Portal talk:Chicago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This portal is a current featured portal candidate. A featured portal should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.   Please note: if you are re-nominating the portal and the link to initiate a nomination is not displayed, please follow the instructions here.

	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.
Portal	This article has been rated as Portal-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Chicago Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
Portal	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Portal	This article has been rated as Portal-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Portal about Chicago; content disputes should take place on the appropriate article's talk page. Please ensure this portal's details are listed in the Portal directory and its status is assessed. For discussion about Portals generally, please see the WikiProject on Portals.

Contents 1 Featured Portal drive discussions 2 Formating quality content for portal 3 Missing subsections 4 Biographies 5 FPO check 6 Intro images 7 Panoramic intro image

[edit] Featured Portal drive discussions

DYK issues

1. Alignment not good
2. Some pictures not showing
3. Got to go get sources still

   I have sourced all the DYK hooks except for one intersting one in the Portal:Chicago/Did_you_know/6 group. The rest were my own so I knew what dates they were from and could easily find them. I don't know how to find this one, but am quite certain it is true and find it interesting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal issues

1. I threw a bunch more cities in the section that are hidden in comments at the bottom.
   1. I meant in the related portal subpage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

News issue

1. You still did not explain my query above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Content issue

1. Should we transclude WP:CHIFC and possibly WP:CHIGA, which I keep current?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Replies

1. Please use the "layout" format from Portal:Norway/DYK/Layout. (You'll have to create your own layout page, or I'll do that later). Cirt (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

   Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

2. I can work on formatting the other subsections later. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I went ahead and reformatted the News section, nothing else needed there really. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you removed the featured content section. What is going on with that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formating quality content for portal

I think we should do the following (which I will get started doing)

1. Add two new sections (one on each side) for Selected Lists to show off our Category:FL-Class Chicago articles and Selected Landmarks to show off our Category:FA-Class Chicago articles and Category:GA-Class Chicago articles Chicago Landmarks

   The Selected lists would include all Category:FL-Class Chicago articles

   Selected Landmarks would include the following Chicago Board of Trade Building, Chicago Theatre, Haymarket affair, Heller House, Historic Michigan Boulevard District, Hull House, Marquette Building (Chicago), Rookery Building, Union Stock Yards, and Wigwam (Chicago).

   Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Add all Chicago WP:FPs to selected pictures.

   Done, but I omitted Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 04:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Add all relevant FA-Class Chicago articles to selected articles

   Done and I have swapped some out and moved them to selected landmarks. I included some GAs to round out the pool to 20.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Add all relevant FA-Class Chicago articles and GA-Class Chicago articles to selected biographies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

   I added 8 FAs and 2GAs. That should give us more variety. We have one rep from each major pro sport and a wide variety of other individuals. There are several more relevant GAs. The remaining FAs are not central to the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing subsections

1. Things you can do -- An example is at Portal:Comedy. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Main topics -- An example is at Portal:Television. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Cirt

1. I have added free images to all the selected articles that you removed fair use images from.
2. I think those additional sections are interesting. In some sense though the things you can do seems like it should be on a project page and not on the portal. The main topics is sort of redundant with the category tree and the main header. So I am not so sure either is needed.
3. I assume you want biography and landmark in the same format as article
4. I don't know what 10 lines is because it will depend on your screen resolution. You should suggest a character count.
5. All the landmarkd as you can see at Portal:Chicago/Selected landmark are official landmarks. Seven are National Historic Landmarks and four are Chicago Landmarks. I made space for two WP:GACs that are on hold and likely to be promoted in the next week or so.
6. The point of the featured portal is to put forth the best that the project has to offer. We have WP:FPs highlighted in the selected pictures, WP:FAs highlighted in the selected articles so why not WP:FLs in the selected list section. Agreeing on a layout for the hook is part of the reason lists have not made the main page. Lists vary in format so much that designing a clip is difficult and the easiest solution is to use a blurb from the WP:LEAD as the hook.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Replies

