Talk:Chicago/Archive 7

Greetings! In a recent edit by Mudwater, there was introduced a new paragraph at the Chicago#Parks and Greenspace section. The first sentence is backed up by six references, which seems like a model example of WP:OVERCITE ("Garphism is the study^{[1][2][3][4][5]} of ..."). Citation overkill not just fails to establish notability of the material that is desired to be added, but it actually calls it into question.

Not only does citation overkill impact the readability of an article, it can call the notability of the subject into question by editors. A well-meaning editor may attempt to make a subject [...] appear to be notable through quantity of sources. Ironically, this serves as a red flag to experienced editors

All we need is one reliable secondary source to verify the material. Moreover, the rest of the paragraph added still remains unreferenced. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion is poorly done. That voluntary essay does not warrant your deletion, it recommends trimming the cites (besides, that essay also makes little sense in mixing notability within article content, as notability is a concept only relevant to the entire subject of the article, here Chicago). And although the latter part would be improved with after citation, actual WP:Burden policy, see also footnote 4 of that policy, (not some voluntary essay) recommends that you either move down the cite already in the article, put a citation needed tag, and/or edit out more surgically than wholesale removal. Actually, working with other editors to improve the article does not require the wholesale deletion you have been doing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: I believe that this new version of the paragraph is a valuable addition to the article, and is appropriately referenced. Here are some additional thoughts: References serve the dual purpose of verifying the text of the article, and providing the reader with additional reference material. That's all good, but it's not necessary to substantiate every statement. For example, "Grassy medians run down the center of the boulevards." I believe none of the current footnotes substantiate this, but that's okay -- unless there's a contingent of readers or editors who think that grassy medians don't run down the center of the boulevards. Also, there are already two independent Wikipedia articles about the boulevards -- they're linked from that paragraph -- further suggesting that the addition of this paragraph is an improvement here. As far as establishing notability, as Alanscottwalker said, that's for the subject of the article -- Chicago -- not the contents. In conclusion, if you feel that this paragraph can be improved, please improve it, rather than removing it. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Mudwater. I'll try to enlist some of the concerns in brief and short below, and provide some suggestions if possible:

1. The current version says that "...the Chicago Boulevard System is a network of wide, planted-median boulevards that winds through the south, west, and north sides of the city.", but I couldn't verify that completely from the source. Indeed, the source mentions that the network of boulevards connects the largest parks, and mentions the parks in the south and the west. However, I don't think a website of a TV show really qualifies as a source, and hence it should not be used. Therefore, maybe you'd like to check this one instead: Villaire, Ted. 2011. Best Bike Rides Chicago: The Greatest Recreational Rides In The Metro Area. Rowman & Littlefield. I am sorry, but that was the best one I could find.
2. The very next phrase goes as follows: "Most of the boulevards and parks are three to six miles from the Loop." This is backed up by a map, which hardly qualifies as a source. I mean, it doesn't even include any text.
3. The sentence after that goes: "Grassy medians run down the center of the boulevards. The medians and the squares both provided recreational areas for residents and have historically been a boon for development. The boulevards pass through residential areas and are lined with homes in a variety of architectural styles." I couldn't verify this from the source. As Wikipedia editors, we are ought to paraphrase reliable secondary sources; not to include our own additions outside the sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability does not exist just to "provide the reader with additional reference material", but is the indispensable policy we rely on in all circumstances. Another Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references (WP:CIRCULAR)
4. With respect to Logan Square Boulevards Historic District, I think the following source fits better and casts more light on the subject: Prechtel, Jason. 2012. Religious Freedom Vs. Aldermanic Privilege? Or the Subversion of Historic Preservation? The Battle Over St. Sylvester's Rectory. Gapears Block 15/08/2012.

I hope this helped to clarify the issue ;-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, you are right that notability concerns the subject of an article; not the content of it. However, the example used at WP:OVERCITE (""Garphism is the study^{[1][2][3][4][5]} of ...") does not discuss the notability of the article, but the individual phrases/statements in the article. Six sources to back up one phrase is somethings so obvious that it doesn't require any policy, guideline or essay to be cited, though.

WP:BURDEN that you quoted, goes as follows:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. [...] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

The policy doesn't say that an editor is free to add unreferenced material to the article and it enjoys protection from removal. Neither does the policy say that if unreferenced material is added, the other editors have the burden to verify it. Indeed, as Wikipedia editors we are ought to paraphrase reliable secondary sources, and the one who is adding material should also bother to provide the source he/she is actually paraphrasing. If, for some reason, the user isn't paraphrasing a source, then we shouldn't include such material in our encyclopedia in the first place. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: If you think that the paragraph about the Chicago Boulevard System (text, footnotes, or both) can be improved, please improve it, rather than removing it. Here are some additional thoughts: (1) Of course, as a general rule, it's desirable for the text of an article to paraphrase, and be substantiated by, the references. But, it's not necessary to substantiate every statement with a reference. For example, the paragraph is better with the inclusion of the sentence "Grassy medians run down the center of the boulevards," even though none of the current footnotes state this. For more on this important and widely-observed concept, see Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed. (2) The current references are reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, and as such they are entirely appropriate in this context (though again if you think you can improve them please do so). For example this page, from the website of WTTW, a PBS station, has a good two-paragraph overview of the boulevard system -- even though it is, as you said, "a website of a TV show". And this page, from the City of Chicago website, in addition to substantiating the statement that "Most of the boulevards and parks are three to six miles from the Loop," could be very helpful and informative to the reader -- although, yes, it's a map, and therefore, as you said, "doesn't even include any text". (3) I think we would all agree that we want to improve this or any Wikipedia article in a way that makes it better for our readers. And in doing so, we strive to follow Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability and using reliable sources, without being pedantic or argumentative about it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Mudwater, you need a source that supports the statement, what you are arguing for appears to run afoul of WP:NOR. So, don't force other people to eliminate or modify that sentence, do it yourself, and, yes, don't add it in the first place - we cannot make sources support more then they support or say more then they say. The WTTW source is fine as a source but only for information that it directly supports; the map is fine as a source (but it has no scale, so cannot be used for distance) - so edit accordingly, please. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) You're being too strict, and interpreting the editorial guidelines too rigidly. Take a look at the example at Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed, where it talks about subject-specific common knowledge -- "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions." This is very much like "Grassy medians run down the center of the boulevards." That's pretty much what a boulevard is. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of highly-rated articles where some but not all of the statements are substantiated with references, because this is within the editorial guidelines. (2) With that being said, I believe I will be able to write a new version of the paragraph that only includes statements that are verified by the footnotes. Doing so could be a fun pedagogical exercise. I'm not sure but most likely I can get to that in the relatively near future. Stay tuned. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then, how about this? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: In a series of recent edits, you have ended up removing the new version of the paragraph. I would request that you put it back, or, barring that, please explain why you think the article is better without the paragraph than with it. All of the new version of the paragraph is verified by the citations -- I can explain how, if you have any specific questions. So, yes, what it is that you find so objectionable? I'm just not seeing that. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya, Alanscottwalker, and Orestek: Here's the same paragraph, but with quotes added to the footnotes. I've put in the quotes, not for inclusion in the article, but to show here that each statement in the paragraph is supported by the references. Since that's the case, and since the inclusion of this brief paragraph improves the article, it should be put back in. If there is some rational reason that the article is better without this paragraph, I'd like to hear it. And of course, if other editors can make this paragraph even better, they are encouraged to do so:

