Talk:Lincoln Park, Chicago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Illinois (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chicago (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge discussion[edit]

The following discussion is a concluded merger 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The result of the debate was the nomination Withdrawn. The original nomination from November 2006 was withdrawn and subsequent nomination generated no discussion in August 2007. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


For There should be one main article with other separate sections about the park and the neighborhood. The park is a major part of the community, and vice versa. Please dont remove this tag in the future, lets discuss this further :) I am also in favor of this because the knowledge collected on one page will act more as a whole history of the neighborhood.

Against Why is it being suggested that this article be merged into the article about Lincoln Park, the Park. There is no logic removing an article about a Chicago neighborhood and merging it into a Chicago park. All neighborhoods in Chicago have an article, so why remove one of the most central and populated. It makes absolutely no sense.PsYoP78 02:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it...there was no discussion started about this suggestion of merging and there is a standard of having an article for every Chicago neighborhood. I'll just remove the merge tag. Sorry if it's too bold...feel free to put it back if I'm really out of line.PsYoP78 02:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is a concluded merger 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.

NPOV regarding demographic makeup[edit]

Isn't it a little judgemental to say the area is populated by Yuppies? I'd rewrite but I have never been to Chicago and know nothing about the neighborhood except what I've read here. I have lived in the neighborhood for 2 years and the yuppie desciption is not far off but in Lincoln Park you can get a nice apartment with character. Rent is steep because you can get a nice apartment with character. People would rather pay more to live here than commute to party and escape downtown. It is like a smaller city tossed in a huge urban area. It is possible to have a car even though garages are not cheap. There are fun bars and restaurants all over the place and it is amazing during the summer. The close proximity of housing to activities makes people get out a little more than you would expect during Chicago winters.

  • The article simply states that the neighborhood is populated mostly by "young professionals, recent college graduates, and young families." It doesn't make any claims as to whether that's a good or a bad thing. How is that judgmental?

Visit ILoveLincolnPark.com to learn more about Lincoln Park. It's a community site that will give you a feel of what goes on there. Add it to Wikipedia's external links!

I live in Lincoln Park, and I find that statement to be somewhat inaccurate, based on my purely unscientific observations. A lot of the single family home here are between 3.5 and 6 million, according to real estate listings, and the people I've met living in some of them are not young families and have owned the buildings (most of which are gorgeous, imho) for decades. That being said, most of my neighbors could definitely be described as yuppies, and I myself am a recent college graduate, so it's definitely not judgmental. Peccav1 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimenez[edit]

This addition is probably accurate, but it is autobiographical by the person who wrote it, and the only source he offers appears to be his own personal page. Someone may want to follow up and try to source this independently. It is possible (I don't really know) that he could be emphasizing his own role over other equally significant activists. He was a significant leader in the Young Lords, but he wasn't the only significant leader in the Young Lords.- Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several articles written about Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez under Young Lords and also under Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez in Yahoo,Google,and other search engines.De Paul University has information in their archives and it is also on the world wide web entitled:The Lincoln Park Collection.There are also other persons with autobiographys in Wikipedia(not enough Latinos but hopefully soon.The Young Lords have many qualified leaders but Jimenez is the original founder of the Young Lords as a human rights or Polictical Movement. It is true that there has been a lot of misinformation.Since it appears that you are in New York perhaps you can speak with researchers at Hunter College.Again,I apologize for this inconvenience to you and wikipedia. Sincerely, Cha-Cha

Boundaries: Precise or not?[edit]

I fixed the sentence that said "there are no precise definitions of the boundaries". The city officially and precisely defines the boundaries of all the offical neighborhoods in Chicago. However, it is true that in popular usage there can be slippage and blurring. For the boundary between Lake view and Lincoln Park, the most notable example is probably whether the line falls along Belmont or Diversey. Interlingua 13:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)



Lincoln Park, ChicagoLincoln Park (Chicago community) — At least to most readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia naming idiosyncrasies -- communities tend to be disambiguated as name, city while parks as name (city) -- the current name, Lincoln Park, Chicago, is ambiguous with the actual park named Lincoln Park, since both are in Chicago. The proposed name resolves the ambiguity, and is consistent with how the other Chicago use is disambiguated at Lincoln Park (Chicago park).

As to alternatives, if this was the only community named Lincoln Park, then we could use Lincoln Park (community), but there are many others (see Lincoln Park), and obviously Lincoln Park (Chicago) has the same ambiguity issues as does the current name. If the two articles were merged, then the article with topic scope encompassing both park and community could conceivably be at this title.