1. "Things you can do" is a very common feature on other WP:FPORTs, and "Main topics" is required. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
2. For the most part the main portal page of a portal is supposed of function sort of like the Main Page, and I don't think that the "Selected list" section really gels well with the idea of a Featured Portal. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
3. 10 lines doesn't have to be exact, but blurbs shouldn't be more than 15 lines or less than 7 or so - and that's just approximate. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Yes, the layout/format for the other subsections will all eventually be formatted like the way I just reformatted "Selected article" - if you can figure this out, great - in either case I will try to work through reformatting some of these. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
5. The "caption" field in these layouts is just a rollover caption - so this isn't really correct - try to make the captions short and sweet, and avoid wikilinking. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture 7 is probably the most important picture in WP:CHICAGO. If we have a selected picture section, we should include it until we have other panorama, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 08:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am hoping Landmark 12, Marshall Field and Company Building, gets promoted today or tomorrow. Landmark 13, Blackstone Hotel, will take a few days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 08:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the list section should be readded for several reason:
  1. the Portal is looking unbalanced most of the times that I refresh it.
  2. as I stated above the section is highlighting a type of WP:FC
  3. if the people at WP:FPOC don't like it, it is easliy removeable.
  4. if necessary it can be reformatted as a bottom section using the full width and list samples. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Selected list" subsection should not be included in this portal for the following reasons:

1. Confusing as to what specifically from the "lead" should be included - often the "leads" of Lists are of varying lengths, making uniformity more difficult than selecting leads from Articles and Bios. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
2. The portal can be easily balanced without this subsection - after I am done reformatting and standardizing all the other subsections of the portal, things can easily be moved around for more uniformity - and adding another subsection at this point will make things harder, not easier. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Are there at least (10) relevant selected lists to utilize that are of WP:GA quality or higher? Cirt (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Are there free-use images to go along with each of those potential (10) selected lists? Cirt (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I would really rather focus on the subsections we currently have in this portal, and not create more work and potential balance issues by adding in more subsections at this point. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   Basically your arguments are of three types.

1. Confusing what to include from lead - not so strong since we are going to standardize everything down to the same size any way
2. Balance problems - not so strong like I said above this can be solved by making the selected list section full width like other bottom sections
3. Are there 10 with images - probably very strong given your experience with WP:FPOC nominations and the fact that we only have 6 and 5 have images. I will drop the issue because we only have five that fly, but should we at some point get ten, I may try to add such a section since I don't feel your other arguments are strong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay let's table this discussion for now, and perhaps we can revisit it at some point if/when there are 10 or more high-quality lists with free-use images. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I previously mentioned I would be hands off until further instruction and I also mentioned that when landmarks 12 and 13 were promoted to GA I would add them. I am jsut going to swap in the text for landmark 13 that was earlier promoted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I am sorry I am going to get to making a whole slew of minor formatting changes to areas of the portal soon, but in the meantime yes of course feel free to update with additional WP:GAs and WP:FAs. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I just reformated the landmark section in the standardized manner.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now the project has fewer than 10 WP:FAs and WP:GA that are not included, I believe. I just added several more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies

Gustavus Franklin Swift has been delisted. Is it important to remove it from our selected biographies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well to keep it uniform best to have all the selected articles/bios etc be WP:GA or WP:FA, so my take would be yes. Cirt (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There are about a half dozen bios that fall under WP:CHICAGO by virtue of having categories that are among WP:CHIBOTCATS. Several football players who played one season for Chicago professional football teams (Garland Rivers, Bob Chappuis, and Jim Thorpe), as well as Ann Bannon, Marion L. Brittain and Patti Smith all come to mind as persons who have categories that indicate an affiliation with our project, but that have insufficient content related to the project to include in the portal in my mind. I have included just about all bios except for these. Do you have an opinion on these articles?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that they are relevant, and they are of WP:GA or WP:FA quality, then sure. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FPO check

O.K. So what is left before we can nominate this for WP:FPOC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold your horses, :) - gimme a bit to go through all the new additions and stuff - my apologies but I have been busy with other portals lately. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro images

	Left: Chicago within Chicago metropolitan area; Center: Chicago within Illinois; Right: Illinois within the United States

I like some of the images that you have chosen. However, I don't like the new layout. I think we should have certain images that we want people to see at all times. I would greatly prefer the following to the random redesign. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the version of the randomized intro. It is used in Featured Portals - Portal:Oregon, Portal:Iceland, Portal:Philosophy of science, Portal:Indiana, among others. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is not my stylistic preference. The point is the reader who comes to the portal to get a summary of Chicago should not have to refresh to find our most important images. We should show them where we are located, what our symbols are and depict the city in a single shot. From an encyclopedic perspective, the above is superior.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

P. S. not the border is optional.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

However with the randomized version, every time the reader comes to the portal they get a fresh new look. The randomization of the intro increases dynamism. I still think we should keep it the way it is. The version with all the images together in the intro looks quite frankly cluttered and unseemly. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we already giving the reader six other dynamic sections. How about six part dynamics and one part encyclopedic? I think you are going overboard with your with the use of a techinically sophisticated feature, which in the context of introduction as a sort of a WP:LEAD serves no encyclopedic purpose and instead is what one might term a gimmick.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

N.B.: for the record the above edit was modified with italicized text added at the time of this time stamp.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, we could possibly use the uncaptioned images to make it look less cluttered.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not appreciate you referring to randomization utilized by multiple other Featured Portals as somehow being my "gimmicks". This is completely uncalled for and inappropriate. Please strike out that above comment. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are serious or not, but I said to the best of my ability, that in the context of the main image the dynamic feature is of little encyclopedic value and thus classifies as a gimmick. Where dynamic selected features has the encyclopedic value of introducing content to a reader, in the context of a main image in an introduction, it is inappropriate. Think of the introduction as a WP:LEAD for the portal. By reading the lead the reader is prepared for the subject matter of the portal. However, if we randomly present this introductory material each reader will have a different preparation for the article. In the LEAD is common for great thought to go into formatting the proper introductory material for rapid synthesis. We should carefully choose that which we present in order to prepare the reader rather than randomly do so. A dynamic main image here is no more appropriate than would be randomizing any component of a lead in a WP:FA or WP:FL. Read the first paragraph at gimmick and tell me if it is not spot on for the dynamic feature here. It does not in any way help us introduce the city to show them that we can do this fancy dynamic image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your previous comment above was inappropriate. Please strike it out. The randomized feature is not "my gimmick", as you refer to it, "I think you are going overboard with your gimmicks." -- I did not develop this idea of randomization in the intro, therefore how could it possibly be my "gimmick", but rather a feature used in multiple other Featured Portals ? If you can not be civil then it is not worth my time to work on this portal. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the statement to say precisely what I mean, which is in the bounds of civiliity as I understand them. I value your contributions to the Portal and hope my effort at elucidation is instructive rather than insulting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the use of a randomized feature which is used in multiple other Featured Portals as a "gimmick" is still not the best way to further polite dialog about this issue. I have asked for input from an experienced portal contributor, RichardF (talk · contribs), as this is getting to a point where this discussion could use input from someone experienced in getting many portals to Featured Portal Status, and will await his comment. Cirt (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cirt Asked me to comment on this discussion. My only strong recommendation is the two of you put this up for a portal peer review to get a broader conversation going on the issue. My first impression on the intro is that it's about two paragraphs too long. Portals are highly visual and any intro/selection box that requires scrolling is too big IMHO. Some FP reviewers would impose a strict word count to boot. To me, the enclycopedic argument for image display type is a straw man. Any number of layouts are possible. For example, Portal:indiana uses randomized images in the intro to good minimalist effect (IMHO again) plus includes a state infobox with much more basic info than an intro ever could hold. I consider the use of image rotation not a gimic, but a stylistic element that enhances the overall quality of the visual presentation of a portal. Portals are, by design, more artsy than articles. RichardF (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks RichardF. I don't quite think the portal is ready for a peer review just yet, but glad to have your input here. Cirt (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What would a typical portal intro word count be?