Talk:Chicago

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oknazevad (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 23 January 2023 (→‎Infobox bloat: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 1 year ago by Oknazevad in topic Infobox bloat

Template:Vital article

Former good articleChicago was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 21, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 30, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 17, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 13, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 3, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 20, 2005Good article nomineeListed
April 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 20, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
April 19, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
October 19, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 4, 2022.
Current status: Delisted good article

Unrepresentative Pictures

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)Reply

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)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

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)Reply

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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Infobox bloat

There is a back and forth going on here over some infobox parameters. Blank parameters are being used to add information which was removed: [1], restored: [2], removed [3], restored: [4], removed [5], restored: [6]. 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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
And a major city's international airports and rapid transit system are key facts about that city. oknazevad (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply