Talk:Chicago

New montage

File:Chicago montage 1 by Jleon.jpg

I saw the previous montage image here was removed due to some copyright issues, so I decided to take a shot at it. This captures what I consider to be the most notable landmarks in the city today, with the Chicago Theater added for aesthetic purposes. If people like it, I'll probably make some minor tweaks and make it higher resolution. Let me know what you think... --Jleon (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a second. Why was the previous montage removed? Every image on there was free-use, and several of us made sure to justify that fact. Why were we never given forewarning that something was wrong? -- mcshadypl ^TC 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I had nothing to do with its removal. There was just a big blank space next to the intro for almost an entire day, so I went ahead and made a new one. There must have been a warning on the image itself for awhile, and I suppose whoever created it wasn't watching it very closely. --Jleon (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the U of C? I think it should be in the montage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.71.66 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Blackhawks

Under Sports, it needs to be changed from 3 cups to 4, and perhaps throw in "including one in 2009-2010" or something.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.217.167 (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackhawks Parade in Chicago

Is there an article or section somewhere regarding the parade in Chicago yesterday? My understanding is that the turnout was substantial (~2million). Perhaps someone could get some free images of the parade on flickr, or somewhere else? Thanks in advance for the help! ---kilbad (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say WP:NOTNEWS applies, perhaps a comment on the Blackhawk's page. CTJF83 pride 16:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Area vs Density

I'm a little confused about the extremely large area which is listed for Chicago City. I was under the impression that the City did have a very high density, somewhere around the figure given for the Metro, which would put the City area around 100 km2. Also, as I just said, teh Metro density is very high, which would make the metro area less than half the szie of the listed figure just for the City.

So yeah, I'm questioning the City Area and the Metro Density, not teh Metro Area, as I have no idea whether that's correct. It also wouldn't hurt to have teh City Density stated. I haven't checked whether these can be changed by an underling like me, but then again, I don't have the correct numbers either. VanillaBear23 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no density listed for the metro. The 12,649/sq mi is the density for the city. The city area is correct, as per the US Census. CTJF83 pride 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No East Side

It states under the "Neighborhoods" section that there is the North Side, West Side, South Side, and East Side. This is totally incorrect; there is no East Side and that should be removed from the article. Chicago is divided into six general sections, although they are sometimes counted as four. Downtown is one of them, the other five are named according to their direction from the downtown area; nothing else. Going counterclockwise these sections are: the North Side, Northwest Side, West Side, Southwest Side, and South Side. Some people tend to incorporate the Northwest Side into the North Side, and the Southwest Side into the South Side, but this practice is acceptable on most levels. Each of these six sections hold numerous community areas and neighborhoods themselves, of which there are 77 throughout the city. East Side is one of these such neighborhoods. It is not a directional section of the city itself (its name, East Side, can make this confusing). This article is referring to the neighborhood of East Side as though it were a directional section of the city, instead of the neighborhood that it actually is. If this East Side were a directional section of the city, it would sit directly east of the central area, which it can't because the lake is there. East Side being mentioned in this article is, again, a neighborhood. So please remove this from the article where it names the sides of Chicago before you have tourists on city streets asking people questions about a so-called East Side.

Chicago's five directional sections that radiate from the downtown area are comprised of various neighborhoods. For example, Lakeview, Uptown, and Edgewater are on the North Side; Sauganash sits on the Northwest Side; Austin is on the West Side; Ashburn is on the Southwest Side, and Hyde Park, Chatham, and Roseland are on the South Side. East Side would equate to those aforementioned neighborhoods. The East Side neighborhood holds a district itself, the district of Hegewisch. But this is no different than Lakeview holding the district of Wrigleyville; Edgewater holding the district of Andersonville; and South Shore holding the district of Jackson Park Highlands.

For many decades, this area was always tied in as being part of the South Side. As stated before, the Southwest Side was routinely incorporated into the South Side and the Northwest Side was routinely incorporated into the North Side, so it only made sense to incorporate this portion of the city in with the South Side. In the early 1990s, a new term really started to take effect; it was being used a lot by local news media and such. This area (situated east of the Calumet River, and roughly from 95th St on the north to the city's southern border at 138th St) was now frequently being called the Southeast Side; giving Chicago yet a seventh broad directional area. Some people now call this area Southeast, some still simply call it South Side. However, if the article wishes to specifically mention this portion of the city, then it should be stating Southeast Side, not East Side. I believe one of these will make good options.

Option 1: Acknowledge the Southeast Side in the article for that section of the city. But if this is done, then the much larger and more populated Northwest and Southwest Sides must also be acknowledged, because it wouldn't be consistent to mention the Southeast Side without mentioning the Southwest Side and Northwest Side. Option 2: Do not mention the Southeast Side at all and just let it be incorporated into the South Side for the sake of the article. The article has already done this to the Northwest and Southwest Sides anyway.

Sorry for the long novel, just wanted to get the point across. East Side is actually a neighborhood; just like Rogers Park, Beverly, Humboldt Park, Mount Greenwood, Uptown, Lincoln Park, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.55.202 (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Ya, that was a little long! ;) CTJF83 chat 07:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. But I noticed that the East Side paragraph is still in the article under the section where the sides of Chicago are listed. It hasn't been removed yet. This neighborhood shouldn't be listed there when the article is referencing the sides of Chicago. None of the other 76 neighborhoods are mentioned. East Side is a South Side neighborhood. Can this East Side reference be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.55.202 (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Look good? Thanks for pointing out that I missed that. CTJF83 chat 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.55.202 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. CTJF83 chat 22:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure there's an east side. It's mostly populated by alewifes and lampreys. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Touché. CTJF83 chat 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine

Naming individual restaurants in the Cuisine section creates the obvious problem whereby everyone would want to put their favorite Italian Beef, or Polish stand, and where the most well known places get free advertising. Perhaps this information belongs in the "Dining in Chicago" article.

Naming a restaurant or where a dish is supposed to have orgininated is one thing. Everything else like naming restaurants or chains as to who the most "famous" or which has the most locations is not appropriate. Logically one local chain specializing in a dish has to be the biggest local chain specializing in that dish. That does not mean anything. Pointing it out in an encyclopedia just sounds like boosterish pr work.

I have never heard of the famous Gene and Judes, for example. Apparently it isn't even in Chicago. That is the problem with naming famous restaurants or locations. It's a big area, everyone has a favorite or the place that's famous in the neighborhood.

Pointing out that famous national chains have outlets in Chicago is pointless in regards to an article about Chicago. Even if they are big, there's nothing specifically Chicago about them. 67.175.214.83 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)