Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment/Archive 3

Archives:

August 2009 nomination debates

Batch 5

The following discussion is a concluded nomination debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

List of Registered Historic Places in Chicago 3 supports, 1 oppose

List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois 3 supports, 1 oppose

Richard M. Daley 3 supports, 1 oppose

Shedd Aquarium 2 supports, 0 opposes --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Registered Historic Places in Chicago

Support Among the most important pages on WP for our project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose = Doesn't have the global reach nor "have a large impact" as required for Top Importance articles. Pknkly (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't fully understand the distinction made btwn importance vs. priority in discussion far above, but I think this list-article is a) significant on its own as resource, and b) a big driver for development of all the listed NRHP places in Chicago. I would think it serves a broad function of supporting newer wikipedia contributors, as an open field of approved wikipedia-notable topics, easy for anyone to get a photo for (unlike in birding, the targets don't move) and to start an article. I am one of its main original developers. doncram (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You might also view this list like an important museum. The houses, buildings, and other sites on it are designated as historic sites because they are artifacts which evoke history of past events, people, architectural styles, etc. The places which meet the National Register's criteria are ones which meet national standards of importance or which reach high levels of local importance. This is sort of an honor roll out of all historic sites in Chicago. This is like the museum of Chicago, the city. doncram (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The list of Chicago Landmarks already has top importance. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois

Oppose = Doesn't have the global reach nor "have a large impact" as required for Top Importance articles. Don't believe these lists would make it into a print encyclopedia. Pknkly (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per my comments on "List of RHPs in Chicago" above. doncram (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support We cover all of Cook County so this list is as important as the other.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments above. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Daley

Support - as mayor of the city for more than 20 years (and set to pass Richard J. Daley if he completes his current term) there is no question of his impact on the city, the country and the world (with or without the 2016 Olympics). -- DS1953 ^talk 01:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Da Mare deserves to be in the running. He's been the face of the city for a long time. Zagalejo^^^ 04:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Just don't believe he has the global impact. The article has only a passing reference to the 2016 Summer Olympics bid. Passes the remaining criteria. I would gladly change my opposition if someone gave two examples, not counting the Olympics, of his impact on the world. Pknkly (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being too literal. If we agree that Oprah Winfrey is Top, I would not argue that RM Daley is less important globally.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Too" is subjective and needs clarification. I looked at the Top Importance articles and was surprised, based on a "too" literal interpretation of the instructions, at what I saw. I have to assume the instructions were different when those articles were rated. Operah's article makes Top Importance sense because she is internationally syndicated and therefore has that global impact. I respect your observation and hope for two things: (1) For the long term we can reword the criteria for all the values so we can come closer to a collective subjective rating scheme; and (2)for the immediate time frame the other editors with a less literal bent will offset my "too" literal vote. It should all wash - the current count for this subject is two for and one against. By the way, I reviewed my votes and comments and saw that I am capable of a "less" literal approach. Pknkly (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support He should be on the ballot. He is important to the world and is very prominent as a Chicagoan.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shedd Aquarium

Support A historically significant aquarium, and still a major tourist draw. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe the whole Museum Campus is important.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the link that talks about the "ballot"? I thought we simply take a project member vote and one of us would change the Importance parameter for the articles. I'm asking for the information here in case others aren't aware of the complete process. Pknkly (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean for this comment to be in the middle of this page here?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Batch 4

The following discussion is a concluded nomination debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Architecture of Chicago 4 supports, 1 oppose

John Benjamin Murphy 0 supports, 3 opposes

Lorado Taft Midway Studios 0 supports, 3 opposes

Frances Willard House 0 supports, 3 opposes

Chicago Pile-1 3 supports, 0 opposes --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Chicago

Support. Chicago has made an important contribution to architecture.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Chicago School of Architecture is a pretty important part of that whole architectural legacy as well. The article could be improved upon as well.Orestek -- Orestek (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not necessarily a high probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up (the hits may be coming from Chicagoland area. Subject is not a must-have for a print encyclopedia, but would be good for one on architecture. Does not have much of an 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) 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support As the birthplace of the skyscraper, this is important.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do think there's a good possibility non-Chicagoans would look this up. The city is well-known for its architecture. Zagalejo^^^ 00:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Benjamin Murphy

He is one of the most important scientists in the history of the city.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Never heard of him and the article doesn't make me feel like the "majority of the world" would recall him much less associate him with Chicago. A statement from the article "He is best remembered for the eponymous clinical sign that is used in evaluating patients with acute cholecystitis." convinces me he may be well known within the surgical profession, but not the general world public. Fails "High probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up.", Passes "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia." Passes "Must have had a large impact on non-Chicagoans, across several generations, and in the majority of the world" due to his procedures, and soft pass for "in a role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution." I increased the Importance rating from Low to High because (from the article) "Mayo Clinic co-founder, William James Mayo, described him as "the surgical genius of our generation"."Pknkly (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Who? Speciate (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too obscure. Zagalejo^^^ 01:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorado Taft Midway Studios

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)[reply]

Oppose Not a "must have for a print encyclopedia", not particularly well known in Chicago. Speciate (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think Lorado Taft himself merits Top Importance. (But Eternal Silence is pretty cool....) Zagalejo^^^ 01:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the criteria would be articles that "should" be read by non-Chicagoans to get a feel and better understanding of Chicago, I would say yes. The criteria being what they are, I have to agree with Zagalejo's statement Fountain of Time is among the most spectacular pieces of public art in Chicago. Pknkly (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Willard House

The only non-Chicago listing on the original October 15, 1966 National Register of Historic Places listings in Cook County, Illinois.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Never heard of it. Speciate (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too obscure. Zagalejo^^^ 01:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't meet international impact or interest. I set the Importnace parameter to High because it is after all on a National Register and beleive it to have national interest. Any way to have a bot automatically set to at least High Importance all articles with subjects that are within National Registers? Pknkly (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Pile-1

Another attempt to get the sciences represented in our list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 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)[reply]

Support only if Metallurgical Laboratory is merged to it to make a more substantial article. Speciate (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add merge templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meets all criteria. Pknkly (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Batch 3

The following discussion is a concluded nomination debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Black Sox Scandal 3.5 supports, 1 oppose

Milton Friedman 2.5 supports

Pullman Strike 4.5 supports, 2 opposes

Michelle Obama 3 supports--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sox Scandal

One of the most important parts of Chicago sports history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Obvious choice. IvoShandor 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It has increased greatly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not a high probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up. Subject is not a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Low impact on non-Chicagoans, no 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) 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of affecting generations. It has impacted the membership of the Baseball Hall of Fame and inspired generations of pop culture references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - disagreeing with Pknkly above on each point - high probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up, must-have for a print encyclopedia, etc. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This was important not just to Chicago but to the history of baseball. As a direct result of this scandal, the owners appointed the first commissioner and led to the strong role of the commissioner to this day. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, perhaps only lacks worldwide interest. Speciate (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Friedman

Support - His promotion of Chicago School of economics certainly brought notice to Chicago to people around the world. Pknkly (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passes all Top Importance criteria - "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.". Pknkly (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - He is an icon in his field as a Chicago School economist.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support best known of the "Chicago school", their ideas have been internationally implemented. Speciate (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pullman Strike