By the way, this is a great example of why the naming of a place, like any other topic, needs to be determined by looking at all uses of its name, and not by blindly following some naming convention. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand the confusion if (as there are) there are notes at the top of each article explaining their scope. If you are proposing a simple redirect ( I have no real problem but the renaming of an article, as happened with the Chicago park in the last few weeks really wreaks havoc on all the articles that link to the old name. Also, FYI the park and the neighborhood need separate articles because the park's boundaries extend many miles beyond the neighborhood. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm definitely proposing a move. The desire to avoid having to fix links and redirects is not a valid objection to a move - that kind of maintenance is SOP for all moves.

There is not supposed to be any confusion about which topic is covered in an article caused by lack of precision at the title level; you should not have to look at article content to know if you're at the desired article (many reasons for this, including being able to select the right article from contexts like category lists). Scope is a different matter (making article scope boundaries clear is not a purpose of a title). One of the principle naming criteria is precision, which says to make titles as precise as necessary (but no more) to distinguish them from other uses of that name. The ambiguous name here is "Lincoln Park" and there are many uses of that name (see the dab page), including two in Chicago. Since there are two uses in Chicago, adding just Chicago to the title (whether in parentheses or with a comma) is not sufficient "to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name".

Unless there is a valid argument to made that this community use of "Lincoln Park" is the primary topic between the two Chicago uses, the article needs to be moved to a title with more precision; enough to distinguish it from the Chicago park use. That is the impetus for this move proposal. I hope that makes it clear. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You say: "The desire to avoid having to fix links and redirects is not a valid objection to a move - that kind of maintenance is SOP for all moves." That's absurd, unless you are going to go to all the pages that link here and fix the links. You'll find out how sop it is. It's also absurd because it shows that people have been apparently using this name just fine.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Lincoln Park, Chicago follows an growing consensus for neighborhood articles, so it wold be best to follow that. See Talk:Allied Gardens, San Diego.   Will Beback  talk  05:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, but in this case, it's ambiguous. Would Lincoln Park (neighborhood), Chicago work? Powers T 13:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Right. Will, no one is disputing the use of "Name, Chicago" here, which is what your objection seems to presume, when "Name, Chicago" is unambiguous. There is only one use of "Allied Gardens" in San Diego, so "Allied Gardens, San Diego" is unambiguous. As explained in the proposal, since there are two uses for "Lincoln Park" in Chicago, and apparently neither one is the primary topic, "Lincoln Park, Chicago" is ambiguous. Hence the proposal.

        I don't think there is much precedence for inserting parenthetic disambiguation anywhere but at the end of the title. But would Lincoln Park, Chicago (community) work? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

        • Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States: "If more than one place within the same county has the same name, specify the type of local government unit in parentheses before the comma (e.g., Poughkeepsie (city), New York and Poughkeepsie (town), New York, but not "Poughkeepsie, New York (city)")." I'm surprised you don't remember reading that, since you're the one who marked that section as disputed (for other reasons; I don't think the part I quoted is in dispute). =) Powers T 21:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Frankly, I have not paid any attention to that in years. Does this actually reflect what is done at those articles? I wonder what the reasoning is. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
            • You shouldn't be putting {{disputedtag}} tags on guidelines you haven't read "in years". Powers T 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The general Wikipedia naming policy absent a specific guideline is name if unambiguous and name (distinguishing descriptor) if ambiguous. Since U.S. neighborhood articles still do not have a consensus guideline, we should default to the Wikipedia-wide policy. In this case "Lincoln Park (Chicago community)" or even "Lincoln Park (Chicago neighborhood)" works very well. --Polaron | Talk 16:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose All 77 Community areas of Chicago should have the same convention. Leave as is for consistency or move all 77.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • After I made this proposal I noticed that there were a few other Chicago communities also at ambiguous titles. I figured we'd see how this ambiguity gets resolved and then follow suit with the others. Adding "(Chicago community)" or "(community)" to the title of those articles that do not have ambiguity issues is contrary to guidance given at WP:TITLE and WP:PRECISION. The point of this proposal is to bring this article into better compliance with naming policy and guidelines, not to switch from one kind of non-compliance to another. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That's a nice ideal, but how do you resolve the ambiguity between the community of Lincoln Park and the actual Park in Chicago? Powers T 21:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This is a terrible (ad hoc) process. Every city probably has multiple neighborhoods with Park in their name and actual parks that have the same name. What will you do with those? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I honestly don't know if it's true or not, but in each such case either the titles need to be disambiguated, or the two topics merged into one article (if that's appropriate, which may the case, especially when the park is low notability). I suggest we focus on what is the best way to resolve this particular ambiguity here, and then we can use this as an example/precedent for other cases. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I may support a move. However, Lincoln Park is a community area, which I think is significantly different to a community; so I would prefer the proposed disambiguation to be modified to Lincoln Park (Chicago community area). Secondly, I am only in support of a move if the general Wikipedia naming policy is applied uniformly to all pages in Category:Community areas of Chicago, Illinois—leaving those that have unique names with no disambiguation, and those that require disambiguation with the same disambiguation as this article.—Jeremy (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I support this suggestion over my original proposal. I did not realize the distinction about community and community area. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • None of the above. Considering that (1) "Lincoln Park, Chicago" is the desired form in the absence of ambiguity, because it is consistent with current usage for neighborhoods of other major U.S. cities, and (2) following the principle that the parenthetical disambiguation should not include parts of the title that do not require disambiguation, I propose Lincoln Park (community area), Chicago and Lincoln Park (park), Chicago. Regarding item 2 in my comment, I am thinking of a principle that I believe underlies the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States that states: If more than one place within the same county has the same name, specify the type of local government unit in parentheses before the comma (e.g., Poughkeepsie (city), New York and Poughkeepsie (town), New York, but not "Poughkeepsie, New York (city)"). --Orlady (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This is thoughtful but any article called 'Park (park)', as in your suggestion, seems like an absurdity.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current name for the neighborhood works. Dough4872 18:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - See, e.g., Sidney (town), New York and Sidney (village), New York. --Bejnar (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A community is like a town; it seems kind of odd to me to use the word "community" to describe a neighborhood. Shouldn't it be Lincoln Park (Chicago neighborhood)? I'd support that. Obviously the current title doesn't work, because it's ambiguous, and nobody has yet argued that this usage is primary among the two Lincoln Parks in Chicago. It needs to go somewhere else. I don't have any strong preferences about where, but, again, I prefer "neighborhood" or (or, for a much weaker second place, "community area", if we must, but that is a term of art, which we should try to avoid in article titles) to "community". john k (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    Granted it's a distinction that I don't think that many Chicagoans even know, but in Chicago a neighborhood and a community area are different things. The community areas generally encompass a number of neighborhoods; Lincoln Park includes the neighborhoods of Lincoln Central, Mid-North, Old Town Triangle, Park West, RANCH Triangle, Sheffield, West DePaul and Wrightwood Neighbors. So I don't think that (neighborhood) is a good disambiguation term here.—Jeremy (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    Is this in some kind of formal usage, or in general conversation? For instance, in Philadelphia, where I live, there are a number of large "districts" (South Philadelphia, Center City, etc.) each of which is comprised of a number of smaller neighborhoods. But in normal speech we would still describe the broader districts as neighborhoods. In normal speech, does anyone talk about "community areas," or is that just a formal term? john k (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    You'd probably get a different answer to that question from every person that you asked. The City of Chicago, on its website, recognizes the community areas, and also shows some further subdivision into neighborhoods. If you search for neighborhood maps on google, most of what you get have been drawn up by real estate agents, who like to make the neighborhoods that they deem prestigious (such as Lincoln Park) seem larger than they may actually be. There is a neighborhood called Lincoln Park that is some sub-portion of the community area called Lincoln Park, however the way this article has been written it is clear that its scope is the whole community area and not the smaller neighborhood.—Jeremy (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Negative value added by this proposal, for development of Wikipedia. At least this Requested Move is not as bad as the editor coming in and making several moves, thanks for that. --Doncram (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Lincoln Park (neighborhood), Chicago per the rule User:LtPowers mentioned. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Defer It would have been better if this proposal and the proposal to move Lincoln Park had been linked. Contrary to the assertion, the park is not at Lincoln Park (Chicago park): it is currently at Lincoln Park. Discussion on moving the suburb would be better left until we determine whether the park is primary use of the term, which from a European point of view, it probably is. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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 was a fire there.[edit]

Dudes, my homie was telling me he seen a fire in Lincoln Park. I then see that the web has covered it, so it be verifyable. so I want to put it in here. The only problem is that when I help out the wiki, I always get some wiki-punk saying, 'that aint encyclopedic.' All I know is that my holmies be lookiking fo information and the wiki si the first place to be looking so I wanna put it up

Here be the interet story on the bad fire: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-extraalarm-fire-hits-lincoln-park-building-20110916,0,1181434.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Famous Residents[edit]

I don't think the list of famous residents is accurate.

My impression is Baum lived in Humboldt Park when he lived in Chicago. Part of the confusion is Oz Park is found in Lincoln Park neighborhood.

My impression is Buckminister Fuller lived in Lakeview, close to Belmont. His lab was just east of Halsted on Belmont.

Henry Darger did live in Lincoln Park, but I wouldn't characterize him as "controversial" Eastlakeview (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

New image needing placement[edit]

I'm not a regular at this article, so will leave it to others to place or not place this new image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Aerial view of Lincoln Park - 01.jpg

Yes check.svg Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)