Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment

New nominee suggestions

All we are looking for her is some basic consensus that the article is important along the right dimensions to be on the ballot of nominees for Top-importance Chicago articles. If you believe an article is a weak high importance based on the priority scale, it is O.K. to support it being made a nominee as Top because you may be overlooking something. This is not a vote that an article is top in your opinion just that it is a meritorious contender. Also, note that since WP:WPChi covers all of Cook County, Illinois, non-Chicago articles are eligible if they are Cook County articles. If the project expands to cover Chicago metropolitan area those articles would be eligible as well. This is merely a place for feedback on which articles should be nominated. Note that quality and importance/priority are not related. An article could have a very important subject that we should attach a high priority to for the project but still be a stub or a redlink. Do not confuse the quality of an article for its importance/priority. The latter is the subject here and is independent of the former. Do not view an article as ineligible because it is not high quality. Archives are available for past promotion discussions and demotion discussions.

I find the lack of distinction between importance and priority very confusing. The two don't seem to me to be the same thing. One, the importance rating, refers to the intrinsic value an article brings to a reader's understanding of what Chicago is about, who we are, our culture, etc. The other, priority, seems to be an attempt to manage and balance the articles to be worked on by the ChicagoWikiProject group. In my opinion, project workload tools should be kept in the background and not placed out there on the talk page of each and every article related to Chicago. It just seems wrong to me to keep an article from being rated as a Top Importance article, when it is in fact one, because of some priority within the project team. By artificially setting importance levels based on priority we may be giving the wrong impression to the users who don't know that the importance rating is actually a priority rating. Pknkly (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me which types of articles you are saying should be given more consideration and which should not. Can you give examples of a top priority article that is not important and a top importance article that is not a priority.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that I know of any articles that need more consideration and which should not - that would be discussing priority. Within Wiki I don't know anything about priority other than people assuming priority is the same as importance. The subject of an article has intrinsic value to a project whereas priority is a scheduling thing. Importance makes a statement about the subject, not how quickly or in what order something needs to be done to an article. So, I can't discuss or give an example of priority because I'm not aware of any scheduling criteria. On the other hand, the Importance scale is very well defined - "High probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up. Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Must have had a large impact on non-Chicagoans, across several generations, and in the majority of the world in a role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution". The Importance doesn't mean we have to get to them right away, it just simply states to a reader that relative to Chicago this is an important article. I used the Importance criteria to nominate the articles for Top Importance. Pknkly (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I am thus not sure what change you are proposing. There may be some need to mollify the definition of top-importance because I personally think Millennium Park, which is the city's second biggest tourist attraction might be a top-priority although it does not fit the several generations thing, but of course Obama did not necessitate such a change either. This is wikipedia and any rule or guideline can be changed by interested parties. Let me know if you have a suggestion to make.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Try to summarize the above - I don't equate Importance with priority. So, I recommend not equating the Importance with priority in the above (e.g.,"Note that quality and importance/priority" - simply make this "Note that quality and importance"} or any other instructions for determining the Importance value. Pknkly (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Good start would be a major change followed by minor ones. (1) Change (I think it might be a move) Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Priority Scale to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Importance Scale; (2) In the above first paragraph under ==New nominee suggestions== change: (a) "If you believe an article is a weak high importance based on the priority scale, it is O.K. to support it being made a nominee as Top because you may be overlooking something." to "If you believe an article is a weak high importance based on the Importance scale, it is O.K. to support it being made a nominee as Top because you may be overlooking something.", and (b) " Note that quality and importance/priority are not related." to "Note that quality and importance/priority are not related." Pknkly (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of those changes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Will wait for a week before making the changes. That will give others a chance to comment. Pknkly (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The changes were made along with others by which the Importance parameter was emphasized and decoupled from the terms "priority" or "class". Unfortunately, some of the WP:1.0 articles and reports still imply that "importance", "priority", and "class" are synonymous. So, any links to those articles or reports will tend to muddle things unless we emphasize that those are their project's terms. Also, I did not make the changes within this Talk page because I felt the instructions given within a Talk page are temporary and will not confuse future editors. Pknkly (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I confess I am very confused about the standards for a top article in this project. In many ways the nominees are more of a "pop culture" list than a list of topics that you would find in an encyclopedia. For example, I would challenge you to find any decent printed encyclopedia that failed to have an article on Jane Addams or the Pullman Strike. We include the article on Mike Ditka but not the one on Richard M. Daley who has served even longer than his father. And speaking of the senior Daley, we have not included the article on the 1968 Democratic National Convention. It seems to me we are missing a consistent and thoughtful approach and simply listing things that come to mind. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Points well made. Being in an encyclopedia is just one criteria. We need to look at them all during the selection process. Anyone can nominate. So, I hope you include your nominations in the list. Can't beleive we missed Mayor Richard M. Daley, especially with his push to get the Olympics getting him international exposure. Pknkly (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to consider nominating articles from our August 2009 popular pages list or other months.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a worthwhile information. I think popular items should get an Importance rating. I'll get to the ones that don't have one.Pknkly (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Current debates

