Talk:Chicago

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)

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)

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:

• Home Insurance Building.JPG

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Aerial_view_of_Chicago_at_night_from_an_airplane_01.jpg/330px-Aerial_view_of_Chicago_at_night_from_an_airplane_01.jpg

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)

Lmao. Good catch. ɱ (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)