Talk:Chicago/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Main Picture

Discussion

We are going to build a community consensus by having people choose which one of these photos is allowed to be the foremost "title" photograph. The first one was the original. It was then replaced by number 2 which is an upload from the Wikimedia Commons. The third one was autostitched and uploaded by me, AllyUnion, then went through the nomination process of a featured picture. It was promoted to featured picture status: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Skyline at Sunset. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not start an opposing vote for any of the pictures. You're more than welcome to comment on a particular picture, or add another picture in the other section. Supporting one particular photo is an indication that you prefer this particular photo over the other ones. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When can we finish this voting? Personally, I'm tired of the back and forth on this one issue. Jasenlee 01:56, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, when can we? This is about the only issue preventing Chicago, Illinois from becoming a featured article.

Since there doesn't seem to be a standard rule (at least that I can find (if anyone knows please tell me, I want to follow standards)) for when voting should end I'm making an executive decision and setting the close of voting from one week from today. On May 8th we will close voting and move on unless others have a strong reason against this. Going forward I think we should set a standard timeframe for voting on article changes here. Jasenlee 22:35, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Vote

Voting Closed on May 8th 2005.

Three main pictures. Shown in order that they were placed on the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Chicago's skyline at day

2. A panoramic view of the city

3. A panoramic view of the city at sunset.

Support #1

1. Chicago's skyline at day

  1. All the pictures are great and should be included in the article, but the proportions of this one make it feel like the best photo for the top spot. Thryduulf 17:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. While I like #3, this one focuses more on the city. The artistry of #3 tends to detract from the skyline itself and give it the feel that it could almost be any city. shsilver
  3. I disagree. If anything, #1 looks like a generic skyline. Also, #1 looks smoggy. Chicago is one of the great cities of the United States. It deserves a more inviting picture then this. Besides, other images can be kept in the article in a section called "Views of the city" or some such. - Pioneer-12 22:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. This picture is the best rounded and also looks clean at lower resolutions, try viewing the other pictures on a PDA or low res machine. They look out of proportion.
  5. Dralwik. This is the current main page anyway, and it is my favorite, showing what I think is one of the greatest things of Chicago, its skyline.

Support #2

2. A panoramic view of the city

  1. AllyUnion I love your picture too but I have to vote for #2. I love the shade of blue and the sense of movement created by the street. Jasenlee 23:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Numbers two and three are both great, but I like the interesting perspective of this one.--BaronLarf 14:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Support #3

3. A panoramic view of the city at sunset.

  1. AllyUnion (talk) 09:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. This photo is really quite beautiful. It makes me want to visit Chicago. The framing is superb, how the skyline and clouds seem to be facing off against each other like a primordial duel of man against nature, yet at the same time are united in their desire to rise up and stand proud in the infinity of the sky, as if saluting the pink and amber rays of the setting sun. Truly a work of art. - Pioneer-12 18:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oops! I guess I'm a little late to the vote, but this pic is much better for so many different reasons. --Jleon 19:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey, this is the picture of the day! Wikipedia:Picture of the day/May 2005#May 6
- Pioneer-12 15:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Decision

The decision for the main picture is in favor of #1, Image:Chicago-Illinois-USA-skyline-day.jpg.

Further Discussion

I realize that a major effort was just made to select a main picture, but it might be noted that the one chosen is somewhere between 13 and 15 years old (it is apparent in the photo that the facade on the Aon Center is being refurbished). As a result, a significant amount of development that took place in the 1990s and 2000s is not included in the picture. The Park Hyatt building, for example, now one of Chicago's ten tallest, is not shown. Also notably missing is a great deal of development in Streeterville and the Illinois Center (such as the Blue Cross Blue Shield building east of the Aon Center).

Though this is a beautiful picture, it just doesn't convey the new level of density that Chicago's skyline has attained in the fifteen years since it was taken.


I agree w/ this assesment this photo is a good one but it is dated....it diminishes Chicago when it should be exalting it....I say ask forumers on skyscrapercity.com or skyscraperpages.com to contribute....I have seen many photos that would convey the modern dense development of Chicago more effectively.

Population: 2,896,016 ???

Many people seem to have questions about the population figures. Thoughts or should we close this one out or move on? On the main page it makes reference to skepticism about these figures. I think we should just settle on it rather than make reference to doubt within the article itself. --Jason 10:41, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

In the 2000 Census, Chicago had 2,890,000 people. It's safe to say that the city did not add 1 million residents in three years.