Chicago-style pizza

This is the true taste of Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment A broader article on Chicago cuisine might be better, but we don't seem to have one at the moment. Zagalejo 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Agree with Zagalejo. Not Top in our project, lets see how it goes with the "Food and drink" group.Pknkly (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My Kind of Town (Sinatra song)

Seems like an article should be there already.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment A good candidate for COTW. Zagalejo 20:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it derived from Chicago (That Toddlin' Town)? Speciate 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, different lyrics: [1]. Zagalejo 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposed, many songs about Chicago. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Support - Hum a couple bars in Japan or Germany, any place in the world, and people will come up with the title. Pknkly (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Same would apply for the song and article Sweet Home Chicago. Pknkly (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose We didn't even have an article on this song until September 2007. Top importance is a bit much, methinks. Zagalejo^^^ 00:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cook County, Illinois

Many important things and institutions for Chicagoans are outside of the city limits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Considering the scope of the project, this seems like a good choice. Zagalejo 20:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral, unless the number of allowed Top articles is increased greatly. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Nobody outside of the Chicagoland area probably knows that Chicago is in Cook County, or Illinois for that matter. So, I believe it is best kept at the current High Importance level. An argument could be made for lowering the importance rating from our perspective to Mid. We are talking about the article called Cook County and its importance to the view of Chicago. We are not making a decision on people, places, things, events, etc. in Cook County. They may or may not be Top Importance articles from our project's perspective. Pknkly (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chicago metropolitan area

Similar argument as nom above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Support See above. Zagalejo 20:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral, unless the number of allowed Top articles is increased greatly. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Nobody outside of the Chicagoland area probably cares that Chicago defines a metropolitan area. It is an interesting fact, but as an article it is not important from our project's perspective. The Illinois Project group may find it as a Top Importance article. But, for us, I believe Mid Importance may be too high. A Wiki Project group concerning themselves with Geography may also rate it as a Top Importance article. Pknkly (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - it can be argued that every major city has a metropolitan area. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Illinois

It is our state.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose, unless the number of allowed Top articles is increased greatly. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - The article is better suited for a Top Importance rating by other WikiProject groups. Nobody outside of the Chicagoland area probably cares that Chicago is in Illinois and all the facts contained within that article. It is an interesting fact, but as an article it is not important from our project's perspective. Fortunately, the bot did not flag our project for the article on United States even when the word "Chicago" is repeatedly used within it. I wonder how they programmed the bot to keep the United States article off of our project list. Pknkly (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Pointe du Sable