Oppose connection to Chicago seems limited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an interesting statement (if only it had a citation) from the article: "In 1898, the Illinois Supreme Court forced the Pullman Company to divest ownership in the town, which was annexed to Chicago[citation needed]." (see: Pullman Strike#Trial. Perhaps this would be a good statement within the Chicago article.Pknkly (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support this is a seminal event in the labor movement of the late 19th and early 20th century and began in what is now the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too beleive this to be a seminal event. However, the article doesn't make it sound like one and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour project only has its Importance at Mid. Pknkly (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - 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". The subject fails its importance "in the majority of the world" because it doesn't say that (and I believe it should). In fact, the article says it is "a nationwide conflict". The article fails its recognition with Chicago. The only reference to it being recognized with Chicago is a failed External link titled "Chicago Strike". Pknkly (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's unfortunate that the article is poorly written in that respect. While the strike "affected workers in 27 states," the strike was centered in Chicago, the federal troops were sent to Chicago by President Cleveland (over the protests of Governor Altgeld and Chicago mayor John Hopkins), the arrest and trial of Eugene Debs was in Chicago, the US Strike Commission hearings were in Chicago, etc.... Of course, with Chicago as the center of rail traffic, the effect was nationwide, which is what makes this event so important. It was the largest strike ever, at the time. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to edit the article to make its connection to Chicago clearer, so if you are judging the importance of the event by what the article says and don't know about the event apart from what Wikipedia has to say about it, I can understand why you would conclude that the event's connection to Chicago is limited. So be it. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding that I am adequately ignorant about the subject and depend on the article to make the right points. I too want to research and edit the article but just don't have that as a personal priority. Nevertheless, I took your citation given below and added it to the article (hope you don't mind) as well as to the 1896 Democratic National Convention which now mentions the importance of the Pullman strike. Pknkly (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on the importance of this event: "Illinois Governor John P. Altgeld was incensed at Cleveland for putting the federal government at the service of the employers, and for rejecting Altgeld's plan to use his state militia to keep order, instead of federal troops. As the leader of the Illinois delegation to the Democratic Party Convention in 1896, Altgeld used his influence and blocked the renomination of Cleveland as the presidential candidate." [1] How many events in Chicago have cost a sitting president of the United States his renomination? -- DS1953 ^talk 16:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation still limits the article to a High Importance one because it had impact on our nation, not "the majority of the world". By the way - as I went about editing articles to include your citation I noticed Clarence Darrow was rated only at a Mid Importance. I increased it to High because he so clearly had an impact on our nation and not simply in the area. So, thanks for your reference. Pknkly (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support A crappy article about an important subject is still an article about an important subject. Let us not confuse anything about the article's quality, breadth or depth with its importance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the quality (that is the class rating), but the Importance is based on the breadth and depth (ie., has to reach the majority of people in the world). To me the article comes right out and states it is national. It sounds like you are familiar with the subject. I am not and therefore can only base my vote on what it says in the article. So far nobody commenting on this article's Importance rating had shown that the subject had an impact on "the majority of the people in the world". I believe the impact would have to be the same as the strike in Russia (see: 1905 Russian Revolution#Start of the revolution) that started the revolution. The number of articles that describe subjects with impact the "majority of the world" is going to be a small number, especially those that are clearly recognized or associated with Chicago. Pknkly (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support As a non-Chicagoan, I know about this from high school American History course. Very important event. Very much associated with Chicago, in my view. doncram (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very much associated with Chicago, so that is not the problem. International scope is more of a concern. Speciate (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama

Support - Passes all criteria - "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." Related to her impact on the "majority of the world", from the article is this cited statement "As a high-profile darker-complected woman in a stable marriage, it is anticipated that she will be a positive role model who will influence the view the world has of African-Americans." (see Michelle Obama#First Lady of the United States Pknkly (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support people know she is from Chicago, article is viewed 3500 times a day. Speciate (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Batch 2

The following discussion is a concluded nomination debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Chicago blues 3 supports, 0 opposes

Prison Break 0 supports, 3 opposes

Walt Disney 0 supports, 3 opposes

Fall Out Boy 0 supports, 3 opposes

Dominik Hašek 0 supports, 3 opposes --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago blues

Support This article's nomination as a Top Importance article should be tied in with that of Blues. Blues is Chicago. I think most people unknowingly think of "Chicago blues" when you mention "blues". Pknkly (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notable part of the city's culture. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support World renown aspect of our culture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Break

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) 15:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Show is too new. We can't predict whether history will remember it. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Show was only in Chicago for its first season.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney

Oppose - Meets most of the criteria except the critical "We must emphasize role as a Chicagoan.". I associate him with Hollywood or Florida. Pknkly (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Only lived in Chicago for a few years. Zagalejo^^^ 04:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not really a Chicagoan for the purposes of htis analysis.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Out Boy

Oppose - Doesn't meet "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) 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Pnknly, basically. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not an important enough band yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Hašek

Oppose Role as a Chicagoan was not important.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Tony. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fails critical criteria by not having a significant role as a Chicagoan. Pknkly (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Batch 1