Neighborhoods & Community Areas

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)

Name Change

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. -- [[User:Djinn112|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)


GaWC

In the article lead (and scattered in a few other places) there is a reference to GaWC. For months there has been no one who has wrote a Wikipedia article about this and when you google the term "Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network" you don't come up with a lot of independent references. Many sites that do reference it lead back to Loughborough University which is who published the main link anyway. Given that I've been on here for almost two years and have seen wikipedians jump all over creating articles like this I'm wondering how valid it is. I've put it up as a requested article to see if someone else knows something I'm missing. I'm tempted to remove the reference and use some other data published by a source like the United Nations... any other thoughts? Jasenlee 23:20, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


Image:Chicago Skyline at Sunset.png

Image:Chicago Skyline at Sunset.png - This one is a featured picture. In order for it to retain featured picture status, it kind of needs to be placed on this article somewhere. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--This is actually a much nicer pic than the one that's now in the intro, which is kind of grainy. Last week I had set up the sunset pic as a banner that fit nicely below the intro, but it didn't last that way for long. --Jleon 14:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Name format

I really believe, that this article sould be just under Chicago, not Chicago, Illinois. For starters, the peer-review's link to the city article is just Chicago, and, although I am from the Midwest myself, I have never heard it called Chicago, Illinois once. Every time I have heard just "Chicago", it was in reference to the city. Several hundred articles link to just "Chicago". I am aware that the same number of articles link to "Chicago, Illinois", but many of them were linked to there after the name change. Thus I believe this article's name should just be Chicago, and also, the Chicago (disambiguation) page's link to the city is just Chicago. Dralwik 00:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a valid suggestion, at a certain point a city becomes large enough that its no longer directly associated with the state its in. 'Chicago, Illinois" should probably redirect to "Chicago." --Jleon 02:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree as well. Something else that should be considered is the renaming of the City category. Right now that is up for debate. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chicago. Jasenlee 22:32, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and speedy-deleted Chicago into preparation for the page move. Keep posted.Dralwik 23:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hm, next time just ask an admin directly. JFW | T@lk 23:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the move, and with doing it without discussion to reach consensus to do so. All the other 30,000 some odd US city articles are at cityname, statename (other than New York, which was also moved without consensus). If you want to change the standard, I think the discussion should be at ProjectCities, or at least Wikipedia:Requested moves to gain sufficient input before such an arbitrary, controversial move contrary to existing standards. I think it should be immediately moved back to Chicago, Illinois until such discussion and consensus is reached. Having US cities at standard names makes linking SOOOO much easier. Niteowlneils 00:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, since it is one of the articles with more than 500 in-bound links, it is impossible to know if all double-redirects have been fixed. Niteowlneils 00:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; just to make American cities have standard name formats, this should not have been moved. Plus, the talk page was not moved with the article; those trying to discuss the page now just find an empty page with a speedy delete notice.--BaronLarf 05:44, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I moved it back to please Neil, but I do think the whole issue merits new discussion. JFW | T@lk 09:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The applicable policy is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_States_and_Canada, in addition to the fact that the de facto standard/convention cityname, statename has been in place for all the thousands of US cities (except New York City, which was also moved without consensus) since at least 2002. When linking, I think it is a great advantage and time-saver to be able to know that, whether I am linking Ottumwa, Iowa, or Los Angeles, California, I can follow the long-standing convention, and know that I am linking to the actual article, and not a redirect, without actually following the link to verify it. Also, I think consistency inspires confidence in readers. The argument that Midwesterners don't include the word "Illinois" when speaking of the city doesn't really hold much water in a global, even universal, timeless encyclopedia. Proposals to move Seattle, Washington and Detroit, Michigan (just that I know of) have both been rejected on similar grounds. Other than a brief period a few months ago, where Chicago, Illinois was moved to Chicago without consensus, AFAIK it has been at Chicago, Illinois for at least three years, so statements like "...but many of them were linked to there after the name change." seems like a non-sequitor--most of the edits to link to Chicago, Illinois were done while the article was at Chicago, Illinois. Also, changing Chicago in a vacuum, without considering the overall convention, seems like the start down a slippery slope. Niteowlneils 16:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS There's even a question in my mind whether the city deserves primary disambiguation at all--it may have a plurality of the searches, but given the number of people looking for the musical/movie Chicago or the rock band, I am not sure it has a majority. But I guess that's a separate issue. Niteowlneils 16:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As 'Chicago' redirects here, what exaclty is the point in having it at 'Chicago, Illinois', either 'Chicago' should be turned into a disambiguation, or this should be moved there. Also it is perfectly sensible to make exceptions for giant cities such as New York or Chicago, which are large enough to be the primary meaning. G-Man 19:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a slippery slope to say let's apply it to the "giant cities." What is a giant city? Los Angeles? Miami? Seattle? Milwaukee? --BaronLarf 19:30, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well surely a city with nearly three million inhabitants, is world famous, and is one of the largest cities in North America, qualifies as giant. But that is not the point, the point is whether the name is primarily associated with one meaning, and IMO Chicago is primarily associated with the city across the world, and I am speaking as a non American. Let us remember that practically every other thing called 'Chicago' is named after the city. G-Man 18:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that Chicago is well-known, but the problem is that you're going to get all kinds of wackos from minor cities saying that their city is so important that it deserves the same treatment. This already comes up in the World city and List of shopping malls articles all the time. My position is that the article on Chicago the city should stay at Chicago, Illinois, and Chicago should redirect to Chicago, Illinois. --Coolcaesar 00:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote

Niteowlneils, lets put it to a vote here: Chicago or Chicago, Illinois? Dralwik 15:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For Chicago name:

  1. User:Dralwik
  2. User:Jleon
  3. User:Jasenlee
  4. User:Jfdwolff
  5. User:Euphoria
  6. G-Man
  7. Gebruiker:Dedalus 14:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Sinatra sang about Chicago not about Chicago, Illinois - but he did sang about New York, New York and not about New York City;)
  8. Mustafaa 19:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) There's only one well-known Chicago.
  9. john k 20:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Jonathunder 02:02, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Voting has closed - see below

For Chicago, Illinois:

  1. User:Niteowlneils
  2. User:BaronLarf
  3. We have a standard, and since it's the most common usage of Chicago, we redirect Chicago there. --SPUI (talk) 15:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Simply because it is the decided convention – change it by all means, but we should stick to it. violet/riga (t) 16:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Pioneer-12 - The name "Chicago, Illinois" is precise, unambiguous, and consistent with the article names for other cites.
  6. As Baron Larf said, what is a huge city? This leads straight to a slippery slope. Meelar (talk) 22:18, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Chicago should be the disambiguation page, the city should be at Chicago, Illinois to allow this and to match convention. Thryduulf 14:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Rmhermen 15:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) Convention- good. Random naming patterns -bad.
  9. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:38, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  10. –Hajor 19:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Established convention. Slippery slope.
  11. --Coolcaesar 00:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) I concur with Hajor.
  12. Stick with the "City, State" naming convention. slambo 18:05, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Jordan Langelier 23:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting has closed - see below

Discussion

I'm taking this off of WP:RM as it is an issue about naming conventions and not an individual move. The applicable policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) and discussions or votes on the use of "the comma convention" should be taken up there. This article should therefore not be moved unless that policy is changed. violet/riga (t) 16:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Niteowlneils, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_States_and_Canada itself says on the talk page that the policy is not written in stone, and , I've noticed, why aren't you changing New York City to New York, New York? That itself seems like a inconsistency. Dralwik 16:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was moved without consensus, so I worry that if I move it, it will just be moved back, and I don't want to get into a move war--since the person moving it didn't wait for consensus then, I have no reason to believe they'd wait now. Also, FWIW, given the large number of other common uses of "Chicago", I believe there's a stronger argument for Chicago (disambiguation) to be moved to replace the redir at Chicago than any other single use, including the city. And while, yes, there are things like Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules, this clarification provides some insight as to the intent (which I read as 'friendly, collaborative edits in the direction consensus seems to indicate'): Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules#from_User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. And, again, when one is making hundreds of edits a day, lack of convention for names would slow things down considerably. Niteowlneils 20:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That talk-page discussion on the US/Canada policy fizzled out before we could achieve consensus (though we got reeeeeeally close once). Any chance people from here could revive it? Violetriga already got a new section started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)#Chicago. - jredmond 20:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, that when this subject came up with New York, it became quite clear that the current city names convention is certainly not supported by a consensus. While I am hesitant to vote to move Chicago without a consensus that the policy should be changed, and would not have introduced it myself, I think that no particular respect is owed to a naming policy which has been proven not to be supported by consensus, so I'm going to vote for the move. Hopefully, as Jredmond suggests, this discussion can reopen the question of naming conventions in general. Personally, I think that large, relatively unique cities don't need the inclusion of the state. john k 20:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia, at least, are large and unambiguous enough not to require disambiguation. We could work from there, but ultimately, any city where Cityname redirects to Cityname, Statename should probably be at Cityname. john k 21:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the move on some levels, but think the naming convention should be updated before this move is performed. violet/riga (t) 21:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would basically agree. The main reason I'm voting for the move, though, is in the hopes that this will force us to some discussion that might result in a change of the naming convention, since the last discussion petered out. I also think that, given that the current naming convention was arrived at after a poll in which something like five people participated, and in which the vote was something like 3 to 2, and which was later shown (in the discussions about moving the New York City article) not to be supported by consensus, isn't owed any particular deference, except insofar as we should change it if we don't think it ought to be abided by. john k 20:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Decision

