Talk:Chicago

Climate

Because of its location, severe weather (e.g. thunderstorms) is also common. And so I added that to the climate section of this article and gave at least one example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevjgav (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Community areas drawing (critique of)

While the community areas appear to be drawn correctly, there are no official boundaries between the various "sides" (North, Northwest, etc.) of the city so the boundaries are wherever a given cartographer wants to put them. That said, Mr. Fitzgerald's boundaries are contrary to local practice.

West Town, Logan Square, Avondale, Edison Park, Norwood Park, Jefferson Park, and Forest Glen, and sometimes North Park, Albany Park, and Humboldt Park are considered to be on the Northwest Side, along with the communities already labeled as such, and as such make up a very large fraction of the city (and the largest white-majority area).

I am not as familiar with boundaries on the far south side but I think that the cartographer's boundary between the far southwest side and far southeast side is incorrect in that there is no far south side on the map, while South Siders refer to such an area all the time in general conversation. FInally, most Chicagoans don't draw as clear a distinction between the near, middle, and far north sides as there is in the map - it's more common for someone to just say he's a north sider, unless he (she) lives in the true Near North area adjacent to downtown (south of North Avenue and even then, Near North means "south of Division" to Gold Coasters who live north of it). 67.173.10.34 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Serbs

Why doesn't it say anything about Chicago's Serb population? Aren't there around 500,000 Serbs in Chicago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

By that number, Serbs would account for one fifth of the city population and if you look at the article on Serbian Americans, you'll see that there aren't even 200,000 Serbian Americans in the entire US. So, the answer to your question is, no there aren't anywhere near that many living here. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another subject altogether

Why nothing in this article about the presence of rampid corruption among the political entities of the city. I believe Chicago has been ranked the #1 most corrupt major city in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.214.65 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be 'rampant', not 'rampid' (which is not a word).Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Flag icons on twin towns section

Another editor has pointed out that the array of flag icons in the "Twin towns" section of this article probably breaches WP:ICONDECORATION. Would anyone mind if I removed them? --John (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't care but not on that basis, as it doesn't apply to lists, nor should it (I assume you mean the sister city list.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, this raises two questions for me. First, how long does a list have to be before the flags are seen as "helpful" in organising it? Second, is the information we are talking about best presented as a list? The essential spirit of MOSICON is that using the flags overemphasises nationality; I would go further and suggest that in this case using flag icons overemphasises this section. How important are Chicago's sister cities to the article? No question that they should be mentioned in the article, but at present I feel they are given undue prominence. Getting rid of the flag salad would perhaps put them more into their true perspective. --John (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the same discussion seems to be taking place in at least three different venues, I opened up a general discussion at WikiProject Cities after reading comments here and on Talk:Los Angeles. Please comment there. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to say, it seems like it would benefit from a uniform approach across city articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is better off without the flags. The "sister cities" list is of cities, not nations, so labeling them with symbols of the whole country isn't appropriate. Zeromus1 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand that reasoning. The cities with which this city (and other cities) has sister city agreements are in those different sovereign nations. Unless the claim is that those nations disapprove of the agreements, it seems of no moment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The question is, how important is it what countries those cities are in? Right now the list displays both the flag and the country name, but the name of the city is only mentioned once. So it's giving a little more space to the countries than to the cities themselves, actually. That seems like undue weight. Zeromus1 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As with most "style" questions its hard for me to get worked up about them, except I can see a value in uniform handling of "style." There does seem to be a contention that there is some substance, too. But no "rule" one way or the other in "guidelines." Rather, custom that allows. One way or another across articles, I would prefer they are handled the same, and I also think there is some value in deferring to longtime usage. So, is there an overriding reason to change it? I'm not seeing it. The undue arguments are frankly unsatisfactory; it seems a stretch to say in this very long article, they become undue, or that small flag icons in a list makes them undue, given what all the various guidelines say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hip-Hop

There should be a mention of the up and coming Chicago Hip-Hop scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.53.8 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)