The Chicago Boulevard System^[1] is a network of wide, tree-lined boulevards which connect Chicago's largest parks.^[2] The boulevards and the parks were authorized by the Illinois legislature in 1869.^[3] A number of Chicago neighborhoods emerged along these roadways in the 19th century.^[2] The building of the boulevard system continued intermittently until 1942. It includes nineteen boulevards, eight parks, and six squares, along twenty-six miles of interconnected streets. The Logan Square Boulevards Historic District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1985.^[4]

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 08:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Like anything it may be improved but it seems generally fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Mudwater. I explained the edits in my Edit Summaries. Here's the rationale in short:

1. The material you added, failed to verify ("The building of the boulevard system continued intermittently until 1942.")
2. The source you inserted is a picture of the city map, and does not verify anything. As Wikipedia editors we are ought to paraphrase reliable secondary sources; I don't really understand what you wanted to verify or paraphrase by that city map.
3. The remaining paragraph (three sentences), seems totally loose from the rest of the section. Even the individual sentences within the paragraph are not connected to each other. For example, "A number of Chicago neighborhoods emerged along these roadways..."; but what roadways? The previous sentences in the paragraph never mentioned such things.

You have constantly been repeating how 1) the references "provide the reader with additional reference material", 2) "it's not necessary to substantiate every statement", or 3) "it's desirable for the text of an article to paraphrase, and be substantiated by, the references. But, it's not necessary to substantiate every statement with a reference" This indicates pretty strongly how you have not comprehended yet the Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is one of our dispensable policies.

Instead of first writing the paragraph and then trying to desperately back it up by sources, why won't you first find reliable secondary sources and then just paraphrase the text? I've already suggested you a couple of sources, such as:

1. Villaire, Ted. 2011. Best Bike Rides Chicago: The Greatest Recreational Rides In The Metro Area. Rowman & Littlefield.
2. Prechtel, Jason. 2012. Religious Freedom Vs. Aldermanic Privilege? Or the Subversion of Historic Preservation? The Battle Over St. Sylvester's Rectory. Gapears Block 15/08/2012.

Anyway, I consider the paragraph more or less redundant; the previous paragraph already discusses the Chicago Park district extensively. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya, it is acting in bad faith for you to want the Boulevard subject paragraph gone as uneeded, and to attempt to achieve that end by tendentious editing. Your objections are bound to make no sense to people the way you are expressing them (nor the whole sale deletions you make pursuant to them, which at most would require copy-edit to the text, not deletion) and because you are not saying what you really mean, which is that you want the the subject gone. (Viz.: Your first objection is vague and opaque given the sourced discussion of being developed to 1942; your city map objection is at least debatable because a map is a documentary source - and you would have just removed the map if that was truly the problem; your 3rd objection makes little sense since boulevard and roadway are in context synonymous). If you would have directly asked the question, from me and apparently Mudwater, you would have been informed that we disagree with you on your overall objection - the idea of the paragraph makes sense given its historical and continuing relation to the city fabric. But if we need to discuss cutting it down, copyediting, reorganizing, or how you think those other sources should be used, lets get to it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: My last few posts have been very clear about the new/current version of the paragraph. I've abandoned the previous version of the paragraph -- written by another editor -- and written a new version based entirely on the references. Frankly I'm having a hard time believing that you missed that point, as you seem to be suggesting. You clearly have some reason for wanting this material to be removed from the article, but I'm just not seeing what that is, nor do I find the current state of this discussion to be at all helpful for creating better content. Perhaps it's time to let things stand as they are. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, there is very little to copy-edit if the material is not based on reliable secondary sources. First we need the sources, and then the paragraph could be written upon those (and copy-edited upon those if needed). If you think that an image of a city map is a good enough source for the addition, well I think it tells everything necessary. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The map is not the only source. Moreover, the map states in text that it is the "Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District", it states in text the streets, places and parks involved. It is published by the City of Chicago. It is indeed a reliable source for there being a boulevard system. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, the map says "Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District". But that's where things get complicated. Besides that, I have listed up four similar concepts around the subject: 1) the Chicago Boulevard System, 2) the Logan Square Boulevards Historic District, 3) Chicago's historic Park Boulevard System, and 4) park boulevard system. The more I have looked into this, the more I have began to wonder if the "Chicago Boulevard System" is really even a widely-used concept. I searched for decent sources about the subject, and the best I could came up with was the Villaire 2011.

