Talk: Chicago, Illinois
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
| Contents |
General
This discussion page is being used for two major functions. First, to expand and convert the article Chicago over to the new format agreed to at WikiProject Cities. Second, to faciliate active discussions on the content, formating and all other items associated with the Chicago article. Please feel free to add or edit anything on this page to help in the conversion process.
Work in progress and testing can be done in the Chicago Sandbox.
Featured on Template:March 4 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)
Requested Changes
Minor rewordings are not going to affect the page size enough. I propose that the quality of the language be preserved, and the article split in some other way, since that is the only way to remove enough characters to take 7k off, without butchering the article. Euphoria 07:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Chicago history section while valuble takes up a lot of space, a seperate Chicago history page and a link to it with a new more condensed history on the main page might solve some of the space problem with the current page without removing existing content.
This page needs some major reworking. The page collapsed due to 32k limit. We need people to comb content around 10/20/04 and back for a month or so to restore the work. In order for it to work much of the content needs serious compression and the lists need to move into new articles. Jasenlee 06:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was doing some work to restore a bunch of deleted info, and I happened to notice there are two Events sections that need to be merged. I think it should be done by a current or former Chicagoan, or at least someone that's visited there, and I don't fall into any of those categories. Niteowlneils 02:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, I changed Indian Territory to Indiana Territory because Illinois was never part of Indian Territory. Then I checked the Chicago Public Library website about the flag [1] and it had the same bogus information. I don't know if it is worth noting in the article. And for what it is worth, to actually be accurate it should be a six-pointed star to include Illinois Territory. Bkonrad | Talk 01:50, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
On the page: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago,_Illinois , on the "Important Citizens or people born here," Gene Krupa should be added. Born January 15, 1909, in Chicago, IL, Gene Krupa is a drumming icon from the Swing Era. http://www.gkrp.net/genebio.html
The radio station listings are out of date. There's two instances of 101.9, for example. -- Bartkusa
Items Under Debate
The Community Area list, I believe, is for the most part obsolete. I'm considering replacing the entire section (along with the following "neighborhood" list) with a much more relevant "neighborhoods of chicago" list, which should help merge the two (Mag Mile shouldn't be its own "neighborhood"... and it's really Chinatown and NOT Douglas/South Loop). At the most, information about the community area should be limited to the paragraph and the picture instead of having to expand upon it and naming the entirety of mostly stubs... which I've never really heard many Chicagoans use to reference areas of the city anyway. simulcra July 6, 2004
While it is true that many of the Community Areas fail to correspond with any presently recognizable neighborhood, there may still be reason to include them as they continue to be important official subdivisions of the city. The census still divides Chicago into these community areas, and every ten years a Community Area Factbook is published which is the major source of granular demographic data for Chicago. In addition, community areas are fixed, and therefore durable, so comparison over time is much easier with a community area then with an fuzzily defined neighborhood that may not have existed five years ago and may not exist five years hence. Lunchboxhero 19:09, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
I feel that many of the lists do not belong or should be elaborated upon. For example, the neighborhoods/community areas list. It doesn't really add much to the city article page to have so many stub links and to just list them all out... I may make this a minor project to clean up the community lists and make this more of an article on Chicago The City and not Chicago The City of Lists. simulcra July 6, 2004
Agreed that the lists need to expanded on but you must admit they are a starting point. Ultimately they will spur further knowledge and growth and I believe many are relevant. Jasenlee
NYC manages to fit all of the main information in a single article. We have a lot of excessive info here, though. The hospitals for example. Not only is it outdated, it doesn't seem particularly useful. Most of the lists aren't actually ABOUT the city, and should be seperated, IMO. (movies/books set in the city, people born in the city, probably the media outlet lists too). If anything, Chicago should summarize what's important about the lists in English, (eg, "The city has two major daily papers"), and then it can actually link to the full lists. JMD 05:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that we should follow the standards of the NYC page as I don't think the authors are as active or striving as much for pushing the boundries. Even if it was still great the idea of open source knowledge affords for differences within consistency, that is how growth is achieved. Think of the 80/20 rule when pondering content consistency. Jasenlee
While it is mildly amusing to read about rotting marshland onions right there at the beginning of the article, surely this could be moved in a separate section rather than cluttering up the introduction? :) --Shallot 13:28, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Population: 2,896,016 ????
Work Done/General Comments
Hmm... well, I moved, verbatim, the community areas to its own site... I suppose if necessary it can be moved back. Just my attempt at trying to de-clutter the article. simulcra 22:28, Jul 7, 2004
What the...
Why the page name move? This makes no sense. -Joseph (Talk) 02:30, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
- There was some discussion of this some months ago - no real consensus. john k 02:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There's a standard of having article names as short as possible and, if there's more than one thing with a particular name, the most well known gets to be shortest and all the others have to each have something to indicate them specifically in their name. The Chicago in question is by far more well known than the band, any other town named that, or any other such thing. -- Djinn112 ♠♥♣♦, 02:57, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Seems like bunk to me. I suggest putting it to a vote. -Joseph (Talk) 03:04, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
It's not bunk, but rather than this, the topic should've been brought up on the cities talk page, where it's been discussed before. john k 03:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I felt that it needed to be where most people would find it. It's not like any other use of Chicago would be more common. I admit that I didn't check for precedents or guidelines though. Also, I merged the histories (some from 2001!). Dori | Talk 23:23, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Pictures
I am in downtown Chicago for a while. I am thinking of taking some pics, but is there anything in specific someone wants (no promisses but I'll try). Dori | Talk 23:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
