This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Info from A Guide to Chicago's Train Stations Present and Past by Ira J. Bach and Susan Wolfson
designed by Cyrus L. W. Eidlitz, built 1885 by C&WI for various other railroads, tile roofs and weathervane above clock tower destroyed in 1922 fire, large shed demolished 1971, all that remains is headhouse --SPUI (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not really helpful to invoke PRR Chronology as a source. It's an enormous collection of compiled timelines, covering well over a century. It's not really a reliable source either, although I'll admit I've used it in absence of other sources. No footnotes refer to it; what's it supporting in this article?
I have no desire to get into a dispute about formatting minutiae, but per WP:MOSIM the default thumbnail is 220px and users can set their own. I see no obvious reason for fixing it at 225px; I think it's best practice to leave it out except for an article's primary image. Also, I removed the picture of the trainshed being torn down because I think it looks bad having it floating between "popular culture" and the references. Article length dictates image use. Mackensen(talk) 05:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't add it, it's been in the article for ages, which means that back in the old days, when specific referencing wasn't so strictly required, someone used that source to help write the article. Given that, it needs to stay as a source for the material that was added on its basis -- we don't unnecessarily remove sources that have been used in themaking of the article.
Fixing image size is now the standard, not otherwise -- remember that only people with accounts can fix their preferred thumbnail size, but the vast majority of people who use WP as a reference don't have accounts, and can't do so. It is for these people, the general reader, that the image size is fixed in relation to the article layout.
I disagree about the picture looking bad where it is. Most of my work is on article layout, and it looks just fine to me. BMK (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain further about fixing the image size? This practice news to me, and the MOS says specifically "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding."
I've located the addition of the PRR Chronology. It was done by SPUI (no surprise there) in 2005: . Adding sources for that information shouldn't be difficult, and nothing requires us to keep it as a general reference.
Just so as you're aware, your design choice means that mobile readers encounter the demolition image at the bottom of the popular culture section, if they encounter it at all. I'll leave it there, but this is a problem that needs addressing long term. Many of our general readers are on phones, not desktops. Mackensen(talk) 14:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)