I am not objecting the addition of this paragraph for the sake of objecting, Alanscottwalker. I just don't think we are paraphrasing a good-enough source, and now I am in doubt of the whole concept. Moreover, the Chicago article is rather a well-standing and a mature one, and I don't think adding a new, poorly sourced paragraph would be an intrinsic value. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have replied to most of this below, but that you seem to argue this article is close to finished is ridiculous on it's face, and suggests you do not actually know this article. Your comments also suggest you are either imagining multiple concepts, or you are just unable to understand what is being discussed in ordinary words. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150626142739/http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The above link, added by me, was removed shortly afterwards. As this is claimed to be the "third most populous city in the United States" without reference and most of our readers will not know about the list article, I suggest to put it back in. If we regard the lede overlinked, then rather remove the link to "United States" because that is really global common ground. --SI 18:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150626142739/http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

sourcecheck=failed – in both of these cases, the editor failed to follow the instructions at factfinder.census.gov for creating a "deep link", otherwise known as a persistent link – one that can be referred to elsewhere on the web. The URLs given here have insufficient information to reconstruct what the original links may have displayed.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140717013451/http://www.atkearney.com/research-studies/global-cities-index/full-report to http://www.atkearney.com/research-studies/global-cities-index/full-report
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/chicago/timeline/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070423202023/http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/11175.html to http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/11175.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110213300/https://www.neiu.edu/~jmhemzac/courses/docs/ofs2005-09%20small2.pdf to http://www.neiu.edu/~jmhemzac/courses/docs/ofs2005-09%20small2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080815101621/https://www.wttw.com/main.taf?erube_fh=wttw&wttw.submit.CPRecipieDetail=1&wttw.RecipieID=26 to http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?erube_fh=wttw&wttw.submit.CPRecipieDetail=1&wttw.RecipieID=26
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Food Insecurity is one of Chicago’s major public health concerns. In 2011, 122, 998 low- income Chicago residents were classified as living in neighborhoods that were food insecure. This term identifies residents who have to travel more than 1 mile to reach a food establishment of 10,000 sq. ft. or more selling fresh produce. Since the approval to release food desert data Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has launched a city-wide plan “A Recipe for Healthy Places” which a program that supports health eating, aides in the funding of health-food establishments, and promotes the farming of healthy foods. In addition to this initiative, the city has also help establish 15 new grocery stores through the city and the conversion of CTA buses in mobile grocery stores to serve residents living in food deserts who might also struggle with transportation. With massive improvements the City of Chicago has seen 21% decrease in the number of low-income individuals who live in food deserts and has since then made continual effort to help retailers sell healthy food and also funded alternative food sources such as urban farms. Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has projected that by 2020 the City of Chicago should be able to eliminate all food deserts. ^[1]

That's all well and good, but I'm not sure where this info would belong in a general article about Chicago. Is there another article that focuses more specifically on health or economic issues in the city? Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6gpGlyhlr?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffactfinder.census.gov%2Ffaces%2Ftableservices%2Fjsf%2Fpages%2Fproductview.xhtml%3Fsrc%3Dbkmk to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129082905/http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520164400/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_QTPL&prodType=table to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_QTPL&prodType=table
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520164400/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_QTPL&prodType=table to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_QTPL&prodType=table
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cpsoae.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=72696&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=534191
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623093321/http://www.airports.org/aci/aci/file/Press%20Releases/PR140306_2005_Prelim_Results.pdf to http://www.airports.org/aci/aci/file/Press%20Releases/PR140306_2005_Prelim_Results.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I changed "although" to "until" in the 2nd P in "Sports": the last sentence concerns the Vubs drought, and "until" denotes that it ended.

Also - some reports have said that their parade and rally was the largest gathering of people in US history. Not sure where that tidbit should be placed (if it's true)? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Five million is nonsense, even from the Chicago Police (known for their honesty, right). There are only 10 million people in "Chicagoland". There is no way half the people went to a parade. There are people with lives and jobs, and a lot of people aren't fans. Five million is so unrealistic that I can't believe people bought it.

But if the Chicago Police say it and it is in a newspaper, I guess it can be referenced.Sammy D III (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Homicide is raising! - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/26/bloody-christmas-weekend-more-than-40-shot-11-killed-in-chicago.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.64.148 (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231062823/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203022313/http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/feed/2010-10/best-sports-city to http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/feed/2010-10/best-sports-city
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160815092641/http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/search?state-urlname=illinois to http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/search?state-urlname=illinois
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528044022/http://www.dot.il.gov/trafficmaps/table.htm to http://www.dot.il.gov/trafficmaps/table.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150814015216/http://createprogram.org/benefits.htm to http://www.createprogram.org/benefits.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150813234025/http://createprogram.org/projects.htm to http://www.createprogram.org/projects.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120408141509/http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/chicago-il to http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/chicago-il
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819161644/http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/il/rehabilitation-institute-of-chicago-6431012 to http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/il/rehabilitation-institute-of-chicago-6431012

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527154106/https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Ara-YVofdq9jdHBlal9OaGhWUDFsbkNFbkpraV9tS3c&output=html to https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Ara-YVofdq9jdHBlal9OaGhWUDFsbkNFbkpraV9tS3c&output=html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone lock this page due to controversy of violence in Chicago Scooterboy5k (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Has there been recent disruptive editing? If so, make your request at WP:RFPP. I find it hard to believe that there has been edited warring or vandalism. The page is pretty stable. So really, what are you asking and why, Scooterboy5k? John from Idegon (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227032333/http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/ to http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/%23
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120530063637/http://www.metroplanning.org/articleDetail.asp?objectID=1707 to http://www.metroplanning.org/articleDetail.asp?objectID=1707

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There were no official census numbers for 2012 census according to census.gov, so I reverted to the 2011 official estimates. It is the most reliable source— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.56.84 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 9 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315090242/http://www.exhibitorhost.com/US_Largest_Convention_Centers.html to http://www.exhibitorhost.com/US_Largest_Convention_Centers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that adding that the population of Hispanics has now superseded Blacks in Chicago. Would not these be valid sources? Why do we have to have the exact census data. If I were to add all the data from the census tracts to derive the amount it would be considered original research. Why not let the news channel due it?

