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.
Why is that very "small part" in the lead of this article? It seems WP:Undue there, and it has no practical relationship with the first part of the sentence that Chicago is a county seat. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it's for clarity. When you say Chicago is the seat of Cook County, you would assume the city resides in that county and that county alone, when it actually also extends into a neighboring county. The "small part" I believe is just a portion of the airport, an interesting fact as it is still considered within city limits. — MusikAnimaltalk16:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have any strong feelings on keeping it in the lead, I was just verifying (out of curiosity) that it was true and well-sourced. — goethean16:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
In fact, the population of that area may be zero now that O'Hare has expanded into that part of Bensenville. — goethean16:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Although on the other hand, I can't think of another major city that extends into another county. (except NYC, in which each of the 5 boroughs are a county, which is explained in the lead of that article). — goethean17:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's undue. The majority of Illinois' cities and towns articles start with which county and/or townships that they are located within. Also, it's a little known fact that Chicago does extend into another county besides Cook, so it adds to the interesting information in the article. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses and especially for sourcing it -- but still wholey uncovinced it is due in the Lead. It's not needed for clarity. 99.9% of the city is in Cook County (which, is of course the county that it is largely asscociated with in popular culture and legal/political history) -- no one will be confused. There were basically some acres bought on the edge of the airport a few years ago, that happen to be in Dupage. The reason it's little known (which is another way to say not notable/undue) is it is so inconsequential or meaningful. It reads like trivia - a somewhat "interesting" factoid. And the WP:Lead is no place for trivia -- just look at the rest of the actually important things in this article that are not mentioned in this lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Well okay, but I think that you would have to admit that the first thing that any article says about a town is what county its in. And Chicago is in two counties. — goethean20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I just checked NYC and it is in the lead about the 5 boroughs (2nd paragraph). I still think the 2 counties' mention belongs in the lead, but it could be somewhere within the first 3 paragraphs of this article. Maybe we should think about how to make the lead better w/o subtracting important facts about the city? Funandtrvl (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
A few airport acres is not nearly similar to the entire 5 boroughs of New York. If it has to be associated with the lead, a footnote would do, given how inconsequential it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
My point is that it is not insignificant. When they broke ground for the new runway at O'Hare, they had the officials from both Cook & DuPage Counties out there. Funandtrvl (talk)
Also, it is not insignificant the efforts that the City of Chicago went through in the 1950s to actually make the airport to be within the city limits...from O'Hare Airport:
"It is operated by the City of Chicago Department of Aviation. Most of O'Hare Airport is in Cook County, but a section of the southwest part of the airport is in DuPage County. The Cook County portion is located within a section of the city of Chicago contiguously connected to the rest of the city via a narrow strip of land about 200 ft (61 m) wide, running along Foster Avenue, from the Des Plaines River to the airport.[10][11] This land was annexed into the city limits in the 1950s to assure the massive tax revenue associated with the airport being part of the city. The strip is bounded on the north by Rosemont and the south by Schiller Park.[12]" Funandtrvl (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I see the relevance to the section (or more likely the article) on O'Hare but not to the lead of this article. We already link O'Hare in the lead and we do not talk about any of the other expansions of the city limits. We also already link Chicagoland in the lead. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
But this article is about Chicago, and Chicago is located within 2 counties. It is a common style of articles on cities that the counties are mentioned in the lead paragraphs. Check out: Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Columbus OH, Kansas City MO, Tulsa and more. If the fact of it being in DuPage County were relegated to a footnote at the bottom of the page that nobody usually reads (except myself & about 2 other people), it would be doing a disservice to readers. However, it would probably make certain people of a particular political persuasion happy to hide the fact that part of the city lies in another county that is of the polar opposite political persuasion. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The only disservice to the readers would be the bizarre emphasis on an unpopulated few acres of a small portion of 1 of 77 Chicago community areas, which is not even one of Chicago's over 200 neighborhoods and which because it is unpopulated, cannot possibly have any political persuasion issue - a claim that is so preposterous, as to be insulting. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have yet to see a good reason why the fact that Chicago is located in two different counties shouldn't be stated in the lead paragraphs of its article. There are also a few problems with the "facts" stated in the above paragraphs.
quotes: "basically some acres bought on the edge of the airport a few years ago, that happen to be in Dupage" and "A few airport acres..." Facts: a) DuPage County land was acquired by the City of Chicago starting in 1946, and continued through 2009: "In 1940 the federal government announced plans to construct an aircraft plant to manufacture cargo planes just outside Bensenville in Cook County. The plant operated from 1943 to 1945. Chicago purchased the complex in 1946 to develop a large airport. The proposed airport required additional land in unincorporated DuPage County, which Chicago planned to acquire. Nearby Bensenville challenged Chicago's right to annex this land in court, but lost. Many unincorporated Bensenville structures were moved or demolished to accommodate portions of O'Hare Airport, which began domestic commercial service in 1955." Encl. of Chicago; b) Then, more land in DuPage County (in the village of Bensenville) was annexed in 2009 for the O'Hare expansion project, "600 homes and businesses. Approximately 440+ acres more..." ABC7 ChicagoDuPage Cty. Land Use Report, pg. 62
quote: "bizarre emphasis on an unpopulated few acres of a small portion of 1 of 77 Chicago community areas, which is not even one of Chicago's over 200 neighborhoods and which because it is unpopulated, ..." Facts: a) Was populated area in the past, with over 600 homes and businesses taken over in 2009, and undetermined amount of homes and business taken over in the late 1940s to 1950s. b) It is currently recognized as Chicago Community Area #76 (O'Hare, Chicago, the only community area that extends outside of Cook County) whether a populated block or parcel or not. c) Land consisting of the City of Chicago includes an area in DuPage County of approximately 1,500+ acres. DuPage Cty. Mapviewer
Thus, it is not just a few acres from a few years ago, it is more than 1,500 acres with acquisition starting in the 1940s, with a population of over 12,000 people, Chicago Community Areas Historical Data and because those are not insignificant facts, it should be included in the lead paragraphs of this article. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Alanscottwalker. It seems like a minor point that is not mentioned again in the article. As far as I can tell the population of that portion of Chicago that is in DuPage county is zero—the 600 homes and businesses from the 2009 annexation were all demolished to make way for the expansion of O'hare.—Jeremy (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
None of the "facts" mentioned above demonstrate why it should be in the lead per WP:Lead. Those facts show it to be an unpopulated few acres of the airport. It has about the same acreage as Lincoln Park another thing not mentioned in the lead, at all, although at least Lincoln Park (unlike this minor factoid) is mentioned in the article, while O'Hare Airport is already in the lead. As I already noted, it is small portion of 1 of 77 Chicago Community areas, and not even one of its neighborhoods. Bensenville, Illinois history surely does not warrant its placement in the lead of this article -- that is another city altogether. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not the parcels of land of the city's in DuPage County are zoned residential, industrial or public use (like an airport)... that does not determine the municipal boundaries of the City of Chicago, neither does the population (or lack there of), since that is always a changing variable. As I've already noted above, contrary to your claim, the disputed area is recognized as both a community area and neighborhood (see Template:Neighborhoods in Chicago and look for O'Hare, Chicago, of which the airport land is part of). See also: Neighborhoods Map published by the City of Chicago. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Only a small portion of the O'Hare community area is in DuPage county—the southwest corner, south of Devon Ave and west of County Line Road. As is clear from maps of the community area, there is a portion of the east of the community area that is not airport and is indeed populated, but this area is entirely within Cook, as is most of the airport.—Jeremy (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Right: not populated = no neighbors = not a neighborhood. See eg. relative map to illustrate tiny fraction of city land and even tinier fraction of Dupage land. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Since this seems to be continuing, let's at least address it here for clarity's sake. The most recent addition of the information seems all right, as it removes the redundant information on the building's height. It is a popular destination in Chicago, though a source might help. With redundant info gone, is there further objection to it? Scarlettail (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi... Lester12483 contacted me on my talkpage. I asked him to remove the peacock term, and perhaps reword it slightly. I also asked him to provide me with the link to the webpage (if that's the citation he was using), and I'd put the reference in, if he was unsure how to structure a footnote. No, I think it's a good addition to the section, he's removed the peacock term (although I'd delete the "high up"), now we just need a citation. Onel5969 (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: as you have not requested a change. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Source 29 doesn't say anything relevant about the beginning population of the town or how quickly it grew in seven years. It's often quoted That in seven years (from 1833) the population grew to 7,000. The article says 4,000 and the source doesn't back anything whatsover up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.206.141.210 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
"Busiest airport in the world"?
