Talk:List of Chicago Landmarks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	List of Chicago Landmarks is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. 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 April 15, 2007.
List milestones Date Process Result May 30, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed June 30, 2007 Featured list candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured list

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

National Register of Historic Places WikiProject (Rated FL-Class) This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. FL This article has been rated as FL-Class on the assessment scale. WikiProject Chicago      (Rated FL-Class) Chicago Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. FL This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Architecture WikiProject (Rated FL-Class) Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. FL This article has been rated as FL-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. WikiProject Illinois (Rated FL-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. FL This article has been rated as FL-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

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.

Contents 1 Featured List Strategy 2 List of Registered Historic Places in Chicago 3 similar article at Landmarks of Chicago 4 Splitting this article? 5 Other info 6 Some suggestions 7 GA failed 8 A couple things 9 The colors! 10 Scrolling refs 11 Updated Landmark list 11.1 Footnoting NRHP and NHL dates 12 Frihost - Free php hosting - Webhosting with php, ftp and mysql 13 Overhauling page 14 more Chicago landmarks than listed?

[edit] Featured List Strategy

1. List all Landmarks from the Landmarks list in our table.
2. Add references to each one linking to its individual page.
3. Add NRHP and NHL dates and citations where applicable.
4. Beef up intro.
5. Add a few pix.
6. For any redlinks create very brief stub to make list look good as a WP:FLC.
7. List all new stub creations WikiProject_Chicago page at new pages and stubs in need of work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] List of Registered Historic Places in Chicago

Here's a result of a query of properties on the National Register in Chicago, along with the dates they were listed:

Reference: National Register Information System. National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service (2007-01-23).

Some of these names might not agree with the Wikipedia names, especially those that have a person's name in there. The National Register database lists last name first, while Wikipedia articles tend to list the first name first. Also, I don't know how many of these are Chicago Landmarks. I figure this can provide some help toward making the list, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you incorporate these into the table on the article page? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] similar article at Landmarks of Chicago

Hi all, dumb question, what will happen to the distinct page Landmarks of Chicago as part of this improvement project? Maybe some of that can be useful...? Thanks... --- User:scbomber (no worries -- only bombs in netrek 05:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I intend to move Chicago Landmark page to List of Chicago landmarks and apply for a WP:FL. This list is exhaustive and Landmarks of Chicago is selective (not completed). I did not see the other page before starting. They must be merged. Many of those images will complement this page. I support a merger of some sort, but will continue with complete listification. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the merger due to exhaustive nature of list and the extensive background and criteria in this article. Will add some pics, but a gallery or link to content on wikicommons could be placed at the bottom. ChicagoPimp 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The big problem is that this article is about officially-designated landmarks, and the other one is about any old "landmark" including tourist attractions. It might be given a different name rather than merged.--Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, the unofficial list should be deleted per WP:OR and redirected to this page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 13:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article/list is following featured list criteria: inclusive, exhaustive, credible sources, and well referenced. ChicagoPimp 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How about List of notable buildings and structures in Chicago and trim accordingly? There are a number of entries that aren't or can't be "landmarks" nor that fit on the "tallest" list. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The other page should be deleted and the photos and usable info should be added to this article. TheQuandry 14:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting this article?

I note the comments directly above however this article is now almost 100kbs in size and quite unwieldy. Can I suggest we split this article by moving the table List of landmarks to overwrite the list that is at the page List of landmarks in Chicago and pointing in this article (using see main article) to that page - that will overcome the valid point made by ChicagoPimp above and also adjust the size of both articles to be workable? I would be happy to do this for you - let me know your thoughts.--VS ^talk 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Most definitely a good move, then the list could be worked up to FL. I would say do it. IvoShandor 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually this could be featured list as it is a list. IvoShandor 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay - have been bold and adjuseted both articles which reduces this one to a workable size and sets up List of landmarks in Chicago for potential featured list status.--VS ^talk 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't like the changes because the list has no intro and the proper intro is separate here. Now neither the article nor the list is WP:FC caliber. The list needs the sidebar pics as well to be WP:FC caliber. Also, an article can do no better than WP:GA class with a gallery. Using a gallery is a big backward step and it is against policy. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Ahmmm that's your call Tony - no offence taken. I was trying to help with some sound decision making relating to the size of the Chicago Landmark article - points to which I note in the following... (1) Gallery was only set up by me to retain the images somewhere for the time being or so that the pictures could be adjusted perhaps in the format shown in this FA article - or they could go to a gallery on commons with a pointer on this page however with respect the area quoted by you as policy is in fact not currently active and is no longer relevant - see top of that page?; (2) I understand the list article did not have a particularly impressive lead but that could be fixed quite easily, and finally but most importantly (3) this article will almost certainly have to be split to reach WP:FA and probably even WP:GA simply because to pass the first (and in most cases the second) editors must follow the WP:MOS. Part of that Manual of Style includes the policy that articles over 100KB (and this article is already well over that size before the extra details are added) almost certainly should be divided up Cheers!--VS ^talk 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(posting copy of talk page detail here for centralised record) **The intention was always to make this a WP:FL. The text may have trouble at WP:GA. As far as WP:FLC the format is good with sidebar picks and brief intro. WP:FA is a whole other animal. I am inquiring whether the listy article would have a chance at WP:GAC's talk page. If not, it will go straight to WP:FLC where except for preponderent redlinks it probably has a good shot. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• • P.S. let me know if this reversion is stable or contentious because we should blank the separate list for speedy deletion if so. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Nothing is contentious with me Tony - blank what you need to. However whether you/we are going to FA or FL is not the issue - am I missing the main point or are you? - Tell me how do you/we get past the massive problem of breach of MOS policy with page size if you present this page at WP:FLC?--VS ^talk 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other info