• Chicago Sun Times: "Census: Hispanics surpass blacks as Chicago’s 2nd-largest racial group" 09/14/2017
• CBS News: "Hispanic Population Surges In Chicago, New Census Data Shows" By Jeremy Ross September 15, 2017

Patapsco913 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a blurb about fall out boy in the main text of this article that somehow made it past the editors ("Big thanks to Patrick Stump from fall out boy for founding Chicago"). It should probably be removed. Thanks. 107.0.43.250 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

We need to semi protect the page Scooterboy5k (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160116012209/http://www.choosechicago.com/includes/content/docs/media/Chicago-Visitation-Annual-2014-6.20.15-.pdf to http://www.choosechicago.com/includes/content/docs/media/Chicago-Visitation-Annual-2014-6.20.15-.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://tigger.uic.edu/depts/hist/hull-maxwell/vicinity/nws1/urban_slum/maps/IndMaps-Docs/1880parks.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The crime section gives the figure for murders in 2015 in the first paragraph, but this fairly long section does not repeat this number in the last paragraph, which gives numbers for recent years. I think a repeat would fit there. Also, figures for 2016 are available, e.g., here: http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/homicides . Presumably that site will have 2017 totals in the next few weeks. Kdammers (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161213111023/http://cookcountyclerk.com/newsroom/newsfromclerk/Pages/10,000thsame-sexcoupleissuedmarriagelicenseinCookCounty.aspx to http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/newsroom/newsfromclerk%5CPages/10,000thsame-sexcoupleissuedmarriagelicenseinCookCounty.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203000/http://www.kentlaw.edu/news/advisory/adv030707.html to http://www.kentlaw.edu/news/advisory/adv030707.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Chicago is the birthplace of poetry slams. Should this be mentioned? Kdammers (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I put it with cite in the section where we talk about poetry, although there is probably a fine case for putting it in performance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I just tried to keep the first two "highlights" -- architecture and finance -- that were there when I started editing/updating references, etc. I'm not making any assumptions about what does or does not belong in that opening paragraph, just editing it a bit, so please be kind. Thanks in advance. Chidino (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Somebody removed the bit about Chicago being in DuPage County (as well asCook) from the infobox. I reverted that because of the bit of O'Hare Airport that is in DuPage (and Chicago presumably). On Google maps just search for "DuPage County, IL" and you'll get an outline with shading for DuPage. O'Hare is at the NW corner of the county and the part north of 19 and east of York Road is in both DuPage and O'Hare (Chicago). Some might say this is a technicality, but ... Somebody might want to check that there haven't been any land transfers between counties or city, but this has been well known and probably goes back to the army air base at O'Hare (WWII?) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's clearly not accurate. For example, 1.72 million are reported as "other groups?" Chicago's population is only 2.7 million! Fluous (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that the British Library in London is (as a building) by far bigger than this Chicago library depicted on this article. So it appeared to me when I first saw it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.63.5 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Candidly, we are not concerned with your impressions as to the relative size of buildings. We rely on published, reliable, verifiable sources here. The statement is "Since its completion in 1991, the Harold Washington Library has appeared in Guinness World Records as the largest public library building in the world." See this article to support it. General Ization ^Talk 19:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, as the lead image is quite good, but I feel like two things could be added:

-Lincoln Park

-U Chicago/Hyde Park

The current lead montage of images is quite Loop-centric, so these additions would diversify it a bit. PerhapsXarb (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I could not find any information on the high taxes found in Chicago Gristleking (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone reverted the edits immediately even though it is well sourced and researchable, how do you all feel about a section called High Taxes. It is an area not covered at all in the article, and yet it is true. Here it is:

- What do the 4 stars on the Chicago flag mean?
- Good, but not enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411C:3D00:CEF:5A98:3E50:D5A8 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the "interactive map outlining chicago" in the infobox is both too big and not informative enough to deserve to be there. It looks bad and doesn't add much value in terms of info. Should be deleted. Thoughts? Ganesha811 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The old map with the city in Cook County was much better in appearance and content. -John M Wolfson (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

To me that map seems quite good. When I go to the map, by clicking on it, it's easy to zoom in and out, and to move around. And when I zoom in a lot, I see a lot of detail. Of course, all this might depend on what device (computer, tablet, or phone) and browser someone is using. I'm using a computer, running Windows, and most of the time I'm using Firefox as my browser. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I’ve clicked on quite a few interactive maps in the past week or two and it never lets me see it. Whenever I click on it, it always does nothing. LegioV (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@LegioV: What device are you using? (Computer, phone, tablet?) And what browser? (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc.?) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I use an IPhone 7 so I use the Safari browser LegioV (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert De la salle died in March 1687, so why does this page say the name "Chicago" was first recorded in his diary in September 1687, months after his death? 2601:603:4F00:2945:F83D:AFC6:F193:4DEB

Robert De la salle died in March 1687, so why does this page say the name "Chicago" was first recorded in his diary in September 1687, months after his death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4F00:2945:F83D:AFC6:F193:4DEB (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Chicago is now the fifth largest city in North America, not the fourth largest, after Mexico City, New York City, Los Angeles, and Toronto. 108.192.123.34 (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 06:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead could definitely be improved:

"In addition, the city has one of the world's most diversified and balanced economies, not being dependent on any one industry, with no single industry employing more than 14% of the workforce.[17]"

I think it might be easiest to just remove the parenthetical clause. Thoughts? Ganesha811 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Under the topography section, the following sentence appears:

"Landfill extends into portions of the lake providing space for Navy Pier, Northerly Island, the Museum Campus, and large portions of the McCormick Place Convention Center."