A sentence in the second paragraph of the lead claims O'Hare is the world's busiest airport, which, while true if the measure is aircraft movements, is nonetheless misleading in that the world's busiest airport according to most passengers annually is, and has been since 1998, Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson airport. In the wake of O'Hare's leaping over Hartsfield-Jackson by aircraft movements in March 2015, most major media outlets reported that ATL is still the "world's busiest passenger airport" (CNN) and "likely gets the overall nod [over ORD because] ... [m]any industry observers consider passenger counts—not flights—to be the best barometer in saying which airport is the world's 'busiest.'" USA Today. The New York Timesreported that only "some news reports, mainly in Chicago, declared O'Hare as the world's busiest." Should we not clarify that it is the world's busiest airport by aircraft movements or by one measure? —GEORGIANGo Dogs09:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The brand names on Vienna beef hot dog and Rosen's poppy seed buns should be removed as the brand names are unnecessary, just "all beef hot dog" and "poppy seed buns." --WatneyScience (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I think they were there simply because they were mentioned by name in Emeril's recipe, which is the citation. But according to the article on the subject, any type of all-beef hot dog and poppy seed bun may be used. Removed them. Onel5969 (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Titles
Change fonts on titles so the article is more viewer friendly. For instance, the cityscape title is the same font and a little bit bigger font size as topography which is a sub-topic of cityscape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K Rod2310 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 16 July 2015
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. That sometimes people refer to a city's metropolitan area by the name of the city is unlikely to be unique to Chicago. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. The name of the city is always the most primary topic. The metro area wouldn't exist if not for the city. Onel5969TT me16:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Sometimes, people pronounce Illinois as Ill-i-noise. The fact that some people are not bright enough to figure out that a city of 2 million people is going to have a metropolitan area attached to it is not a reason to move this article. Metro Chicago has its own unique name, Chicagoland. John from Idegon (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment - the proposer has hit a great point. When we have an article like Chicago, it ultimately is a WP:CONCEPTDAB that is not just talking about Chicago within the city limits. That is why the article includes several pointed references to Northwestern University, which of course is not within the city limits. You really could argue that the article entitled "Chicago" should include even more information about the metro area, to the detriment of the incorporated city's information. But that should be a sitewide discussion. Red Slash20:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Northwestern has had a substantial campus in Streeterville, Chicago since the 1920s (having just reviewed the references in the article to NU in response to your comment - arguably only the one to their sport teams is outre). A city is difficult to lift out of it's surroundings (eg Chicago is the county seat of Cook County) but it's usual to make the effort at that, which this article does - (my pile on oppose seems uneeded, though) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Why would the parenthetical "(city)" make it any more clear where Chicago begins and ends? Perhaps to some just the Chicago Loop is the "city". There is a link to Chicago metropolitan area in the lead of the article, to minimize confusion. It's generally understood that a metropolitan area includes suburbs, making it larger than the city which is at its core. But, to blow your mind a bit, did you know that the city of Honolulu actually includes the entire island of Oahu, and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are also inside the city's jurisdiction? Now, our article titled Honolulu excludes these islands and defines the city as something smaller than Oahu, but to do that relies on US Census Bureau statistical constructs, whose geographical boundaries are subject to change every ten years with each new census, to roughly define the city boundaries. On the other side of the world, the city of Lhasa covers a sparsely populated area which is about one-fourth the size of Ohio. Here the city is much larger than the metropolitan area. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
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:
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.
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.Onel5969TT me13:19, 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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
@Jayaguru-Shishya: Hello. In this edit summary you said, "We should avoid separate phrases within parentheses." I don't quite follow what you mean, or why the original caption is therefore better. Could you please explain that further? — Mudwater (Talk)11:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: Gee, I'm not so sure about that. I think that a sentence all in parenthesis is grammatically correct. But, let's avoid it in the image caption anyway. How about this? I think it's a significant improvement. (My main objection to the old caption is that it's potentially confusing about whether north is on the right and south is on the left, or the other way around.) — Mudwater (Talk)01:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! In a recent edit[2] by Mudwater, there was introduced a new paragraph at the Chicago#Parks and Greenspace section. The first sentence is backed up by six references, which seems like a model example of WP:OVERCITE ("Garphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5] of ..."). Citation overkill not just fails to establish notability of the material that is desired to be added, but it actually calls it into question.
