Talk:Chicago Board of Trade Building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Featured article star Chicago Board of Trade Building is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 28, 2007.
This article is a former Chicago Collaboration of the Week. Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is List of Chicago Landmarks update. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.

This article may becoming close to a good article candidate, according to the guidelines regarding good articles. Current needs include:

  • A review against the standards in Wikipedia Manual of style.
  • A review of whether the cited sources are essential and properly placed. Some sources are cited early in the article for a fact and then not cited later.
  • A review of whether the focus is on the main topic without non-notable trivia. I believe the article to be well structured, with sufficient details to support notability of the topic and significant events and people related to the topic.
  • A review against the neutral point of view policy. I believe neutrality is strong. Currently, the article does not advocate any financial or market system, architecture style, politicla figure, or position within the trading industry.
  • Additional graphics depicting statues or art-deco features.
  • Additional details of interior design or function for any of the buildings or locations, e.g. quantitative facts of floor space, offices, technology upgrades, employees served, etc.
    • Added facts for floor space and pic of trading floor ChicagoPimp 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Added facts for early locations. ChicagoPimp 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Literary or journalistic references and citations

Contents

[edit] Chicago Pedway

I removed the following: The building is connected to surrounding properties via the Chicago Pedway, a system of pedestrian passageways. The supposed parts of the Pedway that the city shows on its map ([1]) do not connect to any other portions of the Pedway and are 1) an open-air sidewalk and 2) an overhead bridge that has been off-limits since soon after 9/11. Kevin Forsyth 14:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

Very enjoyable read and verifiable. Alientraveller 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One North LaSalle

I am not sure if the Chicago Board of Trade Building and One North LaSalle are the same. See these links: http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/O/OneNorthLasalle.html and http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/B/BoardTrade.html. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.
using Emporis (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1northlasalle-chicago-il-usa vs. http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=chicagoboardoftrade-chicago-il-usa) and Encyclopedia of Chicago. Bd. of Trade is the taller of the two. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tallest Art Deco building outside of Manhattan contention

removed from mainspace until we can find a source:-

  • It remains the tallest art-deco building outside Manhattan.

--Joopercoopers 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture removed

I've removed Image:CBOTmailbox.jpg ([[Image:CBOTmailbox.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Lobby mailbox at the Chicago Board of Trade. (photo: 2007-02-27)]]) from the article, because the statue pics were in the wrong section and had to go in the section where the mailbox photo was. I tried to put it somewhere else, but the picture layout is difficult to handle with so many short sections. Can anyone think of a way to get the mailbox picture back in? Carcharoth 14:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to note here what I said in more details at the FAC: there are two pairs of objects named Agriculture and Industry - the 35ft high relief sculptures (on the 1930 building) and the 12ft high statues (from the 1885 building and now in the plaza). Carcharoth 10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebert/Batman

The article gets a whole sentence out of the fact that Ebert praised the use of the building for Batman 17 or whatever it was called. Here's what Ebert wrote, in its entirety:

The movie was shot on location in Chicago, making good use of the murky depths of lower Wacker Drive and the Board of Trade building (now the Wayne Corp.).

Oh. This strikes me as uninformative, unremarkable and uninteresting. I think reference to it is deletable. Too harsh? -- Hoary 22:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • A tad harsh. The building itself does play a prominent role in Batman Begins; for most readers that will be their only exposure to the structure. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's the only time I've ever seen it. Carcharoth 10:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

After markup-stripping, the article now says:

Film critic Roger Ebert complimented the use of the location in the 2005 film Batman Begins,[47] in which film the building was depicted as the headquarters of the fictional Wayne Enterprises.

I've no objection to pointing out that the movie was used as the location for this film. What I object to is the way this suggests that Ebert says something sufficiently interesting about the use for it to be worth clicking on the link and reading. But you click on the link, you get various cookies and advertising junk (unless you've got your browser to zap this), and you read nothing of interest. So I suggest something like:

The building is a major location in the 2005 film Batman Begins,[47] in which it is the headquarters of the fictional Wayne Enterprises.