I believe this sentence refers to how the places in that last are built on land reclamation sites. However the word "landfill" seems to only refer to a waste disposal location. The Wikipedia page Land reclamation recommends using the term "land fill" for this. Not sure what the best change is stylistically so asking here to see if anyone has thoughts. Flurmbo (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BE BOLD, I think "Reclaimed land" would make sense, also add "lake front parks" to the "space" list but do what you think is best. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In July 2013, Divvy, North America's largest bicycle-sharing system (by geography)[citation needed] was launched

Add citation: https://transportationhistory.org/2019/06/28/this-bicycle-sharing-system-is-six-years-old-today/

This website tells the boundaries of the program in Chicago and says it is "North America’s largest bicycle sharing system in terms of area covered" AngieWP (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

​It looks to me like this source is getting its information from Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR). – Thjarkur (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Donn't know how or where to add this so I'll do it here - perhaps the powers that be can fix the main page:

The sentence that says " Winters are cold and snowy, although the city typically sees less snow and rain in winter than that experienced on the East Coast"....is INCORRECT. Every single "big city" on the East Coast from Washington DC to New Haven CT, see less snow annually (between 15 and 28 inches) that the 37 inches Chicago sees each winter. Only from Boston northward does the East Coast average more snow in winter than Chicago. Someone should fix main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.191.110 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

perhaps with whats ging on in the world and the USA this page should be updated. It is 2020 not 2012... the murder rate in Chicago is up 125% since 2019.. 67.225.3.123 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 12:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the city is apparently around 100 feet in size? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:OPCOORD would suggest even a minute of latitude and longitude is too precise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.7.102 (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

At least since the 1700s, it has been ordinary to locate a city at a central point, and not to be confused by that in any way with size. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the duplicate date added in this edit by CryptoWriter. From the source, it looks like the June 21, 2019 should be removed and the June 22, 2019 kept. 98.230.196.188 (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 14:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Striped_skunk#Vernacular_names: "The Cree and Ojibwe word shee-gawk is the root word for Chicago, which means 'skunk-land'". A reference is provided. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change

/ʃɪˈkɔːɡoʊ/

to

/ʃɪˈkɒɡoʊ/

Ccapoccia (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ccapoccia: Both /ʃɪˈkɑːɡoʊ/ (general pronunciation) and /ʃɪˈkɔːɡoʊ/ (regional pronunciation) are given in the introduction of the article. From my (admittedly limited) understanding of IPA, in most dialects of American English ɑ and ɒ are more or less interchangeable (though I think ɑ would be more accurate here), so I don't see anything to change here. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

RabbitGamerYT (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Roblox

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart ^(talk) 20:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it's duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you're not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Heart ^(talk) 17:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This sentence seems problematic... "Formerly a state legislator representing Chicago and later a US Senator, the city is home of former United States President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama." As written, this sentence implies that the city itself served as a state legislator and US senator, which is amusing, but obviously highly unlikely. The subject of the second half of the sentence should be Barack Obama, not the city... for example, following the comma, I think it should read- "former United States President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama call the city home." 67.61.131.174 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Barack Obama was not born, raised, or educated in Chicago - nor does he live there. So to call Chicago the home of Mr Obama is false. He found the Chicago Political Machine useful for his career - but that doesn't make Chicago his "home".2A02:C7E:1C8D:3800:D0F7:B694:19EC:1275 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The article says that Chicago that a rise of population shown by the 2000 Census - but it doesn't say that Chicago had a fall of population for the 2010 census (although the the figures the article shows indicate this). And the article also says that the population of Chicago is "expected" to show a rise in the 2020 census. I very much doubt that this is true - as people are fleeing Chicago. When are we going to get the truth, that the population of Chicago is falling, honestly stated in the article?2A02:C7E:1C8D:3800:D0F7:B694:19EC:1275 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The new infobox has some bad pictures compared to the older one. Thoughts on reverting? PurpleDeskChair (talk)

Sure. Revert. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chicago Bean (115824821).jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Would you remove both flags from infoboxes, per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. 49.150.110.214 (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alanscottwalker - coming here to discuss the translation template. I think the French section is a significant improvement over what we have here, so I added the translation template. I hope to remove it relatively soon, if I have time to bring content over, or someone else does. Let's discuss. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that would be an improvement. This article already has a much better section on etymology including connection to French historical figures. The French article then has unsourced Joliet and Marquette, who regardless did not establish the Chicago settlement, and it talks of an unsourced temporary fort which it admits has almost no basis in history and no practical connection to the settling Chicago a century later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I don't think the French section is perfect by any means, but there's a lot of good, well-sourced material there that can be incorporated here. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought I said, imo, It's not actually 'good' or more of anything useful. So, at this point identify what possibly do you want to incorporate? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, well, in any case, the template isn't the important thing. Feel free to remove it. I'll find some time to bring over material from the French article, which we can discuss as it goes along. Agree to disagree on its overall worth. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Greetings From Chicago Mural.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"The city has seen a rise in population for the 2000 census and is expected to have an increase for the 2020 census"

that is dated, suggest:

"The city saw a rise in population for the 2000 census, and again for the 2020 census"

might also want toss in something about how 2010 saw a decrease, or how population change has see-sawed more generally in recent decades. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:560:99E2:9C45:C6DC (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Rockford airport should be removed from the list of airports. Rockford is a separate city, 79 miles away from Chicago. 2600:1008:B01F:939C:9894:E33D:220D:3116 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Hmm. According to this article and the article on the Rockford airport specifically it appears to be an airport that markets itself on being an alternative to the much higher traffic (and more expensive) O'Hare and Midway airports. It's 79 miles away from downtown but apparently is only 30 miles away from the outer suburbs. For these reasons, I feel it may be more beneficial to readers to keep it in the list, though this may result in an interesting discussion on the talk page about this in the future. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but in my opinion it would be best to remove Rockford Airport from the infobox, while leaving the mention of it (and Gary/Chicago Airport) in the Airports section of the article. (For that matter, Chicago Executive Airport, in Wheeling, could be added to the article, but I'd leave that out of the infobox too.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

