Talk:Chicago

Note: A new archive has been created at Archive 2.

This talk page is being used for two major functions. First, to expand and convert the article Chicago over to the new format agreed to at WikiProject Cities. Second, to faciliate active discussions on the content, formating and all other items associated with the Chicago article. Please feel free to add or edit anything on this page to help in the conversion process. Please remember to sign all comments.

Old talk can be found in the archives (Archive 1, and Archive 2). Add any new comments at the bottom. To keep this page clean and useful please remove items no longer relevant.

File:City of Chicago Flag.png

Chicago Flag

Lead Picture

A vote has been held on Talk:Chicago,_Illinois between July 17 and July 28 to decide the lead picture for the Chicago article. The vote ended on July 28. Discussion was held on User_talk:Shoffman11 and elsewhere regarding the ending date of the vote and July 28 was reached as a compromise (the vote was originally going to be open for only 24 hours, but it was extended). Chicago is now a featured article candidate. Please don't change the lead picture any more, it has been decided by a community vote. Copied from article talk page:

July 28th 2005: Voting Has Ended. The clear winner is Picture #3, which will be moved into the infobox at the top of the Chicago article. --Gpyoung talk 17:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Shoffman11 01:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro, copyediting help

Want to contribute here, haven't been around long, and because this is up for featured article, want to say something first. Objections and comments welcomed.

• The intro says "Chicago....colloquially known as Chicago...." Huh? That second occurrence of the name needs to be removed.

That appears to have been fixed. Jasenlee 22:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Style things: Punctuation should be consistent, U.S. style (periods and commas inside quotes in all cases). Numbers under 10 should be written out (seven); 10 and over should be digits (20). Missing end periods and other minor things need fixing.
• Intro again: Too long. Needs to be brief and bold and grab you. Chicago's a giant towering on the shore of Lake Michigan. Then get into details, nicknames, and so on. I can put a suggested rewrite here, or just attack it.

I think you are right and should take a run at making it a bit more lively. Jasenlee 22:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Does the megalopolis really extend to Milwaukee? Seems like there's quite a gap after the Wisconsin border. But if that's consistent with the census or advertising market classification, OK.

Yes, Megalopolis is an actually classification given to regions where a primary city (Chicago) is within the proximity of smaller secondary cities (Milwaukee). I disagree with this being removed and if others do as well I believe we should add it back in. Perhaps the intro is not the best part but I believe it is noteworthy. Jasenlee 22:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Is "Desplaines" street really all one word like that?

Odd I know, but is in fact one word. Use Yahoo Maps as a reference point if needed. Jasenlee 22:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• A bit too much high-school-essay phrasing: "due to" used repeatedly for "because." Needs some tightening up so it really sings. Instead of "...a new way of procuring clean water was needed," something more like "Chicago thirsted for a new clean water supply." Also, "Chicago holds a distinguished place in the United States for higher education as the home of such distinguished schools as...." -- too much distinguished without distinction.

Agreed, much of this will shake its self out over time. I would encourage you to take a crack at polishing some of it. Jasenlee 22:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I wouldn't necessarily go chronological. Might be better to have the current culture and demographics, the vitality, come before the history and geography, unless the city format requires that order.
• Overall, too many Wikilinks. It's a mess of different colored type. Others might disagree, but there's a point where helpful links turn into eye-crossing clutter. People can type "transportation" and similar generic terms in the Search box if they really need to. I say cut about half of them, just to make it less multicoloricious.