This spent an appropriate amount of time on WP:RM and the overall decision is that this article should not be moved. violet/riga (t) 16:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stays at Chicago, Illinois, do not move to Chicago. Petersam 19:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Events Merger

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)

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 link to International Appliance Technical Conference & Exhibition or IATC links to redirect back to Chicago, which is rather inapropriate. There should be at least a stub, but I don't know anything about this. Samohyl Jan 12:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Images

Right now I'm trying to add a lot more images to the Chicago page. I'm following a loose format of one picture (thumb) for each major section aligned to the right with a small caption at 300px. Can others adjust or add new images so we have a variety of good work. Currently a lot of the pictures are from Wikipedia but I think we should start focusing on placing images sourced from the Wikimedia Commons.

--Jason 17:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Radio Stations

The radio station listings are out of date. There's two instances of 101.9, for example. -- Bartkusa

You're correct, also we need to fix the formatting. This page has suffered a lot after the collapse. Granted, much has been fixed but a few sections still need work. This section has been moved to a new article of its own (as a result of the length/collapse) and still needs work. --Jason 10:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

The FM table looks a lot better, but we need to get AM stations back in there! :)

Community Areas

... 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

Notable Natives/Important Citizens

Does anyone know what happened to this section? I'm tempted to create a new section called List of Important Chicago Citizens but don't want to until I know for sure. --Jason 11:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of Natives (in a different sense), does anybody else find it hilarious that we should say "Chicago was first settled by Europeans when Jean Baptiste Point du Sable, an African American from Haiti, settled on the banks of the Chicago River." H'm, let me think. Du Sable – he's from the Americas – his ancestors were African – so when he moves to Chicago (and marries a Potawatomi woman), it's a European settlement! Of course! I suppose Filipino immigration to Guam must be a tremendous achievement for the Sudanese people. When the Americans storm into Baghdad, they are of course scoring a major victory for the Confucian traditions of Korea. Hooray for wikinonsense! QuartierLatin1968 01:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I mean I get the "African American" thing but can you be a bit more clear? Your last edit to the History section is ridiculous, I won't change it though because I want to hear others opinions. "Non-indigenous" is just odd, if settlers were indigenous they wouldn't be settlers would they? I realize that some people think that there is nothing wrong with destroying the English language in the name of being "PC" but I disagree. I'd rather create an honest encyclopedia than a PC one. And if you (or others) think I'm wrong and please provide more truth (with sources) rather than randomly showing up and making an edit along with colorful (yet confusing) comments. This is a community. --Jason 05:11, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

More clear? Um, just that there's nothing European about Du Sable. He's West Indian by birth, North American by residence, African by descent, Potawatomi by adoption. I see your point that the word "settler" means non-indigenous people. But the word here was actually "settled", which (to me) means something more generic that indigenous people can do. Does the expression "a Native settlement" seem wrong to you? It sounds fine to me – but perhaps this is a generational thing. Anyway, honest versus PC is the falsest dichotomy I've ever heard. It's to get rid of a dishonesty (the silly notion that Du Sable moving to Chicago makes a "European" settlement) that I made the change to start with. If people reflect for a moment about what they actually mean to say, without being bone-headedly insensitive about it, the outcome is usually as politically correct as anybody could wish. QuartierLatin1968 07:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Double decker streets

There should be something here or at Streets and highways of Chicago about the double-decker streets downtown. Hell, there isn't even an article about Wacker Drive, which is sometimes considered one of the precursors to the modern freeway.