Without him, there is no Chicago! Zagalejo 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral, unless the number of allowed Top articles is increased greatly. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Support - Certainly a top historical and, therefore,probably meets the "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia". However, currently, I beleive, not too many non-Chicagoans would look this article up. I say lets set it to a Top Importance rank and encourage more links to the article (e.g., notable Haitians within the Haiti article). I believe du Sable is relatively unknown because of a historical reluctance to pay attention or acknowledge non-white historical persons. This is changing and we can move it along by making this a Top Importance item. Pknkly (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I retract my support. I had a bad argument - trying to promote and influence (not what wiki is about). The subject of the article needs to stand on its own without editor's agenda. Fails "Must have had a large impact on non-Chicagoans,... and in the majority of the world." Passes "High probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up. Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Must have had a large impact on non-Chicagoans, across several generations, ... in a role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution.". I struck out my prior support statements. Pknkly (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Support He is probably a subject of research for school children throughout the midwest and forever will be. There might be no Chicago without him.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we not need the to have the article meet the "majority of the world" criteria for Top Importance? Pknkly (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Poles in Chicago

We do have more Polish people than anywhere outside of Poland. Zagalejo 03:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Same is true for more than a few other ethnic groups. I would like to see an article on the immigration history of Chicago. Speciate 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - The article would be of interest to only Chicagoans and maybe Poles.Pknkly (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhoods of Chicago

Chicago is known as the "city of neighborhoods". Zagalejo 03:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral, unless the number of allowed Top articles is increased greatly. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Only interest would be to Chicagoans and maybe tourists visiting Chicago.Pknkly (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Seems more like some aspect of society as manifested in Chicago, than a Chicago institution having an impact on non-Chicagoans. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Union Station

Although rail travel has declined somewhat this article is still tremendously important as a Landmark building and a cultural instituion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral, unless the number of allowed Top articles is increased greatly. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Not a high probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up unless they are rail buffs (lets leave it up to the WikiProjectTrains,Stations to rank it at Top Importance if it is). Subject is not a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Low impact on non-Chicagoans, some impact across several generations, and no impact or of interest to the majority of the world in a role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution. Pknkly (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chicago American Giants

Believe that this is an important part of Chicago's heritage that had ground breaking impact on our culture and identity. Therefore, the article should be rated as a "Top" importance article. Pknkly (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I retract this submission. As important as it is for me, since April I've learned that wiki is not meant to advance personal views. The subject of this article does not meet the criteria for a Top Importance article. Pknkly (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Adlai Stevenson

I believe the article should be reviewed for being an "Importance=Top" article because he seems to meet many of the characteristics outlined for a Top importance Chicago subject. However, I must admit, I associate Mr. Stevenson more with Illinois than with Chicago. Thought it should get some consideration. --Pknkly (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

He grew up in Central Illinois, went to college at Princeton, and then went to law school in Chicago. He is not really a Top for our project. He is no more important to us than Hillary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, hope others will give their input. As I said, I think of him, and maybe others would too, more as an Illinoian, not as a Chicagoan.Pknkly (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blues

Support Most people in the world know what Blues is and its historical and current association with the City of Chicago. Pknkly (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Smashing Pumpkins

Support in order to add diversity to the ballot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Of interest to limited group - alternative rock fans. Doesn't meet the criteria for "large impact on non-Chicagoans, across several generations, and in the majority of the world". If the Chicago (band) being "one of the longest running and most successful U.S. pop/rock and roll groups" doesn't qualify a band for Top Importance, I don't believe any other ones could either.Pknkly (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicago (band) has not been nominated. I will nominate. Their omission from the ballot to date is not a valid reason to vote against another band.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 10:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)con

I'm sorry for confusing my opposition with the Chicago (band). I realy do know that it would not be appropriate to oppose simply due to another band not being rated as a Top Importance article. My opposition is simply based on "Of interest to limited group - alternative rock fans. Doesn't meet the criteria for "large impact on non-Chicagoans, across several generations, and in the majority of the world". Thanks for bringing up the need for the clarification. Pknkly (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