50.232.179.250 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

please

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Article on Chicago should indicate that small portion of City of Chicago is situated in DuPage County. This is corroborated by 2 sources: 1) Wikipedia article on DuPage County, Illinois; 2) Official map of District 1 of DuPage County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CB03:2A60:50BC:C29A:5101:83C0 (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Chicago was very different in the middle of the 19th century, I think the shacks of brothels and gambling halls should be mentioned in some capacity:

https://drloihjournal.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-history-of-chicagos-red-light-vice.html

Victor Grigas (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please put after Moscow’s sister City status the word “(Suspended)” as it has been suspended by the city government due to the Russo-Ukrainian War. ^[1] Can be used as the reference if needed Kansatria (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Please disregard this, I was not logged in at the time, I am now able to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansatria (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 18:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

House of Blues, Lollapalooza, the regular live orchestral events at Highland Park, and thousands of noteworthy individual bands/artists calling it their home from Kanye to Smashing Pumpkins … and all that’s said in the Music subsection at the moment is something about an obscure indie artist who named an album after the state. Be better, Wikipedia. 209.171.88.92 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

due to what? it was unlocked about a year ago? new york has far more editors.

Whats the reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.240.31 (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This article contains references to the "Top 20 Weather Events of the Century for Chicago...". It has a dead link to http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lot/?n=top20events_1900to1999 The reference itself still exists, but the correct current URL is https://www.weather.gov/lot/top20events_1900to1999

Also, the climate table shows an erroneous number for the coldest low in January as -25F/-32C. The correct number, as mentioned in the reference in the previous paragraph (the one I wrote above), is -27F/-33C.

I don't know how to make these corrections, because I don't know where this data is stored. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsxtasy (talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why was the statement about Chicago being ranked the Best Big City in the US by Conde Nast five years in a row removed from the lead section? 108.160.196.42 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the map of the city be a svg file that shows the city limit borders, in the same style as the article for the city of Los Angeles? Hgh1985 (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can someone add the Map of Cook and DuPage County with Chicago Highlighted? 2601:244:4080:430:1880:D279:F5A6:4EFF (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Question: Do you have links to these files on commons or uploaded to wikipedia? And where exactly do you want these to be placed within the article? Terasail^[✉️] 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The requested edit was to add additional maps of the counties that chicago is in to the infobox (This was clarified on my talk). This would not be appropraiate since the only map should be of chicago rather than related regions. These maps are already present on their given articles. See: Cook County, Illinois, DuPage County, Illinois. Terasail^[✉️] 00:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chi-Beria and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Chi-Beria until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Can an editor add the following source/citation following the line: "Mayor Richard J. Daley, a Democrat, was elected in 1955, in the era of machine politics. In 1956, the city conducted its last major expansion when it annexed the land under O'Hare airport, including a small portion of DuPage County"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-06-18-8902100436-story.html Ushistorygeek (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Buckingham Fountain in Chicago, USA.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is this ignored? Spadassin93 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources from his lifetime are that his parents are unknown, without documentation, but that he was identified by documents in his lifetime as "negre" and "negro", and thus of African descent. About 50 years after his death he was described in a memoir as negro and black, "a native of Santo Domingo", by someone who never met him but might have known people who did, but also without supporting documentation, and it was not until more than 100 years later that someone speculated, he possibly had a French or Creole father, while his mother was an enslaved African woman, also without historical documentation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the photo of steam rising from the river look like one particularly garrish name on a building was photoshopped out? And if thats the case might we not want a photo that hasnt been manipulated? Doesnt have to be from that spot so as to avoid that oversized logo, but really dont think photoshop is the way. nableezy - 16:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

No. I think, it was taken before the name went up, it was several years after opening, before he got around to slapping that name on it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Gah, I cant even remember the time before the sign, but think you're right. From what I can see he announced the sign being added in 2014 and this was taken in January 2014. Nevermind then. nableezy - 17:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Enough with the Chicago hagiography please. Residents here have a NYC hang-up, or have most likely, never stepped outside the midwest, but doesn't mean the rest of us haven't. "Chicago, IL" is nothing more than a second-tier city that has a few supertalls (built in the 60s) but a core that goes dead after 7pm, and a city that's pretty much unlivable 8-9 months of the year, depending on whom you ask. Third coast, my a*s. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of articles on Wikipedia - about cities and otherwise - that deserve more attention than what this article gets, which already is about twice too long and about eighty times too detailed for this rubbish. 2601:249:8700:7790:24B3:683B:7786:238A (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

NYC hangup - New Jersey IP. nableezy - 04:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed that my photo (File:BMO Tower, Downtown Chicago, IL.jpg) is now the main infobox photo for this article. To be blunt, it's not a great photo, due to the lens pointing up, providing distortion and seeming awkward, as well as the main subject of the photo. I shot it in order to illustrate BMO Tower (Chicago), and never thought of it as a conventional skyline photo. I'd like to ask for some other ideas of places where to shoot a skyline photo. My specialty is aerial (admittedly somewhat amateur) photography. Throw in a google maps link, and I'll be glad to take a gander at shooting it sometime in the near future, hopefully getting a better skyline photo. Sea Cow (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

None of these companies are headquartered in Chicago proper anymore; AbbVie never was. These should only be on the page for Chicagoland. I do not have my account information anymore to make the edit, but someone should. If we feel the list should be filled out, some other major companies that are actually headquartered in Chicago include LKQ Corporation, RR Donnelley, CNA Financial, Northern Trust, Hyatt Hotels, and Telephone and Data Systems/US Cellular. All but the last two of those are F500. No reason to list stuff that's 30 miles away when there are plenty enough within the city the article is about. - 23.124.237.152 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the following line in the intro,

"although the city has experienced an exodus in large corporations since 2020.^[1]"

This is factually false. Chicago was again named Site Selection's top city for corporate expansions and relocations for the ninth year in a row. If the Fox News citation is included, then the information for Site Selection should be included as well to show the entire picture, rather than painting Chicago as a city experiencing an exodus.