Not sure where this would go, with this article probably. Obviously, the landmark process in Chicago (as in other major cities) is especially politically charged and often generates significant controversey. Such as:

"In Chicago, a lawsuit challenging the city's landmarks ordinance has been filed in response to historic district designations. I believe it is presently known as "Albert C. Hanna and Carol C. Mrowka vs. the City of Chicago, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks,... etc.". It's a lengthy complaint containing many arguments. Among them are the suggestion that historic district designations are a tool for racial segregation. It also claims that historic district designations are being used as an improper substitution for failed downzoning attempts. It also claims that the criteria used to justify proposed landmark status are so broad that they are meaningless and really don't exclude any structure anywhere. This is all of particular concern in a place like Chicago where machine politics and "aldermanic prerogative" have a history of making a mockery of rule of law."

-From Historic district talk page.

This is but one example. To be thorough and NPOV this side of Chicago landmarks should be shown as it is not a fringe minority view or anything. IvoShandor 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

--I do believe this would be excellent material for the yet-to-be-created Commission on Chicago Landmarks page (maybe some of the detail on criteria could be there too, with a "main article" reefer here? User:scbomber (only bombs in netrek) 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestions

I see you are aiming for FL status and have been discussing whether to have an article and a list, or keep the current combined one.

The WP:FLC ask for

2c a concise lead section that summarizes the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections

It could be argued that the text before the list constitutes the lead and is neither concise nor a summary. However, there are other FL with longish leads (e.g. List of United States Navy ratings and United States Navy enlisted rates). Do you intend to write more on the subject of Chicago Landmarks? If so, having a separate article will allow for expansion, which I wouldn't recommend if combined with the list. Moving the list out to a dedicated article would currently leave this as a short article but I don't know enough about GA if that concerns you. Certainly, it would be quite acceptable for an FL to have just a paragraph or two of lead, and refer to this article as the "main". If you decide to put forward this article as an FL, then there may be objections to its name not being obviously a list. See also List guideline.

Recent similar FLs include:

• Grade I listed buildings in Bristol
• List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon

The last one (Avon) includes a novel method of compactly listing the sources that all come from one publisher. It doesn't use the numbered footnotes for these but it is still obvious which citation corresponds to which entry in the list. If you are willing to be flexible on exactly how the sources for your list entries are indicated, this might be a compact method you could use. For dynamic lists (such as many lists of people) FL usually requires inline citations for each one since it is too easy for someone to add a duff name. But, since you have a reference that lists all the Landmarks in one place, someone can easily tell if a name should be one the list or not.

You appear to have two main sources:

• City of Chicago Dept. of Pl. and Devpmt., Landmarks Div.
• National Park Service.

I think you could use the Avon technique for both of these. It would lead to much shorter article, both in terms of source KB and also final page. You've got several screen's-worth of references that just repeat boring stuff. Doing this would also highlight the individual one-off footnotes that are used for the odd entry or fact.

The FLC 2b suggests a hierarchy, if appropriate. This is a very long list. I suggest you consider breaking it into sections by area as defined in this map?

Regards, Colin°^Talk 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

This is a list and therefore cannot become a Good article. You have to go straight to Featured list if you want it promoted. --Maitch 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC) You could also try a peer review if you want feedback. --Maitch 20:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A couple things

• Images aren't recommended against having designated sizes per this section of the MOS, the exception is a lead image that illustrates the topic well. This might be an issue at WP:FL, and even if not should be corrected.
• Is the Fort King Site known by any other name? Does anyone know anything about this place?