18.25 million albums sold in the United States alone in the 1990s. That is some limited group. Probably more books than Milton Friedman ever sold who you support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Friedman because he passed more of the Top Importance criteria, not just popularity based on number of books sold. Friedman changed the lives of hundreds of millions of people through his association and influence with world leaders. I don't want to give the impression that I support him only for his popularity. Pknkly (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Big for a few years, but probably don't merit inclusion as Top Importance. I doubt if people who weren't into alternative music could even name one of their songs. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - If there's significant disagreement, putting it on the ballot will be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Oppose role in Chicago was not notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Support There is a high probability that she will be looked up, she is history making and therefore a must have in an encyclopedia, and she will have high impact on non-Chicagoans across generations. As for her role as a Chicagoan, like with Donald Rumsfeld I did not associate her with Chicago until I read the wiki article. So, my support is not 100% - more like 70%. I look forward to others' opinions and then will firm up support or change it. Pknkly (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see how she is associated with our project as a priority any more than Obama is with Hawaii. Rumsfeld served our region in congress for years and she has not done anything in politics as a Chicagoan.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 10:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling someone was going to bring this up. You are right. I retract my soft support and will line out my support statement. Pknkly (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Passes all but critical role as Chicagoan. Pknkly (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway

Oppose - Not known for being a Chicagoan. Pknkly (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Not prominent as a Chicagoan.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I think he is commonly associated with Oak Park, and if our scope includes Cook County, he should be on the ballot. Zagalejo^^^ 01:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought he left Oak Park after high school.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

He did, but the Hemingway museum and boyhood home remain a draw for tourists. Zagalejo^^^ 03:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West

Oppose - Doesn't meet any of the criteria - "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Must have had a large impact on non-Chicagoans, across several generations, and in the majority of the world in a role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution." Pknkly (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Support His international significance today is extremely high and given his stature he is an influence on upcoming generations of musicians. He only a 21st century notable person, but his impact will be felt for at least a few generations. Music just happens to be a subject where a print encyclopedia might not include him, but it might not include Lake Shore Drive either, which is a current Top-importance article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi

Oppose - He doesn't meet the "We must emphasize role as a Chicagoan" criteria. Pknkly (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it in Chicago he created the first self-sustaining nuclear reaction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Theodore Kaczynski

Oppose - He doesn't meet the "We must emphasize role as a Chicagoan" criteria and he is not notable outside of the U.S. Pknkly (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Oppose - Doesn't meet "We must emphasize role as a Chicagoan. ". Pknkly (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Not prominent as a Chicagoan.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

Oppose - Fails role as a Chicagoan. Pknkly (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

House music

Oppose - Fails "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Must have had a large impact on non-Chicagoans, across several generations, and in the majority of the world." However, with Mayor Daley's push, I it passes " in a role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution.". Pknkly (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dwyane Wade

Support I support him being on the ballot. Not sure where he ranks, but he is from Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Outside of Chicago, he is more commonly associated with Miami. Maybe if he plays for the Bulls, we can consider him for Top Importance, but not yet. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Fails "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Must have had a large impact on non-Chicagoans, across several generations, and in the majority of the world in a role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution.". Pknkly (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

Oppose - Fails "role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution.". Most people would associate this article with Los Alamos, New Mexico), not Chicago. Pknkly (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Muddy Waters

Oppose - This is difficult for me because I'm a blues fan and would love to promote Muddy in whatever way I can. I think the article passes all but "We must emphasize role as a Chicagoan.". Everyone knows he is the blues man, but not too many would associate him with Chicago. Pknkly (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl XX

Oppose = Don't see this meeting any of the Top Importance criteria other than "High probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up. Pknkly (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLI

Oppose = Don't see this meeting any of the Top Importance criteria other than "High probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up. Pknkly (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose We lost.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut

Oppose - fails "We must emphasize role as a Chicagoan". To various degrees the subject passes the other Top Importance criteria. Pknkly (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Not a Chicagoan.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Harrison Ford

Oppose - Other than being extremely well known internationally, the subject fails the other criteria especially "We must emphasize role as a Chicagoan". Pknkly (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Not prominent as a Chicagoan.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike Ditka

