YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Chicago

19,604 bytes added, 01:09, 5 March 2013
Suburbs
Last updated by [[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 04:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
 
CTA rates are out-of-date.[[Special:Contributions/96.35.141.138|96.35.141.138]] 19:47, 4 March 2013 (EST)
: Feel free to [[Plunge forward]] and change them. Thank you! [[User:IBAlex|IBAlex]] 20:05, 4 March 2013 (EST)
==Article status==
: I don't know why you persist in thinking the New York article is a model for this one, since that article is (generously) at 'usable' status, two levels ''below'' this one. (Also, nobody from Chicago gives a crap how New York does anything.) Nevertheless, I have 25 years of experience of not being able to hail a taxi off the street up by Howard Street or anywhere in the vicinity of it. So you're objectively wrong. [[User:Gorilla Jones|Gorilla Jones]]
 
::In Chicago, Howard Street is the city limits, so that sentence doesn't hold water as you're virtually ''out of Chicago'' at that point and into the suburbs. One may say its hard to hail a cab off the streets when you're in the Bronx at the border with Yonkers, but that didn't stop anyone from stating its easy to hail a cab in New York, now did it? <small>—The [[Wikitravel:Using_talk_pages#Talk_page_formatting|preceding]] comment was added by [[User:216.251.112.134|216.251.112.134]] ([[User_talk:216.251.112.134|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/216.251.112.134|contribs]]) </small>
:::Are you sure it's a good idea to be restarting arguments from over two years ago? [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 21:46, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
 
===New discussion (2012)===
 
I've moved some of the IP's new comments down here because they didn't thread well above. Apologies. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 21:46, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
 
====Disgusting heat====
 
How can it be stated that I employed an inaccurate term because I said Chicago's summers shouldn't be described as disgustingly hot? You pointed out that the article actually states "many days in July in August are disgustingly hot". Okay, I took July and August to mean ''summer'' as summer doesn't start until June is basically over, so that leaves July and August. So the article was stating the first three weeks of September -which is the only part of September that is summer- isn't disgustingly hot; alright, fine. But yet, you do exactly what you accuse me of after that: Above, Gorilla, you said that "the argument that Chicago can't be called hot because other cities are hotter is absurd". When did I say that? I said Chicago shouldn't be called "disgustingly hot" -that's what I said- and I never said it can't be called hot because other cities are hotter. That wouldn't make sense. So isn't that you ''purposely'' pulling the same tactic you ''thought'' that I was trying to pull? It seems to me that ''you'' are the one who is trying to build an argument on a false premise and is arguing against a phrasing that does not actually exist. <small>—The [[Wikitravel:Using_talk_pages#Talk_page_formatting|preceding]] comment was added by [[User:216.251.112.134|216.251.112.134]] ([[User_talk:216.251.112.134|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/216.251.112.134|contribs]]) </small>
 
====Cabs====
 
Cabs do ride the main thoroughfares of Beverly and Hyde Park, especially Hyde Park. In Beverly, it's down Western Ave and down 95th St. In Hyde Park, kind of all over. No cabs riding the streets in Hyde Park? Laughable. <small>—The [[Wikitravel:Using_talk_pages#Talk_page_formatting|preceding]] comment was added by [[User:216.251.112.134|216.251.112.134]] ([[User_talk:216.251.112.134|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/216.251.112.134|contribs]]) </small>
 
: 216., you should go ahead and make whatever edits see fit to the Wikitravel Chicago article, and be assured that I will not revert or alter them. Cheers! [[User:Gorilla Jones|Gorilla Jones]] 10:34, 19 August 2012 (EDT)
== Lede (again) ==
I put two movie references in, but I think they are appropriate. Ferris and the Brothers both have Chicago as a character in the movie and give people who've never visited there a picture to put in their heads. The last sentence of the second paragraph is new, but touches on the friendliness of people while bringing up comedy and nightlife in Chicago as well as the many sports teams.
 