--Hoary 10:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds much better. Carcharoth 10:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. -- Hoary 10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Rogers and his lasso

It's good to integrate miscellanea into the article. The vignette of Will Rogers and his lasso was previously in a trivia section, and I'm all in favor of having it moved elsewhere. Somebody moved it amid the (mostly) architectural history, whereupon it was more conspicuously out of place and trivial; I therefore commented it out. -- Hoary 10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I moved it from a section talking about the 1930 building (or a section that implied it was talking about the 1930 building), to the section about the 1885 building (the 'lasso' event took place in 1905). I thought it was rather a nice vignette about how a tour that was promoting Tulsa came to that building in Chicago - says something about the role of the 1885 building in the Chicago of 1905. I imagine newspaper headlines long the lines of "Rogers is star attraction at Chicago Building of Trade show, as Tulsa tries to lure Chicagoeans west", but that is just speculation. Carcharoth 11:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point. Perish the thought of adding any speculation, but I wonder if this could be altered a bit so that it fits in better. But do feel free to uncomment it. -- Hoary 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Load time

I don't know if it is that ridiculous skyline picture (in violation of MOS suggestions) that is causing it but this page takes forever to load on my high-speed connection, can this be addressed considering this article is featured, that picture is probably the reason. IvoShandor 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So let's take a look then.
  • "Ridiculous skyline picture": 142,768 bytes
  • All other jpegs, totaled: 96 kB or so
  • Image:Cbot-close-night.gif: 32,296 bytes (about double what it would be as a jpeg)
  • The text of the article: 140kB or so.
  • Other odds and sods (much of which would already be in your cache): 95 kB
IvoShandor phrases it robustly, but I think he has a point. -- Hoary 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't sure of the exact numbers but the picture itself is quite garish and not very aesthetically pleasing, I have argued this point before, but it really doesn't add much to the article. I am not even sure if its position in the skyline is encyclopedic content for inclusion as much as it is local trivia. "Ridiculous" may be a bit harsh but it gets very frustrating when the Chicago project (of which I am a member) disregards all previous objections to certain content and continues to insist upon its inclusion, I cannot see where such a large photograph of such a trivial aspect to this (or any other) building can ever add much to any article. The MOS suggestions are generally good, I am oft left wondering why it is this project summarily ignores so many of them on content that is otherwise of the highest quality. IvoShandor 00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could link to the previous discussion of this image, and summarize what was said about it. As I look at the list of what links to it, the likeliest candidate is this, but it's a brief and amicable discussion. Searching through the current WP Chicago talk page for "skyline" brings up nothing.

I don't agree with you on MoS; but my disagreement apart, it's hard to know what you're citing. Which part of MoS is being violated here? (I can guess, and can chase up my guesses; but it seems that you already know.) -- Hoary 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)IMO it is violation of the images section of the MOS, all about not specifying size. It could be construed that this photo is special and subject to the exceptions but given its unencyclopedic nature I don't think that argument should be used. I think the previous image discussion was on the Blackstone Hotel page. The load times for a photo like that are long on my connection, they must be absolutely unbearable for anyone connecting to Wikipedia from, say Kenya. So even if you argue that its ratio and whatnot don't violate the MOS (which is just a guideline anyway) the argument from the other side (against inclusion of the photo) is still a formidable one. Also, I don't think many of my discussions about stuff I disagree with have been anything but amiable, at least I try to be nice anyway, I really respect alot of the other Chicago editors and their work but I don't always agree with some of the decisions made. IvoShandor 02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
As you may know, I often disagree with many users (including myself) myself.
So, I see:
Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: / On images with extreme aspect ratios
"Not recommended" is very gentle, and the extreme aspect ratio of this image is its immediate and obvious escape clause.
That said, I'm no particular fan of the image. How about suggesting in the WP Chicago talk page or some other suitable place (rather than here) the creation of a Chicago skyline page, starring this image or a better version thereof, as a link destination of the articles on individual buildings, etc. that are now burdened with the image? -- Hoary 03:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a battle I would just rather not deal with, to be honest I am usually much happier when my edits are in the article namespace. If we can reach consensus to remove it from this page I will be content with that, since this one is featured and should represent our best work not our creative whims. IvoShandor 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous building (1885)

Found a nice website here with pics of the 1885 building, which appears to have acquired a clock tower at some point. Carcharoth 02:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Architectural details

See the picture here. That shows the Ceres statue, the hooded figures on the corners, adn I think, the relief sculptures between the corners are the 35 ft Industry and Agriculture ones. Carcharoth 02:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early history

The article states that "...the Chicago Board of Trade opened for business at 101 S. Water Street." Two problems:

  1. There isn't a 101 S. Water Street (anymore). Water Street now runs only east-west, and is only east of State Street, so that all the addresses on it are East. (There used to be a S. Water Street, but it got replaced by Wacker Drive.)
  2. Chicago's street numbers changed in 1916(?), and maybe other times. Is the 101 S. Water Street an 'old' address, or a current one? (I think it's old.) Rick lightburn (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely an old address. Given that the referenced date in the same sentence is 1848, I don't see it as a problem, although it might be helpful if someone could correlate that old address with an approximate modern location. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)