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a word counter, but one or two paragraphs are very typical. RichardF (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RichardF - I had shortened the intro text from four paragraphs down to two, using the WP:LEAD from the article Chicago. I now see that this edit was undone by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs). Normally if the information is taken from the WP:LEAD of an article, it can be assumed that the information is sourced in that article, but now with this expanded info, this appears to all be completely WP:OR (Not to mention that you said above that even the prior version that I had used, with two paragraphs, was way too long and would have encountered trouble at a Featured Portal Candidate discussion). Cirt (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to take a break from working on this Portal collaboration drive, but will be available for advice. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The WP:FPO city Portals I have looked at (Portal:Houston, Portal:Indianapolis, Portal:Indianapolis and Portal:London) do not use the dynamic feature. I do acknowledge that they all have intros substantially shorter than this one. I will shorten. I did revert cirt's intro text change because he had copied it from Chicago which had been demoted from A-Class to GA-Class to B-Class in the last year (see edit summary). I copied the long version of this there instead. I will shorten once you give me a word count or shorten to as long as Houston without response. I will revert the intro image if cirt is not going to be involved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you have not exactly been the most civil of people here, and I generally don't think you'r in any position to insult and/or offend Cirt, given the fact he knows what he is doing. Cirt solely went through and brought the sixty or so amount of selected articles up to standard, and without him, this portal would probably only have a small chance of being featured. I can see your point, but please, don't criticize and mock others. You, like I am not perfect either. Qst (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to insult and I did not mock him in any way. Cirt has reformatted my work very well, and beyond my capabilities, but he did not do it by himself. Is there anything in particular that you believe is mocking? The use of the word gimmick is my attempt to point out that no other WP:FPO cities have dynamic images. I think the feature is essential to the rest of the portal but not the intro. I continue to view an intro like a WP:LEAD although Portal people like them a lot shorter. If english is not your primary language and you interpreted something I wrote as mocking I apologize to you, but I owe Cirt no apology. I am not going to say I like having the best image only appear 20% of the time in the intro. If Cirt wants all his portal friends to come by and say they like the feature wherever he puts it and to scream at me that is fine. As always things go by consensus whether it be honest opinion or concerted effort.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not willing to sit here and argue with you, but I think you do owe him an apology, and yes, my native language is English, thanks. And Cirt did not ask me to come here and comment, so don't make "portal buddy" accusations, please. Qst (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For what?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger asked for my opinion as a featured portal candidates director on this matter, and I have given it here. The long of the short; there is no obligation to have a randomised image feature. I prefer this feature and used it on my featured portal (Portal:Music of Australia), but it is not required for a featured portal.
I would suggest that, as Tony has probably done more work on this portal and on the articles it covers, his preference be allowed to go forward—this is similar to the referencing convention whereby the format used by the article's primary author (be it cite.php or Harvard) is used. Thus, I suggest this portal not employ the randomised image feature.
As noted on my talk page, in determining FPoC consensus in regard to this portal (or, indeed, to any portal) opposition based on the use (or lack thereof) of randomised images will be ignored by me (though I don't speak for OhanaUnited or Rudget).
I hope this helps. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that User:Cirt's work has been invaluable in terms of bringing this portal up to current standards. I appreciate User:Dihydrogen Monoxide appreciation for my work on behalf of WP:CHICAGO. I actually interpret his response as a neutral or weak support although it may be read by others as a support for my side of the debate. In terms of what is best for the project, his argument is neutral. Me ego could stand rotation method in the intro if it were deemed to be standard policy or preferable. I view Cirt as an equal and a co-author in terms of development of this portal. Any argument based on who did the more important work is a very tough call and I am not even sure I want any judgement on who do more/better work. The portal would not be featured quality without his technical expertise. I happened to know where to find all the DYKs because they were almost all my own. However, the way I maintain the WP:CHIFC and WP:CHIGA sections anyone could have found most of the rest except for the quotes which preexisted our recent efforts to pursue WP:FPOC. Anyways, thanks for all the time and consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

After TonyTheTiger invited me to comment on this, I think I am standing neutral as to whether lead and its images should be randomized. Both have its pros and cons, and I can't see one outweighs another. And please watch your tone, TonyTheTiger. Some of your comments above are on the borderline of being incivil. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panoramic intro image

Another option for the intro image would be to use Image:Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg. I tested it at my sandbox. RichardF (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting compromise. However, that image is used in so many Chicago articles that I thought a better compromise might be Image:Chicago Downtown Aerial View.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a suggestion.  :-) RichardF (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)