Not only does citation overkill impact the readability of an article, it can call the notability of the subject into question by editors. A well-meaning editor may attempt to make a subject [...] appear to be notable through quantity of sources. Ironically, this serves as a red flag to experienced editors
All we need is one reliable secondary source to verify the material. Moreover, the rest of the paragraph added still remains unreferenced. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Your deletion is poorly done. That voluntary essay does not warrant your deletion, it recommends trimming the cites (besides, that essay also makes little sense in mixing notability within article content, as notability is a concept only relevant to the entire subject of the article, here Chicago). And although the latter part would be improved with after citation, actual WP:Burden policy, see also footnote 4 of that policy, (not some voluntary essay) recommends that you either move down the cite already in the article, put a citation needed tag, and/or edit out more surgically than wholesale removal. Actually, working with other editors to improve the article does not require the wholesale deletion you have been doing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: I believe that this new version of the paragraph is a valuable addition to the article, and is appropriately referenced. Here are some additional thoughts: References serve the dual purpose of verifying the text of the article, and providing the reader with additional reference material. That's all good, but it's not necessary to substantiate every statement. For example, "Grassy medians run down the center of the boulevards." I believe none of the current footnotes substantiate this, but that's okay -- unless there's a contingent of readers or editors who think that grassy medians don't run down the center of the boulevards. Also, there are already two independent Wikipedia articles about the boulevards -- they're linked from that paragraph -- further suggesting that the addition of this paragraph is an improvement here. As far as establishing notability, as Alanscottwalker said, that's for the subject of the article -- Chicago -- not the contents. In conclusion, if you feel that this paragraph can be improved, please improve it, rather than removing it. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk)00:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, Mudwater. I'll try to enlist some of the concerns in brief and short below, and provide some suggestions if possible:
The current version says that "...the Chicago Boulevard System is a network of wide, planted-median boulevards that winds through the south, west, and north sides of the city.", but I couldn't verify that completely from the source. Indeed, the source mentions that the network of boulevards connects the largest parks, and mentions the parks in the south and the west. However, I don't think a website of a TV show really qualifies as a source, and hence it should not be used. Therefore, maybe you'd like to check this one instead: Villaire, Ted. 2011. Best Bike Rides Chicago: The Greatest Recreational Rides In The Metro Area. Rowman & Littlefield.[3] I am sorry, but that was the best one I could find.
The very next phrase goes as follows: "Most of the boulevards and parks are three to six miles from the Loop." This is backed up by a map, which hardly qualifies as a source. I mean, it doesn't even include any text.
The sentence after that goes: "Grassy medians run down the center of the boulevards. The medians and the squares both provided recreational areas for residents and have historically been a boon for development. The boulevards pass through residential areas and are lined with homes in a variety of architectural styles." I couldn't verify this from the source. As Wikipedia editors, we are ought to paraphrase reliable secondary sources; not to include our own additions outside the sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability does not exist just to "provide the reader with additional reference material", but is the indispensable policy we rely on in all circumstances. Another Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references (WP:CIRCULAR)
With respect to Logan Square Boulevards Historic District, I think the following source fits better and casts more light on the subject: Prechtel, Jason. 2012. Religious Freedom Vs. Aldermanic Privilege? Or the Subversion of Historic Preservation? The Battle Over St. Sylvester's Rectory. Gapears Block 15/08/2012.[4]
Alanscottwalker, you are right that notability concerns the subject of an article; not the content of it. However, the example used at WP:OVERCITE (""Garphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5] of ...") does not discuss the notability of the article, but the individual phrases/statements in the article. Six sources to back up one phrase is somethings so obvious that it doesn't require any policy, guideline or essay to be cited, though.
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. [...] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
The policy doesn't say that an editor is free to add unreferenced material to the article and it enjoys protection from removal. Neither does the policy say that if unreferenced material is added, the other editors have the burden to verify it. Indeed, as Wikipedia editors we are ought to paraphrase reliable secondary sources, and the one who is adding material should also bother to provide the source he/she is actually paraphrasing. If, for some reason, the user isn't paraphrasing a source, then we shouldn't include such material in our encyclopedia in the first place. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: If you think that the paragraph about the Chicago Boulevard System (text, footnotes, or both) can be improved, please improve it, rather than removing it. Here are some additional thoughts: (1) Of course, as a general rule, it's desirable for the text of an article to paraphrase, and be substantiated by, the references. But, it's not necessary to substantiate every statement with a reference. For example, the paragraph is better with the inclusion of the sentence "Grassy medians run down the center of the boulevards," even though none of the current footnotes state this. For more on this important and widely-observed concept, see Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed. (2) The current references are reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, and as such they are entirely appropriate in this context (though again if you think you can improve them please do so). For example this page, from the website of WTTW, a PBS station, has a good two-paragraph overview of the boulevard system -- even though it is, as you said, "a website of a TV show". And this page, from the City of Chicago website, in addition to substantiating the statement that "Most of the boulevards and parks are three to six miles from the Loop," could be very helpful and informative to the reader -- although, yes, it's a map, and therefore, as you said, "doesn't even include any text". (3) I think we would all agree that we want to improve this or any Wikipedia article in a way that makes it better for our readers. And in doing so, we strive to follow Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability and using reliable sources, without being pedantic or argumentative about it. — Mudwater (Talk)11:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Mudwater, you need a source that supports the statement, what you are arguing for appears to run afoul of WP:NOR. So, don't force other people to eliminate or modify that sentence, do it yourself, and, yes, don't add it in the first place - we cannot make sources support more then they support or say more then they say. The WTTW source is fine as a source but only for information that it directly supports; the map is fine as a source (but it has no scale, so cannot be used for distance) - so edit accordingly, please. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
(1) You're being too strict, and interpreting the editorial guidelines too rigidly. Take a look at the example at Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed, where it talks about subject-specific common knowledge -- "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions." This is very much like "Grassy medians run down the center of the boulevards." That's pretty much what a boulevard is. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of highly-rated articles where some but not all of the statements are substantiated with references, because this is within the editorial guidelines. (2) With that being said, I believe I will be able to write a new version of the paragraph that only includes statements that are verified by the footnotes. Doing so could be a fun pedagogical exercise. I'm not sure but most likely I can get to that in the relatively near future. Stay tuned. — Mudwater (Talk)13:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: In a series of recent edits, you have ended up removing the new version of the paragraph. I would request that you put it back, or, barring that, please explain why you think the article is better without the paragraph than with it. All of the new version of the paragraph is verified by the citations -- I can explain how, if you have any specific questions. So, yes, what it is that you find so objectionable? I'm just not seeing that. — Mudwater (Talk)22:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya, Alanscottwalker, and Orestek: Here's the same paragraph, but with quotes added to the footnotes. I've put in the quotes, not for inclusion in the article, but to show here that each statement in the paragraph is supported by the references. Since that's the case, and since the inclusion of this brief paragraph improves the article, it should be put back in. If there is some rational reason that the article is better without this paragraph, I'd like to hear it. And of course, if other editors can make this paragraph even better, they are encouraged to do so:
^ ab"Biking the Boulevards with Geoffrey Baer", WTTW. Retrieved March 31, 2016. "The boulevards are wide, tree-lined streets, which connect Chicago's largest parks.... Geoffrey invites you to take a new look at the old neighborhoods that emerged along these boulevards in the 19th Century. Places like Bronzeville, Englewood, Back of the Yards, Lawndale, Humboldt Park, and Logan Square."
^"Chicago's Park & Boulevard System", University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved March 31, 2016. "Although conceived in the late 1840s, boulevards were formally authorized by the Illinois legislature in 1869 in the same bills that established its major parks."
^"Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District", The Cultural Landscape Foundation. Retrieved March 31, 2016. "Consisting of eight parks, nineteen boulevards, and six squares, Chicago’s historic park and boulevard system comprises more than 1,700 acres of open space along 26 miles of interconnected roadways.... Between 1935 and 1942, the Works Progress Administration funded work in Chicago’s parks, with Alfred Caldwell providing oversight as the system matured. Today, many of the parks and boulevards designed between 1869 and 1942 retain their historic integrity.... Logan Square and Boulevard, along with other nearby squares and boulevards, were listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1985."
