Talk:Chicago

Population Estimates

There were no official census numbers for 2012 census according to census.gov, so I reverted to the 2011 official estimates. It is the most reliable source— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.56.84 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 9 May 2013‎ (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511115531/http://www.northwestern.edu/aging/pdf/Annual2008.pdf to http://www.northwestern.edu/aging/pdf/Annual2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Overhaul of Photomontage in InfoBox

In this edit, Wealthgapfirefighter replaced the lead image photomontage with an alternative version (without mention here at Talk). Not sure what other editors think, but the former montage seems more dynamic, composed, more representative of Chicago than the new montage; though, I like the addition of Cloud Gate by Anish Kapoor. Coldcreation (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, it seems too one sided to have Wrigley Field. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

To address Alanscottwalker, Wrigley Field transcends sports as an international icon of Chicago; Soldier Field, the United Center, and U.S. Cellular Field don't share the same status. Coldcreation, what do you mean by "dynamic" or "representative"? I personally feel that the old (or current) montage is dated, lacking important attractions (like the John Hancock Center and Cloud Gate, which you mentioned), and unflattering in its depiction of the Field Museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wealthgapfirefighter (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think what Alanscottwalker is referring to is that Chicago has 2 MLB teams. If we wanted to represent sports in Chicago in an overall montage, I think Soldier Field field would be the best choice, as it has served as a venue for multiple sports, including quite famous boxing matches, numerous college football games, and is now the home of Da Bears. FWIW, I like the old image better too, but it is strictly based on personal taste. John from Idegon (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with all that Wrigley Field is, but it remains that it is strongly identified with a Side of Chicago, so too one sided. I think the choices in the current are also sharper, have more contrast light to dark, and better photography in composition, so I think that's what is meant by "dynamic". Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I really think Wrigley Field should be included in a montage because it is a Chicago Landmark. A reasonable person would understand that it has nothing to do with a North Side bias. Another point I would like to address is that the current montage is really just one photo, you can't enlarge just one for a closer look. Additionally, I somewhat oppose nighttime photos as they hide architectural details. Lastly, why would Millennium Park be included and not Lincoln Park? = Wealthgapfirefighter (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Coming at it from a non-Chicagoan perspective. Folks outside the city and its environs are pretty unaware of the split in the city between north and south sections. While Soldier Field is definitely recognizable, Wrigley Field is one of a handful of sports venues around the country that almost everyone knows. In fact, I can think of only 4: Wrigley, Fenway, Madison Square Garden, and Yankee Stadium (even though people think of the old Yankee Stadium, for the most part). I won't address the rest of the photos, but in terms of a sports venue, Wrigley is clearly the most nationally and internationally recognizable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Largest vs Most Populous

While most populous is precise, it's also ponderous. In the context of writing about the third largest city in the United States and giving the number of inhabitants, there is no ambiguity in using the plain English largest. Michael Glass (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The subject of population is unambiguous in context, "largest" is terse. Hugh (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering that size in terms of a city could mean population or land area (and in the latter case, Chicago is not the third largest city), it is clearer to say 'most populous' (which, for the record, is also plain English).Ryecatcher773 (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the third largest city in the contiguous United States in that sense?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well according to Wikipedia it would be Butte, MT - Wrangle AK, if you want all US. List of United States cities by area. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Either is fine, but 'most populous' is better, so 'largest' is not repeated over again in that paragraph. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The Chicago metropolitan area, often referred to as Chicagoland, has nearly 10 million people and is the third-largest in the U.S.

Let's consider this in context; largest is unambiguous and marginally shorter. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Metropolitan areas have vague boundaries; the only way we can give precise measurements is if we use lesser-known boundaries such as the US government's definitions, which by their reliance on county boundaries cause metro areas in sparsely populated regions of western states to be much bigger — for example, the Flagstaff metropolitan area, population 134K, has an area of 18,661 square miles, which is probably not much smaller than (and maybe bigger than) Chicago's. People know that "biggest metro area" is talking about population, because talking about metro areas by size would be silly. For cities, with their precise boundaries, it's very different; people understand that "biggest city in PLACE" can mean either biggest by area or biggest by population, so we need to be precise. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads	file info – #219

50.179.194.186 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)