The following discussion is a concluded nomination debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Saint Valentine's Day massacre 3 supports, 0 opposes plus nominator support

Navy Pier 4 supports, 1 oppose plus nominator support

Millennium Park 3 supports, 1 oppose plus nominator support

1968 Democratic National Convention 4 supports, 0 opposes

Chicago Spire 3 opposes--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Valentine's Day massacre

Seminal moment in Chicago history. Has been edited about 555 times. Figures in numerous movies, TV shows and books. Speciate 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Unfortunately, we do have this tragic and horrid reputation for which we are known worldwide.Pknkly (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notable moment in Chicago history. Well-known to non-Chicagoans, because of all the pop culture adaptations, etc. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per both above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Pier

Might as well throw it out there. Last I read, it's the top tourist attraction in the city. Zagalejo 03:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - High is good enough for it. Speciate 03:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - High is good enough. However, if the count of hits to the article is high it would sway me to Support.Pknkly (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I retract my opposition. The number one tourist attraction simply can't be anything other than a Top Importance article.Pknkly (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Yes this is the number one tourist attraction in Chicago and should be one of the 50 most imporatnat pages to the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - "top tourist destination" says it all. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Park

Crown Fountain Jay Pritzker Pavilion, Harris Theater (Chicago), Cloud Gate, etc.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's probably too new for me to vote for it on the actual ballot, but it definitely deserves to be in the running. Zagalejo 02:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It's part of Grant Park, and too new as a separate entity. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - : High probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up. Millenium park has the same recognition with Chicago as the Sydney Opera House has for Sydney. Subject is not a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Low impact on non-Chicagoans, no impact across several generations. However, I believe this article has high interest to a lot of tourists (ok, so it is a subset of the human race) of the world in a role as Chicago institution. Pknkly (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Pknkly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Democratic National Convention

Support Major historical event. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Memorable event of importance here in Chicago--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this was a turning point in American history. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Spire

Oppose given its construction hiatus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's wait until it's actually built. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's wait until it's actually built. Pknkly (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

July 2009 nomination debates

The following discussion is a concluded nomination debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

John M. Van Osdel Failed (0 for, 2 against).

Jane Addams Passed (2 for, 1 neutral).

Chicago Water Tower Passed (2 for, 1 neutral).

Wrigley Building Failed (0 for, 2 against).

Chicago (musical) Failed (1 for, 2 against).

The Untouchables (1987 film) Failed (0 for, 2 against).

The Sting Failed (0 for, 2 against).

Road to Perdition Failed (0 for, 2 against).

Ferris Bueller's Day Off Failed (1 for, 2 against).

Lake Michigan Failed (0 for, 2 against).

George P. Shultz Failed (0 for, 2 against).

Motorola Failed (1 for, 2 against).

Phil Jackson Failed (1 for, 2 against).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Van Osdel

The first Chicago architect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 02:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not well known enough. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Probably well known within the architectural community. I'm sure the Architectural project group will rate it Top if they get around to it. I think that is where the Top rating should be given if it deserves it.Pknkly (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Addams

Addams hasn't been assessed at all, but she was named by Time-Life as the 66th most important person of the last millennium.[2]. Zagalejo 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support - Zagalejo's point is well taken. Can't believe it is only a C Class category. Could someone review it for Class rating? To me it looks like it should be higher.Pknkly (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Water Tower

Storied part of Chicago history, tourism and architecture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Zagalejo 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support Non-Chicagoans not only would look this article up, they buy them at the tourist shops! It, along with Picasso's statue are hot items in tourist shops. I think they are telling us that it is a Top Importance article. Pknkly (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrigley Building

Seems like it should be an official Chicago Landmark.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Most un-"Chicago school" of all major buildings. Does not represent Chicago's architectural traditions. This is why it has never been granted landmark status. Speciate 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Of interest to only architectural or baseball groups. Pknkly (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago (musical)