Hi there, Mudwater. I explained the edits in my Edit Summaries. Here's the rationale in short:
The material you added, failed to verify ("The building of the boulevard system continued intermittently until 1942.")[5]
The source you inserted is a picture of the city map, and does not verify anything.[6] As Wikipedia editors we are ought to paraphrase reliable secondary sources; I don't really understand what you wanted to verify or paraphrase by that city map.
The remaining paragraph (three sentences), seems totally loose from the rest of the section. Even the individual sentences within the paragraph are not connected to each other. For example, "A number of Chicago neighborhoods emerged along these roadways..."; but what roadways? The previous sentences in the paragraph never mentioned such things.[7]
You have constantly been repeating how 1) the references "provide the reader with additional reference material", 2) "it's not necessary to substantiate every statement", or 3) "it's desirable for the text of an article to paraphrase, and be substantiated by, the references. But, it's not necessary to substantiate every statement with a reference" This indicates pretty strongly how you have not comprehended yet the Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is one of our dispensable policies.
Instead of first writing the paragraph and then trying to desperately back it up by sources, why won't you first find reliable secondary sources and then just paraphrase the text? I've already suggested you a couple of sources, such as:
Villaire, Ted. 2011. Best Bike Rides Chicago: The Greatest Recreational Rides In The Metro Area. Rowman & Littlefield.[8]
Prechtel, Jason. 2012. Religious Freedom Vs. Aldermanic Privilege? Or the Subversion of Historic Preservation? The Battle Over St. Sylvester's Rectory. Gapears Block 15/08/2012.[9]
Anyway, I consider the paragraph more or less redundant; the previous paragraph already discusses the Chicago Park district extensively. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Jayaguru-Shishya, it is acting in bad faith for you to want the Boulevard subject paragraph gone as uneeded, and to attempt to achieve that end by tendentious editing. Your objections are bound to make no sense to people the way you are expressing them (nor the whole sale deletions you make pursuant to them, which at most would require copy-edit to the text, not deletion) and because you are not saying what you really mean, which is that you want the the subject gone. (Viz.: Your first objection is vague and opaque given the sourced discussion of being developed to 1942; your city map objection is at least debatable because a map is a documentary source - and you would have just removed the map if that was truly the problem; your 3rd objection makes little sense since boulevard and roadway are in context synonymous). If you would have directly asked the question, from me and apparently Mudwater, you would have been informed that we disagree with you on your overall objection - the idea of the paragraph makes sense given its historical and continuing relation to the city fabric. But if we need to discuss cutting it down, copyediting, reorganizing, or how you think those other sources should be used, lets get to it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: My last few posts have been very clear about the new/current version of the paragraph. I've abandoned the previous version of the paragraph -- written by another editor -- and written a new version based entirely on the references. Frankly I'm having a hard time believing that you missed that point, as you seem to be suggesting. You clearly have some reason for wanting this material to be removed from the article, but I'm just not seeing what that is, nor do I find the current state of this discussion to be at all helpful for creating better content. Perhaps it's time to let things stand as they are. — Mudwater (Talk)00:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, there is very little to copy-edit if the material is not based on reliable secondary sources. First we need the sources, and then the paragraph could be written upon those (and copy-edited upon those if needed). If you think that an image of a city map is a good enough source for the addition, well I think it tells everything necessary. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The map is not the only source. Moreover, the map states in text that it is the "Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District", it states in text the streets, places and parks involved. It is published by the City of Chicago. It is indeed a reliable source for there being a boulevard system. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, the map says "Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District". But that's where things get complicated. Besides that, I have listed up four similar concepts around the subject: 1) the Chicago Boulevard System, 2) the Logan Square Boulevards Historic District, 3) Chicago's historic Park Boulevard System[10], and 4) park boulevard system[11]. The more I have looked into this, the more I have began to wonder if the "Chicago Boulevard System" is really even a widely-used concept. I searched for decent sources about the subject, and the best I could came up with was the Villaire 2011.
I am not objecting the addition of this paragraph for the sake of objecting, Alanscottwalker. I just don't think we are paraphrasing a good-enough source, and now I am in doubt of the whole concept. Moreover, the Chicago article is rather a well-standing and a mature one, and I don't think adding a new, poorly sourced paragraph would be an intrinsic value. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I have replied to most of this below, but that you seem to argue this article is close to finished is ridiculous on it's face, and suggests you do not actually know this article. Your comments also suggest you are either imagining multiple concepts, or you are just unable to understand what is being discussed in ordinary words. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The recent paragraph on the Chicago Boulevard System - version II
Greetings! There was recently introduced the second version of a paragraph concerning the Chicago Boulevard System.[12] The most recent version isn't completely problem-free, though. The core of the problem is this: the whole paragraph relies on the concept of the Chicago Boulevard System, something that none of the sources at the moment can verify. Instead, I have listed four similar concepts around the subject: 1) the Chicago Boulevard System, 2) the Logan Square Boulevards Historic District, 3) Chicago's historic Park Boulevard System[13], and 4) park boulevard system[14]. The more I have looked into this, the more I have began to wonder if the "Chicago Boulevard System" is really even a widely-used concept. I searched for decent sources about the subject, and the best I could came up with was Villaire (2011) (Villaire, Ted (2011). Best Bike Rides Chicago: The Greatest Recreational Rides In The Metro Area. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 22. ISBN9781461746485.)
In a closer inspection, the paragraph consists of four sentences. Please find the problematics below piece-by-piece:
1/4)The first sentence: the source does not even mention the Chicago Boulevard System. Indeed, it's a content description of a TV program.
2/4)The second sentence: the same as above, does not even mention the Chicago Boulevard System.
3/4)The third sentence: refers to the same source as in 1/4, so the source doesn't talk about the Chicago Boulevard System nor any neighborhoods along its roadways
4/4)The fourth sentence: the source failed to verify ("The building of the boulevard system continued intermittently until 1942...")
No. There appears to be a communication problem here: that you are suddenly realizing we have been talking about a second draft paragraph suggests you are tendentiously not listening or are unable to understand ordinary communication (perhaps this is also why you in earlier comments did not seem to know what a roadway is). Your most recent argument is in main contradictory for no purpose. You have previously noted that the Wikipedia method is summary, paraphrase, and putting things in our own words - your suddenly new baseless central complaint (btw. the fact that you keep changing objections is also a sign of tendentiousness) is that the paragraph summarizes, paraphrases, and puts things in Wikipedia's own words - so, you are not making any sense. Your comment also blatantly misrepresents, or demonstrates poor understanding of the WTTW source, it is a reliably reported written description of the of the boulevards, the subject of the paragraph. The fact that your last (4/4) has not addressed the previous discussion about the sourced nature of the 1942 year, also suggests that you are just being contradictory for no purpose. I'm sorry, but it is difficult to actually believe you have looked for much of anything on the boulevards, or you just do not understand what the subject is. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, the main problem is that the sources do not verify the text. This is quite understandable, considering that the original editor thought that not all material must be Wikipedia:Verifiable. The rephrasing of the text didn't help to overcome this problem.