Anyway, just trying to find a good tone in the lead for this increasingly excellent article. [[User:132.160.43.101|132.160.43.101]] 03:23, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
:The new lead is improved over previous attempts at revision, but it just doesn't flow like the old one does. (And when did Ferris Bueller ever try to ''tame'' Chicago's swagger? If anything, he added to it.) [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 21:27, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
I disagree that the old one "flows". Revision is going back up to generate comments from 3rd parties.[[User:132.160.43.101|132.160.43.101]] 18:36, 3 July 2011 (EDT) :We've had several third parties comment, and you're the only one who likes it. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 21:30, 3 July 2011 (EDT) :This is the place to solicit comments, not the article itself. --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 20:24, 6 July 2011 (EDT) There have been numerous 3rd party comments supporting changes and revisions. If we leave the old one up, we will only get continued vandalism (which is an arguement for change). Revision needs to be up so that people can comment on the talk page.[[User:132.160.54.151|132.160.54.151]] 19:16, 7 July 2011 (EDT) :What numerous 3rd-party comments. I only see you, and vandals, and I'm still not convinced there's a difference there. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 10:18, 8 July 2011 (EDT) I'm trying to make a good intro here. You are trying to stop any progress. On this discussion board the lead has been brought up many times. Once by me, other times by others. Vandalism is an arguement for change. The hyperbole lead is too much. It needs change. [[User:132.160.43.101|132.160.43.101]] 15:34, 10 July 2011 (EDT) : While I'm inclined to agree that the intro is too flowery, the current approach of continually re-adding your preferred version with snarky edit comments is one that isn't helping your credibility. I suggest you might have more luck concentrating your efforts elsewhere, and eventually someone who both cares about improving the text and also is more careful not to alienate other contributors will come along to enact the change you profess to want. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 19:05, 10 July 2011 (EDT) I don't need credibility. All I need is better material. You admit it is flawed, help fix it. Get rid of this "Chicago is the best!" attitude, it isn't what wikitravel is about. Insistence on reverting any attempt at growth is not being a good editor.I don't see the intro written in stone, I see it written with neon.[[User:132.160.54.160|132.160.54.160]] 16:17, 13 July 2011 (EDT) == That ultra-hip, laid-back Far North Side == The far north side contains two areas that can be reasonably described as hip - the fairly posh Lincoln Square business district and the gay-and-especially-lesbian Andersonville area, which has a more laid back vibe. Neither is all that far north. Most of the far north side consists of aging blue-collar neighborhoods and struggling (although not really poor) immigrant communities. Rogers Park's bohemian past has all but vanished (the Heartland Cafe is still there), and the suburb-like neighborhoods to the west, considered luxurious a half-century ago, are too "modern" to have attracted renovation money and have become somewhat run-down. There are well preserved areas in parts of West Rogers Park and much farther west in Sauganash, Old Edgebrook, and other areas better described as the Far Northwest, not Far North, side. [[User:67.173.10.34|67.173.10.34]] 05:33, 8 August 2011 (EDT)Larry Siegel == New leadoff sentence == ''Chicago is the home of the blues and the truth of jazz, the heart of comedy and the idea of the skyscraper.'' Wow, that is really stupid. Here is a better version... ''Chicago is where blues went electric and jazz found its swing, the first city of comedy and the home of the skyscraper.'' Anyone agree?[[User:132.160.72.197|132.160.72.197]] 04:57, 17 August 2011 (EDT) :Of the four statements, only the first is indisputably accurate. Jazz "found its swing" in New York as much as it did in Chicago, and probably moreso. The Second City is Chicago's famous comedy troupe, so saying "first city" sounds like an aborted pun. And "home of the skyscraper" is as meaningless as the "home of the blues" phrase you think is "stupid"; plenty of other cities have skyscrapers. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 15:02, 17 August 2011 (EDT) It is a pun. Chicago is called the home of the skyscraper. You've defended saying that Chicago is the "idea of the skyscraper." Is this different. I'm changing it back. Your disagreements are lax and show your partisan love of the old. [[User:132.160.73.237|132.160.73.237]] 16:11, 4 September 2011 (EDT) :Once, again, you fail to understand how this works. You must garner a consensus ''for'' your changes, not merely a lack of consensus ''against'' them. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 17:41, 4 September 2011 (EDT)  I kinda like that poster's wording: ''Chicago is where blues went electric and jazz found its swing, the first city of comedy and the home of the skyscraper.'' That's a great intro. **And I would argue that the blues did in fact take off and are more associated with Chicago than with New York. New York has a lot of citizens so people tend to try and give New York credit for everything, which in many cases is undeserved. Because of New York's population, there's always going to be a segment of the people there doing something. But on a percentage-wise basis it's not the same. In other words, let's say, 500,000 people really love and/or making jazz in Chicago (population approx. 