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2022/march/TopMetroForCorporateInvestment.html https://siteselection.com/issues/2022/mar/la-is-back-chicago-still-rules.cfm

My suggestion is removing the line and citation all together and just listing out the F500 corporations like they do for every other city on the wiki.

Btrue.chi (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the English Wikipedia community Fox News is generally a reliable source when not talking about science or politics. Your particular Site Selection citation is very much unreliable as there is a disclaimer at the bottom of the site that says Data is from many sources and not warranted to be accurate or current. I would advise starting a consensus discussion about potentially balancing out the picture as you insinuated; but that would be outside the scope of an edit request. —Sirdog (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to my comments.

The Fox News article is making assertions about the economy of Chicago. Doesn't economics qualify a science (by Wiki's own definition)? Isn't labeling the relocations of three companies as an "exodus" not an exceptional claim? Caterpillar headquarters is not even located in Chicago (it's marketing office will remain in Chicago), and each one of the companies including Boeing and Citadel are maintaining a presence in the city:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/05/boeing-to-move-headquarters-from-chicago-to-virginia-.html

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/billionaire-hedge-fund-manager-ken-griffin-moving-citadel-hq-out-of-chicago-into-miami/2864133/

Also, the disclaimer you noted on Site Selection is located at the bottom of the website to include the legal coverage for the inclusion of different sources. Fox News terms of services contains the same legal protection. The data on corporate location and expansion is pulled from the Conway Data Projects Database which "qualifies investments that meet at least one of three criteria: a minimum $1 million capex; 20 or more jobs created; or 20,000 sq. ft. or more of new space." So they are actually providing a criteria for their data. The Fox News article is trying to paint the city in specific light by ignoring factual evidence that, while some companies are leaving, others are moving the the city (most recently Kellogg).

New York city has had a number of companies leaves (as do most municipalities), yet Wiki has not reflected this in the intro for NYC. There's no consistency for this which makes the assertion of an "exodus" combined with a Fox News (an already controversial source) look political and biased and should be removed. Btrue.chi (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Upon further review of Site Selection my dismissal of it offhand as unreliable due to their disclaimer was wrong of me. Evaluation of editorial practices gives me reason to believe that it could be reliable. I do apologize for that; I was moving through edit requests fairly quickly and did not research further when I saw the disclaimer at the bottom. I appreciate you pointing that out.

In relation to your question about this classifying as science, I would say for the purposes of the relevant RfC about Fox News that economics would not fall under the umbrella of science in this case. It is possible I'm entirely wrong, in which case another editor may provide relevant guidance.

All of the above said, I do not possess sufficient understanding of this situation or interest in doing so as a volunteer to take steps to address your concern outside the sphere of an edit request. I would advise opening an entirely new discussion here explicitly asking for editors for provide input on your point of view, and I wish you luck in that and in your future editing.

Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to be able to add an edit on the climate of Chicago. Thanks! - 17:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemiki29 (talk • contribs)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to make an addition to the "Music" section of this article, relating to Hip-Hop and rap. The music scene in Chicago is a vital part in it's history, and having Indie Rock be its representative isn't a good representation, with great musicians such as juice wrld, kanye and polo G being born there. Lancedibo (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, please read WP:EDITXY; edit requests must be specific. Your request is essentially asking for the protection to be lifted, which is not going to happen now. Secondly, the article already has an entertainment section which links to Music of Chicago, which is a large enough topic to merit it's own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Home Insurance Building.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a casual visitor here, but I couldn't help but notice the extremely limited scope of the infobox images. Three of the photos (the aerial shot, art institute, and pritzker pavilion) all capture the same half mile square, while the other three all depict the near north side from various perspectives. It goes without saying that this selection is entirely unrepresentative (and therefore unencyclopedic!) of a city as large and culturally diverse as Chicago. I'm not an editor here nor do I have the time to become one, but as a longtime resident and lover of the city it seemed important to point this out. 138.251.232.173 (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This is so true!! Chicago's history and present day is sooo much more than the loop and river north. Pics of landmarks on the West, South and North sides are clearly in order. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, but there is a night-time image claimed to be of Chicago in this article that is actually of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a pretty terrible error for such an important page.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Aerial_view_of_Chicago_at_night_from_an_airplane_01.jpg/330px-Aerial_view_of_Chicago_at_night_from_an_airplane_01.jpg

If you check the satellite view of both Chicago and Milwaukee, it becomes clear that the picture is not of Chicago. I would highly recommend changing this. Banana Peel Seal (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Lmao. Good catch. ɱ (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a back and forth going on here over some infobox parameters. Blank parameters are being used to add information which was removed: , restored: , removed , restored: , removed , restored: . So far 3 editors have been involved in removing material, 2 have restored, but there is no talk discussion yet, so I am starting this section.

There is a clear rationale for deleting these parameters, which is WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says of the infobox: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Wikipedia is not a directory, and so the purpose of the infobox is to provide some key facts about the city, especially names, location and such like. These all have parameters coded into the template that can be used. The absence of transit parameters is very good evidence that the community consensus is that transit parameters are not key information about the city that needs to be summarised in the infobox. The argument (made in an edit summary) that these are standard in city articles is incorrect. There is no standard for such information, and although some city articles have these, many do not.