The WTTW source does not verify the material about the "Chicago Boulevard System". I am not saying it fails to verify because it is a content description of a TV program, but it fails to verify because it makes no mention of it. Indeed, can you expect more of a TV program description?
Chicago is a city that consists of a lot of parks, boulevards, park districts, and boulevard districts. I really wonder if the "Chicago Boulevard District is an official term since most of the sources do not mention it, or they refer to other concepts, such as the "Logan Square Boulevards Historic District" (which is another concept already).
Comments, such as a) "User:Jayaguru-Shishya, it is acting in bad faith...", b) "...to attempt to achieve that end by tendentious editing.", c)Your objections are bound to make no sense to people...", d) "What are you talking about?", e) "...that you seem to argue this article is close to finished is ridiculous on it's face...", or f) "...you are tendentiously not listening or are unable to understand ordinary communication..." are not helpful, so please focus on the content instead of an editor.
First of all, I am keeping it focused on your edits and comments. It's too bad that your comments demonstrate little understanding of the WTTW source (or earlier what a roadway is, etc.) Now you are suggesting you don't know whether there is a boulevard system, but you are fine with there currently being an historic boulevard system. I'm sorry your arguments are not making sense. But they are not. At any rate, I have to run, now.Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Picking up, you have not addressed the 1942 issue since the author of the paragraph has indicated exactly what he was summarizing there (if you think there is a better way to summarize that information, please plainly state your summary, but note we cannot violate copyright or commit plagiarism by too close paraphrasing). For there currently to be an historic boulevard system there has to be a boulevard system that was constructed at some time period, thus your failed verification arguments make little sense (unless you just do not understand the WTTW and other sources, or have little grasp of permitted and proper summary). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed edits on this topic adding "failure-to-verify" tags which I remove in this edit. I appreciate that an editor is trying to do something good, but these edits show fairly complete non-comprehension. It is too hard to discuss possible small refinements if the big picture is totally misunderstood. There is just one historic system, there is no "new" system created by the proposed designation of the historic system as a historic district. This Chicago article should not be touched until there is some resolution at Talk:Chicago boulevard system, I suggest. --doncram06:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I made some emendations, but yes, you are in the main correct. This tagging is unsupported, based on misreading or misrepresentation of sources (or policy), and has no consensus on this talk page. The need again is to actually work with other editors and actually read and understand the multiple sources, and the subject, and understand original summary/paraphrase (and ordinary words). No one is against improvement but the kind of non-collaboration is wrong on several levels. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
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.
The above link, added by me, was removed shortly afterwards. As this is claimed to be the "third most populous city in the United States" without reference and most of our readers will not know about the list article, I suggest to put it back in. If we regard the lede overlinked, then rather remove the link to "United States" because that is really global common ground. --SI18:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
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.
sourcecheck=failed – in both of these cases, the editor failed to follow the instructions at factfinder.census.gov for creating a "deep link", otherwise known as a persistent link – one that can be referred to elsewhere on the web. The URLs given here have insufficient information to reconstruct what the original links may have displayed. —jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)01:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
Food Insecurity is one of Chicago’s major public health concerns. In 2011, 122, 998 low- income Chicago residents were classified as living in neighborhoods that were food insecure. This term identifies residents who have to travel more than 1 mile to reach a food establishment of 10,000 sq. ft. or more selling fresh produce. Since the approval to release food desert data Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has launched a city-wide plan “A Recipe for Healthy Places” which a program that supports health eating, aides in the funding of health-food establishments, and promotes the farming of healthy foods. In addition to this initiative, the city has also help establish 15 new grocery stores through the city and the conversion of CTA buses in mobile grocery stores to serve residents living in food deserts who might also struggle with transportation. With massive improvements the City of Chicago has seen 21% decrease in the number of low-income individuals who live in food deserts and has since then made continual effort to help retailers sell healthy food and also funded alternative food sources such as urban farms. Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has projected that by 2020 the City of Chicago should be able to eliminate all food deserts.
[1]
That's all well and good, but I'm not sure where this info would belong in a general article about Chicago. Is there another article that focuses more specifically on health or economic issues in the city? Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
I changed "although" to "until" in the 2nd P in "Sports": the last sentence concerns the Vubs drought, and "until" denotes that it ended.
Also - some reports have said that their parade and rally was the largest gathering of people in US history. Not sure where that tidbit should be placed (if it's true)? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Five million is nonsense, even from the Chicago Police (known for their honesty, right). There are only 10 million people in "Chicagoland". There is no way half the people went to a parade. There are people with lives and jobs, and a lot of people aren't fans. Five million is so unrealistic that I can't believe people bought it.
I have just modified 8 external links on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
I have just modified one external link on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
Has there been recent disruptive editing? If so, make your request at WP:RFPP. I find it hard to believe that there has been edited warring or vandalism. The page is pretty stable. So really, what are you asking and why, Scooterboy5k? John from Idegon (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
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 modified one external link on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
I believe that adding that the population of Hispanics has now superseded Blacks in Chicago. Would not these be valid sources? Why do we have to have the exact census data. If I were to add all the data from the census tracts to derive the amount it would be considered original research. Why not let the news channel due it?
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is a blurb about fall out boy in the main text of this article that somehow made it past the editors ("Big thanks to Patrick Stump from fall out boy for founding Chicago"). It should probably be removed. Thanks. 107.0.43.250 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
The crime section gives the figure for murders in 2015 in the first paragraph, but this fairly long section does not repeat this number in the last paragraph, which gives numbers for recent years. I think a repeat would fit there. Also, figures for 2016 are available, e.g., here: http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/homicides . Presumably that site will have 2017 totals in the next few weeks. Kdammers (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
OK, I put it with cite in the section where we talk about poetry, although there is probably a fine case for putting it in performance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Intro paragraph
I just tried to keep the first two "highlights" -- architecture and finance -- that were there when I started editing/updating references, etc. I'm not making any assumptions about what does or does not belong in that opening paragraph, just editing it a bit, so please be kind. Thanks in advance. Chidino (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
In DuPage County?
Somebody removed the bit about Chicago being in DuPage County (as well asCook) from the infobox. I reverted that because of the bit of O'Hare Airport that is in DuPage (and Chicago presumably). On Google maps just search for "DuPage County, IL" and you'll get an outline with shading for DuPage. O'Hare is at the NW corner of the county and the part north of 19 and east of York Road is in both DuPage and O'Hare (Chicago). Some might say this is a technicality, but ... Somebody might want to check that there haven't been any land transfers between counties or city, but this has been well known and probably goes back to the army air base at O'Hare (WWII?) Smallbones(smalltalk)16:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Why include American Community Survey data for ancestral groups?
