the suburbs of the city all have different names, such as Oak Park and Evanston. The intro line I added sort-of meets the issue half-way, without saying that the word Chicago can refer directly to the metro area. --Solutus 06:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Good call. 24.13.2.34 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

When people say they are "moving to Chicago" they mostly wind up in the suburbs. That's why "Chicago" has always meant more than the city limits. "Chicago" is officially the name of the metro area as well. Rjensen 07:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am happy this came up as this is a sore point in the area. The suburbs bristle at the idea that they cannot have an identity of there own because of this "all" is Chicago. But the article needs to be precise and Chicago, is the name of this city with precise boundaries, a government with jurisdiction over a territory, certain powers, etc. Finally there is no official metro area called "Chicago". The statistical name used for the region is Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area. It is used by the Federal government, including the Census Bureau.Gary Joseph 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Gary, That is NOT the official name for the metro area. The official name for the Chicago metropolitan area is Chicagoland, not Chicago. Chicago is a city, and like any other city it has suburbs. They are two distinctly separate places. Look, you're nitpicking here. My best bet is that you yourself live in the suburbs and have some crazy jaded idea of what Chicago is, right? Oh, and about that census bureau thing, it names the three boarder cities. It inst Chicago-naperville and Joliet, it names the three as seperate cities making up one metro area. --Solutus 03:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The "official" name of the metro area is Chicagoland? No, it was made up by the Tribune. At any rate, it is not well defined. Did you know that there is only one Naperville in the entire US? Let's be open to admitting that the suburbs have something to offer, but they are the suburbs of the city of Chicago. Speciate 21:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so; sounds like a stretch to me. I'd say once you hit, say, Zion, you're pretty much out of the Chicago metro area. Anyone have any more official definitions? +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See Chicagoland - it's on a 9-county basis. —Rob (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I stand (actually sit) corrected. Never mind. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that chicago, New York,Georgia,California, and Texas are the best 5 cities so i LOVE Chi-Town!

Oh yeah, Georgia and Texas are great cities, aren't they? Durrrr --Solutus 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just something curious that I realized while reading this over, there seems to be nearly no mention of anything pertaining to the Catholic Church and it's history here (the only place where it seems to even be mentioned is in the Education section.) However, I realize that this article is already quite long, and perhaps it's not necessary to add such information, though perhaps it should at least be mentioned that Père Jacques Marquette, a Jesuit, was among the first Europeans in the area (if I recall correctly; the wikipedia article on him doesn't say that he was the first, though that he was among the first Europeans to winter in what would become Chicago). I know little how how to edit Wikipedia, alas, and at the moment am unwilling to take chances with editing the page unless others agree that some information should be added. My apologies if this has been addressed already elsewhere, and I have missed it.63.215.29.212 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no place named "Chicago" -- there is a city of Chicago (1845) and a metropolitan area of Chicago (1950). Rjensen 16:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And what's that supposed to mean, exactly? If you mean about what I said about Marquette, I didn't say that he actually visited the city, but as far as I can tell, he was among the first Europeans to first the area that would become Chicago in the future. 63.215.29.212 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Under the history section it stands:

The name "Chicago" comes from the Algonquian word "Chigagou" meaning onion field.

In the end of the same section, under "Toponymy" it is written:

The name "Chicago" is the French rendering of the Miami-Illinois name shikaakwa, meaning wild leek (an analogical extension of the original meaning of "skunk").

These obviousy do not match :-(

Otoomet 20:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write either of the above sentences, but there may not be as much of a discrepancy as you might think. According to other Wikipedia articles the Miami-Illinois language is part of the family of Algonquian languages, and the wild leek (Allium tricoccum) is a member of the onion family. So it seems to me that the two sentences basically say the same thing. —Jeremy (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear. But a slight cleanup wouldn't hurt ;-) Unfortunately American toponymes are not my strong side. Otoomet 21:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet they don't disagree. :) Clearly the "Toponymy" section is the appropriate place for this information, and Miami-Illinois appears to be the more specific term than Algonquian, but which is the appropriate way to write out the original sound? Gruber76 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the uncited "Algonquian" sentence. Speciate 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to add a link to "external links" of CHICAGO article but it was deleted by a moderator, I guess. And he suggested bring this point out for a discussion so that's what I am doing now.

Everything that CHICAGO article has at the moment has a "touristy" feel to it: sports, tourism, entertainment sections and the like. There is not much in the article for those who come to LIVE to the city and try to rebuild their life: find a job, start a business or just find friends. There is no mention on how and where to do it. I realise that the link I was trying to add is a blog and blogs are not welcome on Wikipdia but it was the only way to make the site user-friendly: make it possible to upload organizations and events whenever needed and give the opportunity to visitors to comment. The blog doesn't have a commercial value: it provides newcomers with FREE important information on a regular basis (every 5-7 days) on what is happening, where they can turn for help, etc. if they are looking for a job, trying to start their business or looking for friends in Chicago. The organizations DO NOT PAY to be listed on the blog, it's a collection of data that the author digs out from Internet, newspapers, various networks, etc. to make everybody's relocation to Chicago a little bit easier. I believe there is a place for this Chicago Guide on the Chicago city external links. The guide's site is http://legalaliensguideblogspot.com

Any thoughts?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guide7"— Guide7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunatly the external links you suggest do not comply with our guidelines for External links policy. Your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, ALL are related to promoting this site. Guide7 Contributions. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Links do not have to be to a "sales site" to be commercial, nor do links have to be commercial to be spam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Cross wiki spamming has also been observed and reported this case. Mutiple wiki spam examples: spammed on es.wikipedia, spammed on fr.wikipedia, spammed on ru.wikipedia. Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Persistent spamming may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. see WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:COI --Hu12 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In the skyline panorama under the "Architecture" subsection (in the "Geography" section), there is something unusual: a bright orange building (near the bright-red CNA Plaza) that is simply not there, and seems to have been added to the picture. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My Great Project 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's bizarre. My wiki-fu failed me; I can't find the source of the modification. LukeDouglas 22:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's a case of steganography ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is not too long. There is so much to talk about when it comes to Chicago. It's very hard to be concise without missing any details when there are just so many subjects to be addressed. Senita Fetibegovic 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is way too long. Do we really need detailed descriptions of the North, South, West, and Southwest sides? Spin these off into there own articles! You know what would be neat? A map of Chicago's "sides" that would take you to the article for that side. A picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks.

I don't necessarily have an opinion that the article is too long, but it would be great if there were specific pages for each section of the city, and detailed information on the neighborhoods in each section, with even more links to those specific neighborhoods. Kedster T/C 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been tagged as too long; let's give some thought as to how to cut some less important info from those sections that have their own articles. Speciate 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)