• Support Even though he wasn't born in Chicago, he embodies that "blue-collar, regular guy" image that has been attached to the city. Well-known to non-Chicagoans. You might make the case that he's even better known than Walter Payton. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Fails "Must have had a large impact on non-Chicagoans, across several generations, and in the majority of the world".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pknkly (talk • contribs) 04:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Blackstone

His legacy is enormous enough to have become the project's first biographical WP:GT with the Blackstone Hotel, Blackstone Library, Blackstone Theatre and Union Stock Yards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - The WP:GT is based on the quality of the article ("A good topic represents Wikipedia’s quality-rated content" not the importance. Based on the Top Importance criteria the article fails "Must have had a large impact on non-Chicagoans, across several generations, and in the majority of the world in a role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution.". I changed the Importance rating from Mid to High because he did have a major influence within the area and possibly nationally. Pknkly (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Potter Palmer

Oppose - Fails international recognition or impact. Changed the Importance rating from Low to Mid due to his area recognition and impact. Pknkly (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Marshall Field

Oppose - Fails large impact in the majority of the world. The article hints at him being a national figure. Suggest another editor reviews the article to see if it can go from the current Importance rating of Mid and take it to High. Pknkly (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Support based on both his business and philanthropic legacy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicago (band)

• Support per Smashing Pumpkins above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Fails "Must have had a large impact on non-Chicagoans ... in the majority of the world". The article makes two statements that implying some level of global recognition (though not about the extent). One is about a gig in Mexico City and the other (which is unreferenced) states "Chicago continues to appear in big and small venues worldwide. " I believe the majority of the world is not very influenced by pop or rock and roll groups or individuals. Other than entertain, what kind of impact could entertainers have on the majority of the world? The current High Importance is appropriate because the subject is prominent nationally and has remained so through several generations. Pknkly (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, lacks worldwide impact/interest. Speciate (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Do they really have much cross-generational appeal? Zagalejo^^^ 00:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hull House

One of four original October 15, 1966 National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Like 3 others, it was listed on that first date of the NRHP registry because it had previously been designated a National Historic Landmark, a permanently higher national honor. Was in fact an early NHL for its importance as an internationally known settlement house; only other widely known one is Henry Street one in NYC. Highly associated with Chicago and theme of nation-building by assimilation. doncram (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Seems important or significant only to the city and the nation. Pknkly (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Important historical Chicago institution that relates to a much broader cause and institutions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Robie House

One of four original October 15, 1966 National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As with other 3, this was one of earliest National Historic Landmarks. As "the greatest example of [ Frank Lloyd Wright's ] Prairie style, the first architectural style that was uniquely American," it seems important to me! Assuming Frank Lloyd Wright is on the top importance list, how balance which or both to include? doncram (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support This place gets a lot of attention, much more than I suspected. Look at the area in Panoramio, as an example; photos of it are viewed worldwide much more than the UofC buildings or anything else on the South Side. Panoramio uses an algorithm that detects broad interest. Speciate (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject is significant to people with architectural or design interest and mostly at a national level. Pknkly (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Race Riot of 1919

• Support Important part of Chicago history. Zagalejo^^^ 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I wish the criteria included "recommended reading by Chicago Project members". Since that is not a criteria, at best the subject of the article is significant and of interest at a national level. Pknkly (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Transit Authority

Oppose - Doesn't pass criteria for Top Importance. Also, this is currently at Mid Importance. If nominator feels this is Top Importance I encourage the editor to be bold and set the Importance parameter to at least High. Otherwise, the submission has a soft suggestion tone for a Top Importance rating.Pknkly (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

McCormick Place

• Oppose Not important enough outside of Chicago. --Torsodog^Talk 04:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support Isn't this the world's largest convention center?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

List of mayors of Chicago

• Support --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Obviously an incredibly important list for Chicago. This shouldn't be too tough to bring up to Featured status too. Maybe I'll tackle that sometime in the future if I have some time... --Torsodog^Talk 04:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Cellular Field

• Oppose Simply doesn't have the history or national presence that Wrigley Field does. --Torsodog^Talk 04:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Chicago