It's clearly not accurate. For example, 1.72 million are reported as "other groups?" Chicago's population is only 2.7 million! Fluous (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The biggest public library
I think that the British Library in London is (as a building) by far bigger than this Chicago library depicted on this article. So it appeared to me when I first saw it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.63.5 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Candidly, we are not concerned with your impressions as to the relative size of buildings. We rely on published, reliable, verifiable sources here. The statement is "Since its completion in 1991, the Harold Washington Library has appeared in Guinness World Records as the largest public library building in the world." See this article to support it. General IzationTalk 19:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Lead Image Additions
Not to nitpick, as the lead image is quite good, but I feel like two things could be added:
Someone reverted the edits immediately even though it is well sourced and researchable, how do you all feel about a section called High Taxes. It is an area not covered at all in the article, and yet it is true. Here it is:
High Taxes
As of 2017 Chicago had the highest state and local sales tax Rate for a U.S. city with a populations above 200,000. Chicago, IL – 10.250%[2]
The state of Illinois has the second highest rate of real estate tax - Illinois has an effective tax rate of 2.31% which is second to New Jersey 2.44%[3]
Toll roads are also a de-facto user tax on the citizens and visitors to the state of Illinois. Illinois ranks out of the 11 states with the most miles of toll roads. Illinois: 282.1 miles. Chicago ranks fourth in most expensive toll roads in America by the mile. Chicago Skyway: 51.2 cents per mile.[4]
I feel like the "interactive map outlining chicago" in the infobox is both too big and not informative enough to deserve to be there. It looks bad and doesn't add much value in terms of info. Should be deleted. Thoughts? Ganesha811 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
To me that map seems quite good. When I go to the map, by clicking on it, it's easy to zoom in and out, and to move around. And when I zoom in a lot, I see a lot of detail. Of course, all this might depend on what device (computer, tablet, or phone) and browser someone is using. I'm using a computer, running Windows, and most of the time I'm using Firefox as my browser. — Mudwater (Talk)17:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I’ve clicked on quite a few interactive maps in the past week or two and it never lets me see it. Whenever I click on it, it always does nothing. LegioV (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Robert De la salle died in March 1687, so why does this page say the name "Chicago" was first recorded in his diary in September 1687, months after his death? 2601:603:4F00:2945:F83D:AFC6:F193:4DEB
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Chicago is now the fifth largest city in North America, not the fourth largest, after Mexico City, New York City, Los Angeles, and Toronto. 108.192.123.34 (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
This sentence in the lead could definitely be improved:
"In addition, the city has one of the world's most diversified and balanced economies, not being dependent on any one industry, with no single industry employing more than 14% of the workforce.[17]"
Under the topography section, the following sentence appears:
"Landfill extends into portions of the lake providing space for Navy Pier, Northerly Island, the Museum Campus, and large portions of the McCormick Place Convention Center."
I believe this sentence refers to how the places in that last are built on land reclamation sites. However the word "landfill" seems to only refer to a waste disposal location. The Wikipedia page Land reclamation recommends using the term "land fill" for this. Not sure what the best change is stylistically so asking here to see if anyone has thoughts. Flurmbo (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
This website tells the boundaries of the program in Chicago and says it is "North America’s largest bicycle sharing system in terms of area covered" AngieWP (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Donn't know how or where to add this so I'll do it here - perhaps the powers that be can fix the main page:
The sentence that says " Winters are cold and snowy, although the city typically sees less snow and rain in winter than that experienced on the East Coast"....is INCORRECT. Every single "big city" on the East Coast from Washington DC to New Haven CT, see less snow annually (between 15 and 28 inches) that the 37 inches Chicago sees each winter. Only from Boston northward does the East Coast average more snow in winter than Chicago. Someone should fix main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.191.110 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2020
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
perhaps with whats ging on in the world and the USA this page should be updated. It is 2020 not 2012... the murder rate in Chicago is up 125% since 2019.. 67.225.3.123 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk12:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ccapoccia: Both /ʃɪˈkɑːɡoʊ/ (general pronunciation) and /ʃɪˈkɔːɡoʊ/ (regional pronunciation) are given in the introduction of the article. From my (admittedly limited) understanding of IPA, in most dialects of American English ɑ and ɒ are more or less interchangeable (though I think ɑ would be more accurate here), so I don't see anything to change here. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart(talk)20:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it's duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you're not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Heart(talk)17:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Rewrite the bit about the Obamas?
This sentence seems problematic... "Formerly a state legislator representing Chicago and later a US Senator, the city is home of former United States President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama."
As written, this sentence implies that the city itself served as a state legislator and US senator, which is amusing, but obviously highly unlikely. The subject of the second half of the sentence should be Barack Obama, not the city... for example, following the comma, I think it should read- "former United States President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama call the city home." 67.61.131.174 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Barack Obama was not born, raised, or educated in Chicago - nor does he live there. So to call Chicago the home of Mr Obama is false. He found the Chicago Political Machine useful for his career - but that doesn't make Chicago his "home".2A02:C7E:1C8D:3800:D0F7:B694:19EC:1275 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Still nothing from the 2020 Census?
The article says that Chicago that a rise of population shown by the 2000 Census - but it doesn't say that Chicago had a fall of population for the 2010 census (although the the figures the article shows indicate this). And the article also says that the population of Chicago is "expected" to show a rise in the 2020 census. I very much doubt that this is true - as people are fleeing Chicago. When are we going to get the truth, that the population of Chicago is falling, honestly stated in the article?2A02:C7E:1C8D:3800:D0F7:B694:19EC:1275 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Revert infobox images
The new infobox has some bad pictures compared to the older one. Thoughts on reverting? PurpleDeskChair (talk)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
History section - French translation template
Hi Alanscottwalker - coming here to discuss the translation template. I think the French section is a significant improvement over what we have here, so I added the translation template. I hope to remove it relatively soon, if I have time to bring content over, or someone else does. Let's discuss. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see anything there that would be an improvement. This article already has a much better section on etymology including connection to French historical figures. The French article then has unsourced Joliet and Marquette, who regardless did not establish the Chicago settlement, and it talks of an unsourced temporary fort which it admits has almost no basis in history and no practical connection to the settling Chicago a century later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I thought I said, imo, It's not actually 'good' or more of anything useful. So, at this point identify what possibly do you want to incorporate? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, well, in any case, the template isn't the important thing. Feel free to remove it. I'll find some time to bring over material from the French article, which we can discuss as it goes along. Agree to disagree on its overall worth. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Not done: Hmm. According to this article and the article on the Rockford airport specifically it appears to be an airport that markets itself on being an alternative to the much higher traffic (and more expensive) O'Hare and Midway airports. It's 79 miles away from downtown but apparently is only 30 miles away from the outer suburbs. For these reasons, I feel it may be more beneficial to readers to keep it in the list, though this may result in an interesting discussion on the talk page about this in the future. Cheers! —Sirdog(talk) 22:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but in my opinion it would be best to remove Rockford Airport from the infobox, while leaving the mention of it (and Gary/Chicago Airport) in the Airports section of the article. (For that matter, Chicago Executive Airport, in Wheeling, could be added to the article, but I'd leave that out of the infobox too.) — Mudwater (Talk)01:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2021
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Article on Chicago should indicate that small portion of City of Chicago is situated in DuPage County. This is corroborated by 2 sources: 1) Wikipedia article on DuPage County, Illinois; 2) Official map of District 1 of DuPage County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CB03:2A60:50BC:C29A:5101:83C0 (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Middle of the 19th century
Chicago was very different in the middle of the 19th century, I think the shacks of brothels and gambling halls should be mentioned in some capacity:
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please put after Moscow’s sister City status the word “(Suspended)” as it has been suspended by the city government due to the Russo-Ukrainian War.