I disagree, I take the perspective of reader usability on this one. While I agree it may seem like a sea of blue links I don't think users should have to search for the articles they want. In many cases a user may not even know an article exists if it isn't linked and searching for it requires extra clicking and the hope that they will use the right keywords. Wikipedians in many cases have carefully selected and formated links to drive users to the right pages. Let me use a simplistic example of this... under the Cuisine section you will find a hotdog link. While most American's know what a hot dog is someone from a foreign land reading this might not. Now if it wasn't linked they could search on a hotdog and find out what it is by reading the general Wikipedia hotdog article. But in this case would they know to search for a Chicago Style Hot Dog? Probably not. Because of the editing on this paticular link they are driven to more specific information directly related to what they are reading. Jasenlee 22:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I did some major editing on the Great Chicago Fire article today. DavidH 02:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is what happens when you can't sleep and there's an article crying out for just a little polishing. I attacked. Hope I made real improvements. I kinda want to make one more but will probably quit for now. That first sentence I think should have just the one, best-known nickname, the Windy City. Forget Second City, since it ain't really second no more, and it sounds weird with "...the Second City is the third largest city....". As you'll notice, I threw away NY and LA, cause why take the spotlight off the city of big shoulders and talk about who's number 1 and 2 in the first graf? DavidH 07:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are great and I don't think you came off like someone attacking at all. Your thoughts will only help improve the article and I encourage you to lend a hand in doing so. Now for the the Second City nickname, here are my thoughts. It isn't obsolete and is widely used despite the fact that Chicago is third largest city in the United States. It is a point of pride for most Chicagoans. The history of the nickname has more to do with other factors than just population data. It is referred to as such for the following reasons:

• It was once the second largest in the U.S.
• Citizens of Chicago carry a midwestern blue-collar attitude shrugging off the East vs. West coast battles. Meaning we don't mind being second to either L.A. or New York City if you want to group them into one. Hard to explain but those are my thoughts.
• The city was reborn after the Great Chicago Fire making what we have today the second version of the city.
• There are several famous organizations associated with the city, such as the Second City improvisational comedy troupe which has many famous alumni including Amy Sedaris, Shelly Long and a score of Saturday Night Live performers.

Jasenlee 22:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jasenlee, as you can see, I've made a lot of edits to the intro and other sections. Now that the whole intro is shorter, I think the two nicknames can stand in the first sentence.

On the Wikilinks, I know people differ on this. But I took some out, because a link to the "water" article seems a bit silly in a sentence about how "high water" made it hard to get around before the city was raised. I mean, are people really going to think, "Gee, I wonder what "water" is? I guess I'll click the link." To me, it's a little like a TV show -- you want your audience to read the article, not be so helpful with links that they keep changing the channel. Anyway, great input, thanks for reading and taking time to respond. DavidH 00:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely on the water example. It used to be that every year would be linked. It was completely useless.

Jasenlee 20:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Main Photo

I realize that a major effort was just made to select a main picture, but it might be noted that the one chosen is somewhere between 13 and 15 years old (it is apparent in the photo that the facade on the Aon Center is being refurbished). As a result, a significant amount of development that took place in the 1990s and 2000s is not included in the picture. The Park Hyatt building, for example, now one of Chicago's ten tallest, is not shown. Also notably missing is a great deal of development in Streeterville and the Illinois Center (such as the Blue Cross Blue Shield building east of the Aon Center).

Though this is a beautiful picture, it just doesn't convey the new level of density that Chicago's skyline has attained in the fifteen years since it was taken.

Removal of Section Headings

I have noticed that someone has been changing the sub-section headings in the transportation section into simple bold text. I assume that this is an attempt to shorten the TOC, however I think it would be better for the article to have a consistent format. Also, this method of heading sections seems to violate the Manual of style, which is supposed to be a standard for all articles. I have changed the bold test back to headings pending further discussion. --Gpyoung ^talk 23:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonfree images

There are two images on this page that are nonfree and should be replaced with free images. They are Image:ChicagoWinter.jpg and Image:Chicagocityhall.jpg. Please make an effort to obtain replacement images for these images. Kelly Martin 16:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced Image:ChicagoWinter.jpg with a similar photo that I took—Image:ChicagoWinter1.jpg. It's not quite the same, and maybe a better replacement can be found, but it is GFDL. I don't have a photo of city hall, but I'll try to remember to take one next time I am in the area. JeremyA (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, JeremyA. I'd get a picture of City Hall myself but at the moment they're doing repair work on the facade and any photo would be mainly one of scaffolding. While that might be interesting, I'd rather wait until they're done. Kelly Martin 11:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Turkish section of Chicago?

Is anyone aware of a Turkish immigrant population in Chicago? If so, where?119 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)