• Support for the city that invented the skyscraper, this is a biggie.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I actually assumed this was already top importance! As one of the most important skyscraper cities in the world, there is a high probability that non-Chicagoans are looking this up, especially with the construction boom as of late. --Torsodog^Talk 04:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Culture of Chicago

Support A broad, rich topic. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicago International Film Festival

Oppose I don't think this merits top importance. There are many more significant film festivals in the world. Zagalejo^^^ 18:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Mercantile Exchange

Support after the successful merger with the Chicago Board of Trade this is a global force in finance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Chicago

Support Makes sense to me. Zagalejo^^^ 18:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln Park

Support I was thinking about nominating Lincoln Park Zoo, but this will work. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a valid nomination that you can make if you wish.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times

The Tribune is already in the Top Importance category, so I think the Sun-Times deserves to be in the running. At present, I think it has more big name columnists than the Tribune. (Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, Lynn Sweet, etc.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of Chicago

The article should probably be retooled to discuss the history of race relations in Chicago. At the moment, it's mostly about European immigrants. But this is a major topic, of interest to many readers, so I think it should be in the running. Zagalejo^^^ 18:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Political history of Chicago

Chicago is renowned for its often crazy politics. The article isn't great, but it definitely has potential. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Community areas of Chicago

These articles help us describe where many of the other articles in the project are more specifically. Thus, they are important to the Chicago project and all of WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Portage

The Chicago Portage is a unique geophysical feature that is the reason Chicago exists. Article rewritten, with Chicago Portage National Historic Site merged in.RogerD (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Demotion debate

Importance rating process improvement

This is all for the sake of helping each of us to more effectively use our time:

Rework the criteria for the various Importance parameter values. To continue having criteria and then ignore them is futile. One editor's opinion based on a whim is just as valid as another's and can not be argued. Some foundation has to be set and adhered to if our discussions are going to be productive. If we don't want criteria lets just go on record and let editors know that they can select whatever value they want for whatever reason. From what I've seen, we encourage editors to not only ignore the criteria, but to change them as we move from the "suggest/discussion" phase to the "ballot based" phase. If that is what we want, lets get on the same page and document the defacto process. Pknkly (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Simplify the Top Importance process. The two phase process is a lot of work for limited resources (i.e., handful of active project members) and we already know where an article stands by the time we are done with the first "suggest/discuss" phase. The process should be simple and not dragged on through the year. Pknkly (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Top Importance taken from High Importance articles. Encourage editors who suggest articles for Top Importance to at least set the Importance parameter for their suggested article to High - which doesn't require Project approval. I have to wonder if they are serious about their suggestion when they haven't even taken the time to set the Importance parameter to High. Lets not waist each others' valuable volunteer time by reading articles that don't have at least a High Importance rating.Pknkly (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I particularly agree with point 1 above. The Chicago project should be bigger than the current whim of a set of active members. I do not say this to harangue those members (I am after all one of them) but just to reiterate that at this stage it appears that we are ignoring the very criteria for top importance that this project has previously set.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Finding good Project category codes

If you have ten minutes of wiki edit time that you can spare, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Category clean up and simply dig in. It takes about three to four minutes to audit one article (depends on how good you are with markups, navigating wiki, knowledge of Chicago Project scope and have an all encompassing knowledge and awareness of current and historical topics related to Chicago Chciagoland, and the Chicago metropolitan area, You're time is cut down if you know sports, geography, maps, highways, venues, people, suburbs, bogs, rivers, etc.

Looking for a commitment of two articles per session - more if your good. Please look and see. Hope you can help. Please do edit the instruction for clarity and give hints for other editors. After the ten minutes you can get back to your normal wiki mode. Pknkly (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that these article need to have a category from WP:CHIBOTCATS added to them?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I'll answer here and then copy this (along with your question) into the Category clean up Talk page. Yes, ff the project team editor feels the article is within scope of the Chicago Project. No, if the project editor does not feel the article in scope. If the article is out of scope, the project auditing editor needs to delete the Chicago Project template from the Talk page of the article. Pknkly (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)