[1] Can be used as the reference if needed Kansatria (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Please disregard this, I was not logged in at the time, I am now able to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansatria (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
House of Blues, Lollapalooza, the regular live orchestral events at Highland Park, and thousands of noteworthy individual bands/artists calling it their home from Kanye to Smashing Pumpkins … and all that’s said in the Music subsection at the moment is something about an obscure indie artist who named an album after the state. Be better, Wikipedia. 209.171.88.92 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
semi protected
due to what? it was unlocked about a year ago? new york has far more editors.
Also, the climate table shows an erroneous number for the coldest low in January as -25F/-32C. The correct number, as mentioned in the reference in the previous paragraph (the one I wrote above), is -27F/-33C.
Why was the statement about Chicago being ranked the Best Big City in the US by Conde Nast five years in a row removed from the lead section? 108.160.196.42 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Question: Do you have links to these files on commons or uploaded to wikipedia? And where exactly do you want these to be placed within the article? Terasail[✉️]14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Not done: The requested edit was to add additional maps of the counties that chicago is in to the infobox (This was clarified on my talk). This would not be appropraiate since the only map should be of chicago rather than related regions. These maps are already present on their given articles. See: Cook County, Illinois, DuPage County, Illinois. Terasail[✉️]00:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Can an editor add the following source/citation following the line: "Mayor Richard J. Daley, a Democrat, was elected in 1955, in the era of machine politics. In 1956, the city conducted its last major expansion when it annexed the land under O'Hare airport, including a small portion of DuPage County"
The sources from his lifetime are that his parents are unknown, without documentation, but that he was identified by documents in his lifetime as "negre" and "negro", and thus of African descent. About 50 years after his death he was described in a memoir as negro and black, "a native of Santo Domingo", by someone who never met him but might have known people who did, but also without supporting documentation, and it was not until more than 100 years later that someone speculated, he possibly had a French or Creole father, while his mother was an enslaved African woman, also without historical documentation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
river steam pic
Is it just me or does the photo of steam rising from the river look like one particularly garrish name on a building was photoshopped out? And if thats the case might we not want a photo that hasnt been manipulated? Doesnt have to be from that spot so as to avoid that oversized logo, but really dont think photoshop is the way. nableezy - 16:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
No. I think, it was taken before the name went up, it was several years after opening, before he got around to slapping that name on it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Gah, I cant even remember the time before the sign, but think you're right. From what I can see he announced the sign being added in 2014 and this was taken in January 2014. Nevermind then. nableezy - 17:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Meh
Enough with the Chicago hagiography please. Residents here have a NYC hang-up, or have most likely, never stepped outside the midwest, but doesn't mean the rest of us haven't. "Chicago, IL" is nothing more than a second-tier city that has a few supertalls (built in the 60s) but a core that goes dead after 7pm, and a city that's pretty much unlivable 8-9 months of the year, depending on whom you ask. Third coast, my a*s. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of articles on Wikipedia - about cities and otherwise - that deserve more attention than what this article gets, which already is about twice too long and about eighty times too detailed for this rubbish. 2601:249:8700:7790:24B3:683B:7786:238A (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that my photo (File:BMO Tower, Downtown Chicago, IL.jpg) is now the main infobox photo for this article. To be blunt, it's not a great photo, due to the lens pointing up, providing distortion and seeming awkward, as well as the main subject of the photo. I shot it in order to illustrate BMO Tower (Chicago), and never thought of it as a conventional skyline photo. I'd like to ask for some other ideas of places where to shoot a skyline photo. My specialty is aerial (admittedly somewhat amateur) photography. Throw in a google maps link, and I'll be glad to take a gander at shooting it sometime in the near future, hopefully getting a better skyline photo. Sea Cow (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Allstate, Abbott, AbbVie in intro
None of these companies are headquartered in Chicago proper anymore; AbbVie never was. These should only be on the page for Chicagoland. I do not have my account information anymore to make the edit, but someone should. If we feel the list should be filled out, some other major companies that are actually headquartered in Chicago include LKQ Corporation, RR Donnelley, CNA Financial, Northern Trust, Hyatt Hotels, and Telephone and Data Systems/US Cellular. All but the last two of those are F500. No reason to list stuff that's 30 miles away when there are plenty enough within the city the article is about. - 23.124.237.152 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove the following line in the intro,
"although the city has experienced an exodus in large corporations since 2020.[1]"
This is factually false. Chicago was again named Site Selection's top city for corporate expansions and relocations for the ninth year in a row. If the Fox News citation is included, then the information for Site Selection should be included as well to show the entire picture, rather than painting Chicago as a city experiencing an exodus.
The Fox News article is making assertions about the economy of Chicago. Doesn't economics qualify a science (by Wiki's own definition)? Isn't labeling the relocations of three companies as an "exodus" not an exceptional claim? Caterpillar headquarters is not even located in Chicago (it's marketing office will remain in Chicago), and each one of the companies including Boeing and Citadel are maintaining a presence in the city:
Also, the disclaimer you noted on Site Selection is located at the bottom of the website to include the legal coverage for the inclusion of different sources. Fox News terms of services contains the same legal protection. The data on corporate location and expansion is pulled from the Conway Data Projects Database which "qualifies investments that meet at least one of three criteria: a minimum $1 million capex; 20 or more jobs created; or 20,000 sq. ft. or more of new space." So they are actually providing a criteria for their data. The Fox News article is trying to paint the city in specific light by ignoring factual evidence that, while some companies are leaving, others are moving the the city (most recently Kellogg).
New York city has had a number of companies leaves (as do most municipalities), yet Wiki has not reflected this in the intro for NYC. There's no consistency for this which makes the assertion of an "exodus" combined with a Fox News (an already controversial source) look political and biased and should be removed. Btrue.chi (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Upon further review of Site Selection my dismissal of it offhand as unreliable due to their disclaimer was wrong of me. Evaluation of editorial practices gives me reason to believe that it could be reliable. I do apologize for that; I was moving through edit requests fairly quickly and did not research further when I saw the disclaimer at the bottom. I appreciate you pointing that out.
In relation to your question about this classifying as science, I would say for the purposes of the relevant RfC about Fox News that economics would not fall under the umbrella of science in this case. It is possible I'm entirely wrong, in which case another editor may provide relevant guidance.
All of the above said, I do not possess sufficient understanding of this situation or interest in doing so as a volunteer to take steps to address your concern outside the sphere of an edit request. I would advise opening an entirely new discussion here explicitly asking for editors for provide input on your point of view, and I wish you luck in that and in your future editing.