• Because of its NRHP reference number: 76000686, I am inclined to believe that the Fort King Site was added to the National Register of Historic Places the same date as its NHL designation. As a note, Fort King doesn't turn up in the NRIS database at all. I will have to pour over HAARGIS to see what I come up with.

IvoShandor 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a message at Tony's talk page regarding Fort King. There is a Fort King in Florida, but I can't find a similarly named place in Chicago. Oddly enough, the NHL's Fort King entry seems to be erronously titled. I think it's describing the Robert Abbott house, an NHL which is in Chicago (see 1st entry), but is not mentioned anywhere on our page. Zagalejo 00:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The colors!

Are the colors in the list really necessary? In most cases, readers can infer that a landmark is a church, school, etc. I just think the colors are a distraction, and they make the list difficult to read. Zagalejo 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the colors are too intense, especially the red. Aren't there more pastels available? Why don't theaters get a color? Speciate 00:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Lose the colors. Why do some rows have multiple colors? The red squares are completely illegible. If you need the information the colors include, whatever is, add another column.Shsilver 23:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Red removed and replaced with aqua. It should be clear from the legend that a building might be both a Skyscraper and an Apartment Building for example. Thus, it gets two colors. In almost every other table where colors help to quickly identify similar table elements it is considered a good thing. I hope you guys are just against the red. I have moved the legend for explanatory purposes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If it would be more useful, we could switch to something more subtle like List of British Columbia general elections. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be a little bit better. Zagalejo 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think something like the BC election example would be excellent. Speciate 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Those colors look pretty bad. It's like a flashback or something. IvoShandor 00:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with IvoShandor. I still think adding an additional column with the information and getting rid of all the colors works better. For instance:

Chicago Landmark[1]	Designation Date	Location	NRHP Date[2][3]	NHL Date[4][5]	Building Type
Auditorium Building[6]	September 15, 1976	430 S. Michigan Avenue	April 17, 1970	May 15, 1975[7]	Skyscraper/Cultural

Shsilver 11:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I am not sure what you are suggesting because your example did not seem to work. I am guessing you are saying also make the chart subtle by just having a sample column of the color. I think we are pretty well pressed up against the 100kb suggested page size capacity. I believe adding another column would increase KB usage significantly. Anyone is free to attempt to make changes however. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless the City of Chicago denotes official categories for these landmarks, I think we should drop the classification scheme altogether. If users want to learn more about a particular structure, they can click on the link. Zagalejo 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The colors should definitely go. On top of being aesthetically unpleasing to the eye, it looks like a disco club on acid, it is useless. No one is going to remember the ten colors and what classification (which is seemingly just some made up scheme-read OR) they represent half way down the page. Thus they will have to scroll back up. It's utterly useless. IvoShandor 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I see three voices opposing these colors. They should be removed. IvoShandor 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Make that 4. Besides being too garish, there are too many colors to keep track of, the list is too long for easy scrolling to look back at the key to the colors, and the use of two colors for some (high-rise apartments, for example) is not easy for a reader to understand. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to nix the colors if it is the right thing to do. I have put in a call to the godfather of lists User:Circeus on what the proper thing to do is. I am hoping he will post an opinion here or on my talk page and if he wants to keep them, I would fight to keep them and suggest you consider his opinion. If he thinks they should go since he is the expert on list I will promptly remove them. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

undent
"Godfather of lists"? LOL Ahem. There are several valid points here, and I'm throwing in a personal thought:

• It's generally viewed badly on Internet to convey information by colors only. This alone would justify the addition of a column. (see also Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use_color_sparingly)
• However, if the classification scheme is not actually used by the Chicago landmark commission (?), there's no real point in using it in the first place
• Additionally, adding a columns would be squeezing too much information in the space we have (at least on 1024x800 displays, not to mention smaller resolutions), and would probably require the images to be dropped
• I too agree the colors could use some toning down (although that can be taken care of with a search/replace).