3 million). That's more evident than 500,000 people really loving and/or making jazz in New York City (population approx 8 million). So jazz is more infused with Chicago. **And there's nothing wrong with saying Chicago is the "first city" of comedy even though one of the city's nicknames is the Second City. If it is first in comedy, ''it is first in comedy''; a nickname related to something else has nothing to do with it (remember, Second City comes from the fact that the first city burned down in the Great Chicago Fire; also Chicago was long the second most-populous city). But can Chicago not receive credit on being first in ''anything'' because one of its nicknames is Second City? That wouldn't make sense. The sentence could simply read: "and the Second City is the first city of comedy with its famous Second City comedy troupe". **As far as the skyscraper connection, that could read "Chicago is the innovator of the skyscraper"; point blank. --And on a separate note, what is the point of this being a website where information can be added or changed if everything will be reverted back? In some cases, this may be called for, but not in all cases; just wanted to point that out. <small>—The [[Wikitravel:Using_talk_pages#Talk_page_formatting|preceding]] comment was added by [[User:216.251.112.134|216.251.112.134]] ([[User_talk:216.251.112.134|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/216.251.112.134|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}</small>:There's nothing wrong with making changes, as long as they're actually improvements. None of the registered, long-time users of this site believe that the proposed change is an improvement, so the change doesn't get made. It's that simple. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 08:45, 18 October 2011 (EDT) ::As an outside suggestion, one could try making tangible improvements to the Chicago article such as double checking whether businesses have closed or changed hours. It's unlikely that accurate edits that clearly improve the value of the guide would be reverted. --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:37, 18 October 2011 (EDT)  == Kind of offensive == I've noticed little jabbing remarks here and there throughout this article towards Chicago; totally not necessary. Here is something that stands out, a quote: "most Chicagoans live and play outside of the central business district. To understand Chicago, travelers must venture away from the Loop and Michigan Avenue and out into the vibrant neighborhoods, to soak up the local nightlife, sample the wide range of fantastic dining, and see the sights Chicagoans care about most"... This is kind of a compliment and a back-handed attack at the same time. First of all who has proof most Chicagoans play more outside of the central district than inside it? The sentence should read "many Chicagoans live and play..." That way the word ''many'' will cover whether most people play outside it or in it. Secondly, it states venture away from the central district to see the sights Chicagoans care about MOST. Uh, who gave the right to Wikitravel to say that Chicagoans do not care about the sights within their central district? The sentence should read "venture away from the central district to see the other sights Chicagoans also care about". That makes more sense. But whenever I change it to read that, some administrator changes it back. This is how I know they are trying to take these undercutting jabs that they do at every city, except New York, because we are all supposed to love New York; something's wrong with you if you possibly like any other city than New York. Bottom line...this is writing, and in writing you must say what you mean, not what you meant. So to say that Chicagoans care more about sights outside the central district than inside it is irresponsible and wrong of Wikitravel. There is absolutely no reason to revert the change I made when I simply modified it to read "venture away from the central district to see the other sights Chicagoans also care about". That's what the edit tab is for; so people can contribute things to the article. The only time things should be reverted back is when it is not true or the sentence doesn't hold up to a certain standard, such as: Chicago has a ka-jillion skyscrapers downtown, or Los Angeles sits in the Pacific Ocean. Other than that, there was no reason to revert back the change I did, especially when the change I made makes it a true statement, and the way it is currently written is opinionated and unprovable. <small>—The [[Wikitravel:Using_talk_pages#Talk_page_formatting|preceding]] comment was added by [[User:216.251.112.134|216.251.112.134]] ([[User_talk:216.251.112.134|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/216.251.112.134|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}</small>:Considering the text about which you're complaining -- in fact, the vast majority of the article -- was ''written by'' Chicagoans, I think your criticism is misplaced. This is not Wikipedia; we are more interested in lively, enthusiastic writing than in laser-like precision of wording. Please read [[Wikitravel:Tone]]. You are welcome to contribute, but in general we don't care for dry awkward phrasing or ambiguous bet-hedging when we have a very well-written article already. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 19:38, 29 January 2012 (EST) It is your opinion it is well-written. Nowhere in the New York City article does it say you should venture away from Manhattan to see the sights New Yorkers ''really'' care about. The bottom line is the statement for the Chicago article should read "venture away from the central district to see the other sights Chicagoans also care about". There is absolutely nothing wrong with wording it this way, nothing wrong. Plus you are not giving the impression that Chicagoans do not care about attractions in their central area, because they actually do care. :I haven't been part of this discussion, have visited Chicago only twice so far (and really liked it!), and don't have an opinion about the matter in dispute, but since you brought up New York, I do want to refer you to [[Manhattan/Theater District#Get_out]]. The Loop is nowhere near as big in area as Manhattan. Whether it's analogous to Manhattan's Theater District or not, I would question, but both are sort of "midtown" neighborhoods, so I offer you this by way of very rough analogy, just for you to think about. [[User:Ikan Kekek|Ikan Kekek]] 19:43, 3 February 2012 (EST) ::It's not just my opinion that it's well-written; it's the consensus of Wikitravel editors. That's why it's a [[Wikitravel:Star article|Star article]]. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 19:45, 3 February 2012 (EST) You are correct, central Chicago isn't as big as Manhattan, as Manhattan is an island. But no downtown/central area of any city in the world is going to be as big as 23 square miles (the size of Manhattan); the same way New York's downtown area isn't as big as the North Side of Chicago. New York City has about 300 square miles, and Manhattan only covers 23 square miles of the city. So my point is that New York's article doesn't tell travelers to "venture out of Manhattan to see the sights New Yorkers ''really'' care about". After all, there is still about 277 more square miles to see outside of Manhattan isn't there? Well, Chicago's article simply should not tell people to get out of the central/downtown area and see the sights Chicagoans ''really'' care about. This wording implies that Chicagoans don't care about the central area and its attractions, when in fact they do. This is ''writing''; and when you write, your words have to say exactly what you mean, not what you are ''trying'' to say or ''meant'' to say. Chicagoans love their central area too. The article could state "venture out of the central area to see the ''other'' sights Chicagoans care about". There is nothing wrong about this change that is being suggested. We are literally talking about adding one word, but doing so is going to change the whole aesthetics of the entire article?...don't believe that. Also this change would no longer give the reader the impression that Chicagoans don't care about the central area; but in some underhanded way, it makes you wonder if that's exactly what they want the reader to believe. ---Literally, we are talking about adding one word. :I'm sorry that you don't find this article well-written (and conspiratorial?)—an awful lot of effort was put into it by someone whom I would call [[User:Gorilla Jones|one of our best writers]], as well as by me, and that effort sprung from a love for the city. I think the problem with your proposed change is that it replaces a stronger statement with a more wishy-washy, less interesting one. (This one sentence is very minor issue, though.) I tried my hand at an improvement [http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=Chicago&diff=1824262&oldid=1823991]. --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 09:26, 4 February 2012 (EST) I am not saying the article is not well-written, it would be just an opinion if I thought it was or was not. I am merely suggesting it is not less interesting or wishy-washy to replace the word ''really'' with the word ''other''. A one word change inside of an existing sentence is not going to change the scope of the entire article; not to mention the fact it puts the sentence in the proper light. It is simply not fair to direct people to leave Chicago's Central District to see the sights Chicagoans ''really'' care about, as opposed to advising them to leave the Central District to see the ''other'' sights Chicagoans care about. That's all I'm saying. <small>—The [[Wikitravel:Using_talk_pages#Talk_page_formatting|preceding]] comment was added by [[User:216.251.112.134|216.251.112.134]] ([[User_talk:216.251.112.134|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/216.251.112.134|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}</small>:You've spent an awful lot of time arguing about just a "one word change". You implied in your first post that there were other problems with the article and that this one sentence was an example of them; do you have other changes you'd like to see made? [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 13:35, 6 February 2012 (EST) There were other things I felt were a problem. But I can barely get a ''one'' word change from you, so why would I go into the other stuff that will require more than a one word change; when you guys can barely accept the ''one'' word change I am proposing? I will comment on those other issues when I am ready. So as for now, I'm just referring to the word ''other'' being used as opposed to the word ''really''. <small>—The [[Wikitravel:Using_talk_pages#Talk_page_formatting|preceding]] comment was added by [[User:216.251.112.13|216.251.112.13]] ([[User_talk:216.251.112.13|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/216.251.112.13|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}</small>:Well, for starters, it'd help if you signed your posts. Use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to do so. Anyway, it's amazing what a difference one word can make; are you happy with the change Peter made, or not? [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 15:04, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Navigation menu