I would like to be able to add an edit on the climate of Chicago. Thanks! - 17:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemiki29 (talk • contribs)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to make an addition to the "Music" section of this article, relating to Hip-Hop and rap. The music scene in Chicago is a vital part in it's history, and having Indie Rock be its representative isn't a good representation, with great musicians such as juice wrld, kanye and polo G being born there. Lancedibo (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
First of all, please read WP:EDITXY; edit requests must be specific. Your request is essentially asking for the protection to be lifted, which is not going to happen now. Secondly, the article already has an entertainment section which links to Music of Chicago, which is a large enough topic to merit it's own article. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Just a casual visitor here, but I couldn't help but notice the extremely limited scope of the infobox images. Three of the photos (the aerial shot, art institute, and pritzker pavilion) all capture the same half mile square, while the other three all depict the near north side from various perspectives. It goes without saying that this selection is entirely unrepresentative (and therefore unencyclopedic!) of a city as large and culturally diverse as Chicago. I'm not an editor here nor do I have the time to become one, but as a longtime resident and lover of the city it seemed important to point this out. 138.251.232.173 (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
This is so true!! Chicago's history and present day is sooo much more than the loop and river north. Pics of landmarks on the West, South and North sides are clearly in order. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Picture of Milwaukee used as picture of Chicago in article
I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, but there is a night-time image claimed to be of Chicago in this article that is actually of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a pretty terrible error for such an important page.
If you check the satellite view of both Chicago and Milwaukee, it becomes clear that the picture is not of Chicago. I would highly recommend changing this. Banana Peel Seal (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a back and forth going on here over some infobox parameters. Blank parameters are being used to add information which was removed: [17], restored: [18], removed [19], restored: [20], removed [21], restored: [22]. So far 3 editors have been involved in removing material, 2 have restored, but there is no talk discussion yet, so I am starting this section.
There is a clear rationale for deleting these parameters, which is WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says of the infobox: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Wikipedia is not a directory, and so the purpose of the infobox is to provide some key facts about the city, especially names, location and such like. These all have parameters coded into the template that can be used. The absence of transit parameters is very good evidence that the community consensus is that transit parameters are not key information about the city that needs to be summarised in the infobox. The argument (made in an edit summary) that these are standard in city articles is incorrect. There is no standard for such information, and although some city articles have these, many do not.
What happens on this page will depend on the editor consensus here, but it would be very helpful if we could discuss the pros and cons here rather than in revert edit summaries. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
You well know there is an ongoing discussion about these parameters at WT:MOSINFOBOX. Leave these in place until that discussion plays out. Being they've been in the article for years before the recent removal.
for what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that anything that has an entire separate
section in the article is worthy of some sort of summarizing mention in the infobox, being that the purpose of an infobox is to summarize the article. oknazevad (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I do know there is a general discussion going on there, and a fairly snowy consensus that this information is undue in infoboxes, but the edit warring is here, which is why there should be a talk discussion here as I have indicated. Infoboxes are for key facts, not for a summary of the whole article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Which is an opinion, yet apparently not one that has thus far enjoyed any consensus on wikipedia, because the infobox has no parameter for them. On what basis do you assert these are key facts? Shouldn't we have an RFC requesting infobox parameters for these if they are key facts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Use of ACS Population Data for 2021
Noticed that the 2021 estimated population from the American Community surveys is there. ACS data tends to be incredibly inaccurate when it comes to estimating population. I've actually gone ahead and plotted out how the ACS compares to the census from 2010 to 2021 on a google sheet to show off how inaccurate it is. Pretty much without fail for any large city in the US, the ACS either shoots up or down in the mid 2010s. We might want to remove this 2021 population estimate as it probably isn't accurate. Piemadd (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2023
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Prominent food companies based in Chicago include the world headquarters of Conagra, Ferrara Candy Company, Kraft Heinz, McDonald's, Mondelez International, Quaker Oats, and US Foods.[citation needed]
Does anyone know how to edit the outline of the City of Chicago on the map so that Norridge and Harwood Heights appear as an Enclave of the city? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
NASCAR
What about the upcoming June 1-2 Nascar steet races? I know my post was deleted, but... Anyhow, I think it's notable enough to be included in this article? The page is protected, so I can't add it. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, if you can give citations to reliable sources, then I'd say it should added. But I think it would be better if it is mentioned as something like an annual event that occurs. But I am not completely sure, as I am relatively mediocre when it comes to editing skills. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The intention is for it to become annual, replacing the previous race at Chicagoland Speedway in nearby Joliet. We'll see if that happens, but until it does become an ongoing annual event, a single race is not significant enough to be included here. oknazevad (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add citation to the following section:
Chicago has a distinctive fine art tradition. For much of the twentieth century, it nurtured a strong style of figurative surrealism, as in the works of Ivan Albright and Ed Paschke. In 1968 and 1969, members of the Chicago Imagists, such as Roger Brown, Leon Golub, Robert Lostutter, Jim Nutt, and Barbara Rossi produced bizarre representational paintings. Henry Darger is one of the most celebrated figures of outsider art.[citation needed]
The Freight Rail section should be updated. It says that "Six of the seven Class I railroads meet in Chicago." This is no longer accurate. Kansas City Southern merged with Canadian Pacific. So now there are only six Class I railroads, and they all meet in Chicago. 24.112.119.132 (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Source for Chicago Sky
This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The top image in the infobox has a glaring keystoning issue so the quality is not very good. How about rearranging the montage to something similar to this? ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk12:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I believe the current lay out is a better representation of Chicago. Navy Pier is Chicago's 2nd most popular tourist destination (after the art institute), so is certainly worth including. It's image also has the added advantage of showing more of the northern shoreline. I'm also not sure the keystoning issue (which admittedly I wasn't familiar with as a term before you used it), is large enough to make the current skyline image unusable. The skyline from the current angle shows a wide range of the most famous buildings (Willis Tower, Hancock, Crain Communications Building) and Millennium Park, far more than the proposed alternative. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I would support the use of this one. The existing one does appear to be of inferior resolution, even when viewed in thumbnail form. I've never understood why aerial views are preferred, when the layman is more familiar with street-level views. Flatiron Building suffers from this too. Seasider53 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
A bird's eye view gives a greater overview of an object in a way that an encyclopedia should. While it may not be the most aesthetically pleasing angle possible, it certainly isn't ugly, and is richer in information gained.
Also I have striked a part of my comment above where I made the mistake that Navy Pier was removed in the proposed changes. That is not the case, the "L" train is removed. I also believe the train should be kept in place of Willis Tower, as there is plenty of coverage of iconic buildings in the current and proposed collage.--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The Municipal boundaries of Norridge and Harwood Heights and aren't shown as an enclave on the map. Is there any way someone can change this? Same with the enclaves of an unincorporated area. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 12:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it's duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you're not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
Done Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 18:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Question: Do you have links to these files on commons or uploaded to wikipedia? And where exactly do you want these to be placed within the article? Terasail[✉️] 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chi-Beria and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Chi-Beria until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