What happens on this page will depend on the editor consensus here, but it would be very helpful if we could discuss the pros and cons here rather than in revert edit summaries. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You well know there is an ongoing discussion about these parameters at WT:MOSINFOBOX. Leave these in place until that discussion plays out. Being they've been in the article for years before the recent removal.

for what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that anything that has an entire separate

section in the article is worthy of some sort of summarizing mention in the infobox, being that the purpose of an infobox is to summarize the article. oknazevad (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I do know there is a general discussion going on there, and a fairly snowy consensus that this information is undue in infoboxes, but the edit warring is here, which is why there should be a talk discussion here as I have indicated. Infoboxes are for key facts, not for a summary of the whole article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

And a major city's international airports and rapid transit system are key facts about that city. oknazevad (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Which is an opinion, yet apparently not one that has thus far enjoyed any consensus on wikipedia, because the infobox has no parameter for them. On what basis do you assert these are key facts? Shouldn't we have an RFC requesting infobox parameters for these if they are key facts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Noticed that the 2021 estimated population from the American Community surveys is there. ACS data tends to be incredibly inaccurate when it comes to estimating population. I've actually gone ahead and plotted out how the ACS compares to the census from 2010 to 2021 on a google sheet to show off how inaccurate it is. Pretty much without fail for any large city in the US, the ACS either shoots up or down in the mid 2010s. We might want to remove this 2021 population estimate as it probably isn't accurate. Piemadd (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Prominent food companies based in Chicago include the world headquarters of Conagra, Ferrara Candy Company, Kraft Heinz, McDonald's, Mondelez International, Quaker Oats, and US Foods.[citation needed]

In the economy section it states that the company US Foods headquarters are located in Chicago. The company US Foods headquarters are actually located in Rosemont Illinois https://www.usfoods.com/locations/headquarters.html therefore US foods should be removed from the list TemporaryCake (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Removed Tollens (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to edit the outline of the City of Chicago on the map so that Norridge and Harwood Heights appear as an Enclave of the city? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What about the upcoming June 1-2 Nascar steet races? I know my post was deleted, but... Anyhow, I think it's notable enough to be included in this article? The page is protected, so I can't add it. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you can give citations to reliable sources, then I'd say it should added. But I think it would be better if it is mentioned as something like an annual event that occurs. But I am not completely sure, as I am relatively mediocre when it comes to editing skills. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not an annual event. It's happening this year, I'm not sure if it's annual. Also, source: https://www.nascarchicago.com/ 104.187.66.104 (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The intention is for it to become annual, replacing the previous race at Chicagoland Speedway in nearby Joliet. We'll see if that happens, but until it does become an ongoing annual event, a single race is not significant enough to be included here. oknazevad (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest you add it to Grant Park (Chicago), there is a section on events and I don't think the article is protected. You might want to wait until it's over though for the encyclopedias' purposes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add citation to the following section:

Chicago has a distinctive fine art tradition. For much of the twentieth century, it nurtured a strong style of figurative surrealism, as in the works of Ivan Albright and Ed Paschke. In 1968 and 1969, members of the Chicago Imagists, such as Roger Brown, Leon Golub, Robert Lostutter, Jim Nutt, and Barbara Rossi produced bizarre representational paintings. Henry Darger is one of the most celebrated figures of outsider art.[citation needed]

Cite the following page: https://academic-eb-com.uaccess.univie.ac.at/levels/collegiate/article/Henry-Darger/605116 Celoreads (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done though, I used a different source (given that the supplied one is not easily accessible). M.Bitton (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The Freight Rail section should be updated. It says that "Six of the seven Class I railroads meet in Chicago." This is no longer accurate. Kansas City Southern merged with Canadian Pacific. So now there are only six Class I railroads, and they all meet in Chicago. 24.112.119.132 (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Chicago has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a source for the Chicago Sky (since I'm not yet a verified user): Article from 2005 discussing the team's formation by the Chicago Tribune -ieatfishfood Ieatfishfood (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done However, in the future please specifically what code you want changed, using a template like {{textdiff}}. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The top image in the infobox has a glaring keystoning issue so the quality is not very good. How about rearranging the montage to something similar to this? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 12:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe the current lay out is a better representation of Chicago. Navy Pier is Chicago's 2nd most popular tourist destination (after the art institute), so is certainly worth including. It's image also has the added advantage of showing more of the northern shoreline. I'm also not sure the keystoning issue (which admittedly I wasn't familiar with as a term before you used it), is large enough to make the current skyline image unusable. The skyline from the current angle shows a wide range of the most famous buildings (Willis Tower, Hancock, Crain Communications Building) and Millennium Park, far more than the proposed alternative. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I would support the use of this one. The existing one does appear to be of inferior resolution, even when viewed in thumbnail form. I've never understood why aerial views are preferred, when the layman is more familiar with street-level views. Flatiron Building suffers from this too. Seasider53 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A bird's eye view gives a greater overview of an object in a way that an encyclopedia should. While it may not be the most aesthetically pleasing angle possible, it certainly isn't ugly, and is richer in information gained.

Also I have striked a part of my comment above where I made the mistake that Navy Pier was removed in the proposed changes. That is not the case, the "L" train is removed. I also believe the train should be kept in place of Willis Tower, as there is plenty of coverage of iconic buildings in the current and proposed collage.--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The two Indigenous languages most relevant to Chicago history are Myaamia and Potawatomi, not Myaamia and Ojibwe. According to Myaamia speakers, their name is accurately spelled Šikaakonki, not Shikaakwa, and the Potawatomi name is Zhegagoynak. https://decolonialatlas.com/turtle-island-decolonized FISHERCAT5751 (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The Municipal boundaries of Norridge and Harwood Heights and aren't shown as an enclave on the map. Is there any way someone can change this? Same with the enclaves of an unincorporated area. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the finding Abad, J. (2018). Socioeconomic Status and Academic Performance 64.226.58.172 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Mexico is in north america 2601:240:E201:5190:2563:176E:4C19:1C65 (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)