I am also requesting some help. I have tried every once in a while to create an accurate map of the double and triple decker streets, and have always failed due to not having enough data. I have never seen a map that shows these streets properly. I would like some help, in the form of someone in the area that can go downtown and report on specific streets. I can and will create this map if I have adequate data. --SPUI (talk) 02:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! I can help you with the streets—I'm leaving a longer message on your talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 07:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Old Warning

WARNING: The Chicago page is 30k long, if it reaches 32k or beyond there is a slight chance it could collapse. When a page collapes much of the current content is lost after a user saves and the page size pushes past 32k (think needle/haystack). After that the article would have to be pieced together again from historical archives of the article. It has happened before and trust me it isn't pretty. To solve this we need Wikipedians to turn lists into seperate articles if it's applicable. Additionally some of the longer sections should be expanded into longer articles with more details and the main page having a summary. See the example of the History section. If you create a new section it is suggested the name follow the general format of topic name and then city name. So Geography & Climate would become Geography_and_Climate_of_Chicago. See Wikipedia:Page_size.

== Wiki Source Reference == (yellow box at bottom) What's the yellow table at the end of the article? It seems to have been added here. Is this necessary? PRiis 07:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The change you link to was to create the donation and "real url" box, which appears salmon to me (using the default Wikipedia skin). There is also a small yellow box at the very bottom that is at the bottom of all pages. If you are referring to the first thing, the donation and url box, no it doesn't appear to be necessary, although I don't see any harm in it. I guess you'd have to ask Jasenlee. Euphoria 07:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right, it's the one with the salmon border and the yellow background--the donation and "real url" box. I just wondered if it was part of some project or something, or just arbitrary. PRiis 07:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is open source the content is picked up (mirrored) by a lot of other web sites like The Free Dictionary. They generally scrape the wiki's wholesale to do other things like run banner ad's. Because of that including this link at the bottom informs users of the source of the content. --Jason 22:52, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. PRiis 01:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem, this was just removed today by Fredrik. I've put it back again. In my mind it's important for this to be here because Wikipedia content shouldn't be used for commercial gain by third parties and if it is going to be quoted outside the Wiki I do think the source should be quoted. Some known sites that mirror the Wiki (I'm sure there are others):

Both of these quote the source but I don't think we should leave this task up to them because, again there may be others we don't know about. --Jason 05:36, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I am aware of the mirror problem, but this is not the solution. Besides the obvious problems of manually adding this table manually to 400,000 articles, there is a Wikipedia:Avoid self-references policy which specifically states that articles should NOT mention that they are part of or come from Wikipedia. -- Fredrik | talk 05:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the self-reference guideline and after reading through it I can understand why and agree with the point. While I still take issue with sites like the Free Dictionary using Wikipedia content in a commercial manner (banner ads) there are some good reasons to avoid this. --Jason 06:42, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups 1

This entry states, "The main ethnic groups in Chicago are Irish, German, Italian and Polish." This statement comes just one paragraph after the Census Bureau demographic information, which list the white population as just over 40% - so this seems a rather inaccurate or at least incomplete statement. Perhaps the sentence should read "the main caucasian ethnic groups..." or perhaps some non-caucasian ethnic groups - who after all make up a majority in Chicago - should be added.

More on ethnic groups
I must say, I find the figure of 500,000 people of Serbian descent in Chicago rather hard to believe. Based on a population of about 2.9 million, 41% white (and that figure appears to include Hispanics who the Census Bureau classifies as white), nearly half the white people in Chicago would have to be Serbian for that to be true. While I'm sure Chicago does have a substantial Serbian population, 500,000 seems improbable.
Also, the population of Belgrade cited seems to be incorrect. According to Wikipedia's article on Belgrade, the city itself has a population of 1.27 million, not 2 million as this article states.

Ethnic Groups 2

Which is larger? The small map claims that African Americans are, and text adjacent to it says whites.