So, in the end, it comes down to: "Is the 'type' classification official and is it necessary to reflect it in the list?" Circeus 01:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is unofficial. I will remove colors tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really want to remove the colors, but will not contest those who want to remove them. Any of you above are free to remove them. I am essentially saying I hope not to have to spend my time undoing something I don't want to see undone. I will not be reverting it tomorrow. Anyone who thinks it is important to undo is free to undo the colors, however. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrolling refs

Why are the refs in a scrolling box? Not only would they not print but it looks like we're trying to hide something. Anyone else? IvoShandor 02:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had gotten rid of these! *goes to undo* Circeus 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updated Landmark list

As of 2008-02-17 the landmark commission had not updated the city web page with new listings since Jewelers Row District was designated on 2003-07-09. Thus all promotions starting with Pulaski Park Fieldhouse which was promoted on 2003-07-29 are not included. However, upon request one can obtain a .pdf of the current list of Chicago Landmarks as of 2008-01-01. I have posted this .pdf on my personal webpage. It had been anticipated that the website would be updated in January 2008 according to a November phone call to the commission. However, since it is not clear when such an update will occur, I am going to begin updating our list without an official public release of the update based on documents that are available upon request by the public. At this time, four additional Landmarks have been designated in 2008 and will also be added. Over the next week, I will be adding these landmarks to this page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also posted my excerpted list of New Landmarks, which is merely a Microsoft word documents of Landmarks I saw that were missing from the Wikipedia list. In addition the commission sent me a word document with 2008 landmark designations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please help us fill in the redlinks as they are added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We should start with the Marshall Field Bldg, it should be the easiest to research and photograph (or obtain photographs of). Many of the others are districts, which are more difficult. And all those fire stations? I dunno. Speciate (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an article on Humboldt Park, the park. Instead of writing separate articles on the Humboldt Park Boathouse Pavilion and the Humboldt Park Receptory Building and Stable, I think we should start with a general article about the park, and redirect the redlinks there. Thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 03:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnoting NRHP and NHL dates

If you are updating the list-article, you might want to consider providing/expanding generic footnotes to the top of NRHP date column and NHL date column, and dropping many footnotes from within those columns that just support one individual date. Specific footnotes do belong in the articles about the individual sites, but I would hope they are not needed in a big list-article like this one. General footnotes along those lines are being used in list-articles such as List of National Historic Landmarks in New York and other list-articles on Registered Historic Places or NHLs, in lieu of separate footnotes (although none of those list-articles are yet Featured Lists). But certainly every NHL date can be supported by just one reference to the National Park Service's PDF list of NHLs nation-wide, which includes every NHL date, and which is used in the NY NHL list-article. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the top of the NHL date column does footnote the NPS's NHL list for Illinois. In NHL list-articles, more common practice now is to cite the nation-wide list in one document which includes that, as the nation-wide list has more clear identifiers of authorship by the Department of the Interior and clear date of preparation. Anyhow, with either version of this list cited, can't the individual NHL date footnotes be dropped entirely? doncram (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frihost - Free php hosting - Webhosting with php, ftp and mysql

Is this advertising ? He is everywhere on this page (smile) Lars 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overhauling page

Does anyone know how to overhaul our page to make it look like List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that your page is differently formatted than that Los Angeles one, which i helped to develop recently. But, if you really wanted to make it look more the same you could merge in the new Chicago list-table that i have created within a temporary list-article List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois/Temp. The Chicago list there was created the same way that the List of RHPs in Los Angeles table was created. It should cover all the NHLs and other NRHPs that are covered in the current List of Chicago Landmarks article, and would give u a good start. If you want to keep the scope of this List of Chicago Landmarks article to be just the Chicago-designated landmarks, then you will have to delete some rows out of that table, meaning the ones that are NRHPs in Chicago which are not also Chicago-designated landmarks. Or, perhaps you could set those aside in a new table, like you have a table for NHLs that are not also Chicago-designated landmarks.

My general intention for the List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois/Temp article would be to spin off a separate list-article on RHPs in Chicago (unless you want to integrate it into this List of Chicago Landmarks), spin off a list-article on RHPs in Evanston, and use the remainder table to replace the current List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois article. Before doing so, all the neighborhood info and other info in the current article would need to be translated over. Please discuss at the Talk page to the current RHPs in Cook County article. doncram (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more Chicago landmarks than listed?

I was counting the number of Chicago landmarks to mention elsewhere, and notice an apparent discrepancy. From this listing at Chicago Landmarks Commission, i figure there are 292 city-designated landmarks: (My quick count, which should be checked, is tallied as: Numbered sites:4 (cumulative: 4) A:14 (cumulative: 18) B:13 (31) C:29 (60) D:9 E:20 (89) f:13 g:8 (110) h:15 i:6 (131) j:8 K:8 (147) L:11 (158) m:25 (183) n:8 (191) o:11 (202) p:15 q:1 (218) r:13 (231) S:27 (258) t:9 u:5 (272) v:2 w:16 (290) y:2 (cumulative total: 292) ). In this list-article, though, while there is pretty much one footnote per landmark, there are only 280 footnotes. So the list-article is missing some, n'est-ce pas? doncram (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)