I was going to nominate Chicago (2002 film), but I think this is the important version--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Support Sure, what the hell. It's among the most notable fictional works set in Chicago. Zagalejo 05:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even have a category for plays set in Chicago. Books neither. Speciate 06:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, both film and musical on lack of true Chicago-ness, and the fact that I'm uncomfortable with media representations of things rising to the same level as the things. I consider the Blues Brothers an exception because it fed back into what defines Chicago. Speciate 23:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not a high probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up. Subject is not a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Low impact on non-Chicagoans, no 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. Mid importance is the right rank. Pknkly (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Untouchables (1987 film)

I think the film version of The Untouchables (1959 TV series) where Sean Connery got his long awaited oscar is notable to non-Chicagoans and all things Al Capone are notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the film, but not the concept, of the Untouchables if there was an article on that era. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Agree with Speciate. The article may be a good candidate. Wonder how many hits it gets. Perhaps it would have mattered if Sean Connery were a Chicagoan. Pknkly (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sting

7 Oscars.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mostly shot indoors, as I recall. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not a high probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up unless its film buffs looking for info about the film, not necessarily Chicago itself. Subject is not a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Low impact on non-Chicagoans, no 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) 03:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Road to Perdition

6 Oscar noms.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, too new. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not a high probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up unless its film buffs looking for info about the film, not necessarily Chicago itself. Subject is not a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Low impact on non-Chicagoans, no 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) 03:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Cult classic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Meh, not that important in the greater scheme of what is Chicago. IvoShandor 15:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, if the number of allowed Top articles is increased greatly. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not a high probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up unless its film buffs looking for info about the film, not necessarily Chicago itself. Subject is not a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Low impact on non-Chicagoans, no 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) 03:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Michigan

while the article is not specific to chicago, the history of the lake in terms of local economy, industry, recreation, sports, urban planning, and world's fairs is of extreme significance. LurkingInChicago 01:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm comfortable with High. Speciate 23:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Somewhat high probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up. Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia ( I simply couldn't imagine it not having one). Low impact on non-Chicagoans, high impact across several generations that lived within the lake area, and no impact or of interest to the majority of the world in a role as a Chicago institution (don't think it really is a Chicago institution. Pknkly (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George P. Shultz

Shultz served as the United States Secretary of Labor from 1969 to 1970, as the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury from 1972 to 1974, and as the U.S. Secretary of State from 1982 to 1989. He was a University of Chicago Professor and then Dean of the Graduate School of Business. If Rumsfeld gets to be Top, then surely Shultz, who is still advising the current President, must be Top too. Speciate 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not much of a Chicago connection besides his professorship at the U of C. I don't think Rumsfeld should really qualify, either, since most people outside of Chicago (and many within) don't think of him as a "Chicago guy." Zagalejo 04:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point, about Rumsfeld, actually. Speciate 01:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we reopen Rumsfeld, then? Zagalejo 02:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. His continued Topness is like an open wound. My Shultz example trumps him in every single way, yet Schultz shouldn't be Top. Speciate 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally against repeated stabs at the apple. The motion to demote failed in June. I would like it to be a policy of our system that votes to promote and demote carry for one year before being reevaluated. Of course, this is not really a formal organization, it is just my suggestion. As far as a comparison and Shultz and Rumsfeld goes, I would say that they are fairly comparable at the national level with reasonable arguements that either is more notable today. However, in their roles as Chicagoans, Rumsfeld was born and raised in Cook County and then later served Chicagoland as a four term U. S. Congressman, while Schultz was a professor and Dean of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. Generally, all persons born and raised in Cook County who served multiple terms as part of the Chicagoland Congressional delegation are considered notable for their roles as Chicagoans. However, most University of Chicago Deans are not even WP notable in the sense of having articles although most would pass WP:N. Thus Rumsfeld is probably higher on our scale than Shultz because he was more of a Chicagoan (to international wikipedians) by birth, rearing and service although they went on to equally prominent roles. Nonetheless, I would encourage a policy whereby our votes hold for 1 year.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will create a page for the current UofC dean, Ted Snyder (economist). I will omit the line that he once employed TonyTheTiger as a lackey teaching assistant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Somewhat high probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up. Unless he is in the news his hits will dip. Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia (this seems to be the only positive). Currently 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. Mostly, I agree with Zagalejo about him not being a Chicago guy. Pknkly (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola

International company on the forefront of technology. They are a worthy contender for Top importance. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Yes, they are a worthy contender, but since they are actually in Schaumburg I dunno. Speciate 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object for the reasons Speciate gives below for Allstate.Shsilver 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Somewhat high probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up since they are an international business. Subject is not a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Low impact on non-Chicagoans, no impact across several generations, and no impact or of interest to the majority of the world as a Chicago institution (In contrast to Bank of America that sponsors the Chicago Marathon). Pknkly (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Jackson

Legendary coach who bolstered his legend by Threepeating with the Los Angeles Lakers after doing so twice with the Bulls. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation: I have limited the athletic nominees to members of the SportsCentury listings. However, Threepeating with another team after the list formation makes him a respectable nominee. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support His article is only B-class at the present time. Bringing it up to GA or even FA is a noble and achievable goal for us. Also, most people know something about him, and could contribute to the article. I don't know if that applies to making him Top priority, but the more than 500 edits to his page shows that people are interested in him. Speciate 23:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Support~~ I'd think Mike Ditka would take precedence over Phil Jackson. Yes, Jackson won more championships than Ditka did, but Ditka is probably seen a being "more Chicago" than Jackson. Shsilver 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an international project so we want to keep in mind a broader perspective. No athletes/coaches are eligible for Top who only had 20th century accomplishments and are not part of the SportsCentury listings as stated above. There are numerous great athletes/coaches that are on the list that have not yet been selected/elected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I change to Object since looking at only his Chicago activity, he wouldn't be eligible and from the project's perspective I'm not interested in his post Chicago (i.e. twenty-first century) career.Shsilver 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is being inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame tonight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Mid probability that non-Chicagoans, hardly any overseas, would look this up and that would only be if they are basketball fans. Subject is not must-have for a print encyclopedia unless it is for a sports encyclopedia or one for basketball only. Does not and did not a large impact on non-Chicagoans, no impact across several generations, and is very likely unknown in the majority of the world in a role as a Chicagoan. Agree with Tiger's cautionary comment.Pknkly (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

May 2008 nomination debates

The following discussion is a concluded nomination debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was The following all pass with reduced requirements due to inactivity on the page. I made one selection without any support due to inactivity and personal opinion of importance

List of Chicago Landmarks (Director's choice given inactivity)

Lake Shore Drive

Haymarket Riot

Museum of Science and Industry (Chicago)

John Hancock Center

The Blues Brothers (film)

Union Stock Yards

Chicago school (architecture)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago Landmarks

This is a list of most important places and things in Chicago and is thus important.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Shore Drive

This scenic drive neighbors so many Chicago institutions and has an interesting history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support A good example of something non-Chicagoans have heard of. Zagalejo 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Zagalejo said what I was going to say. IvoShandor 15:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Haymarket Riot

Could be the most important historical event which hasn't been nominanted yet. Zagalejo 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: one of the most important events in American labor history. Also, note I would be willing to work on this at some point, labor history is my strong suit. IvoShandor 15:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week support, if the number of allowed Top articles is increased greatly. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Science and Industry (Chicago)

Another biggie. Speciate 07:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Zagalejo 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Hancock Center

A defining part of our skyline. Zagalejo 03:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, if the number of allowed Top articles is increased greatly. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blues Brothers (film)

Cult classic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Of all the films, this one probably has the strongest Chicago "feel" to it. I say weak support because it didn't really affect anyone's lives in a serious way. Zagalejo 02:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Chicago is a one of the stars in this film. Speciate 03:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union Stock Yards

High probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up, and I think it had a significant impact on non-Chicagoans: The Jungle, and the social/dietary changes that resulted from the meatpacking and transport industries. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think it rises to the level of Top. High, certainly. In terms of impact outside Chicago, the Haymarket Riot was far more influential. Billions of communists used to celebrate May Day as a result, maybe they still do in China. Speciate 21:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree. I would prefer a more general article about the meatpacking industry in Chicago, but I don't think we have one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support If not The Jungle, then definitely this broader topic. Zagalejo 02:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago school (architecture)

the article is the basis for a world reknown style of architecture and cadre of locally based architects within a specific time period in chicago. the article would support the wikipedia core topic of architecture with additional support for chicago landmark, nrhp, and national historic landmark articles. LurkingInChicago 01:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What do we do with the Chicago architecture page then? Speciate 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move it: to Architecture in Chicago or better yet Architecture of Chicago, because it's too confusing as is. Support nominated article. IvoShandor 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support only if merged to the Chicago architecture article. Which is not to say I'm advocating such a merge right now. Speciate 23:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

December 2007 nomination debates

The following discussion is a concluded nomination debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Area code 312 Failed (2 against).

Chicago 2016 Olympic bid Failed (2 against).

Risky Business Failed (3 against).

A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte Failed (2 against).

The Jungle Passed (4 for ) against).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area code 312

One of the original area codes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Area codes are barely notable if you ask me, let alone important. Strikes me as a bit too trivial. IvoShandor 15:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per IvoShandor. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago 2016 Olympic bid

This is our cities chance to shine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose An article on the Olympics itself would be justified, if they actually do come to Chicago, but not this. Zagalejo 20:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Zagalejo. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risky Business

Maybe its because I am in the age group that finds this movie memorable, but I think its a classic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Let's not overload the category with 80s movies. Blues Brothers is sufficient. :) I didn't even realize this was set in the Chicago area. Zagalejo 05:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per Zagelejo. IvoShandor 15:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - set more in the North Shore. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte

One of the most important works of art in Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'll agree that it's one of the most important paintings here, but it's still a French painting. Zagalejo 02:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Zagalejo. Speciate 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jungle

Classic work of literature set in the Chicago Stock Yards. Led to establishment of the Pure Food and Drug Act, among other things. Zagalejo 20:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Shsilver 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Support not sure this deserves serious consideration because I am not sure of its cross-generational impact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it's still read in many schools. I read it in high school, and it seems to get a decent bit of attention at the Sparknotes message boards. Zagalejo 21:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, its influence are still being felt in the way the US government oversees the preparation of food (and drugs), among other things. Shsilver 22:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the book is important, but it might be better to have a broader survey of the meatpacking industry (not necessarily the stockyards, which I nominated above). I don't know the city like many of you do, and haven't really looked at all the articles we have and how they are related, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: disagree about lack of cross-generational impact, citing the fact that it is assigned in many high school English classes (I read it first in high school) and the fact that the novel still impacts life today because of the changes that occurred in the American food and drug industry, largely because of it. IvoShandor 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

September 2007 nomination debates

The following discussion is a concluded nomination debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Brian's Song Failed (2 against).

History of Chicago Passed (5 for, 0 against).

Chicago River Passed (4 for, 0 against).

Boeing Failed (no support after about 12 weeks including a nomination drive).

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Failed (no support after about 10 weeks including a nomination drive).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's Song

Important part of Chicago culture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Never heard of it. Speciate 04:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I doubt many people outside of the US have seen this movie. Zagalejo 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chicago

How come History of Chicago isn't at top importance, or at least at high importance, within this project? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, seems like a no-brainer. Zagalejo 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support for High. Speciate 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago River

extremely significant throughout chicago's history, industrialization, and urban expansion, with connections to world record engineering and urban planning efforts. LurkingInChicago 01:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Zagalejo 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Is the City's raison d'être. Speciate 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing

International aerospace company that facilitates global commerce. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Rumor has it that Boeing may relocate out of Chicago. Its headquarters move was the work of their CEO at the time who really liked Chicago, but their operations are mostly in Washington. That guy is no longer in charge, and it's only a matter of time. Speciate 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association

Now that you mention it, they are another company of importance to Chicagoans and non-Chicagoans alike. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don't relish the idea of researching an HMO all that much, but they have a nifty headquarters building in a prominant locale. Speciate 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

August 2007 nomination debates

The following discussion is a concluded nomination debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Field Museum of Natural History Passed (4 for, 0 against).

World's Columbian Exposition Passed (3 for, 0 against).

Leopold and Loeb Passed (3 for, 0 against).

Richard J. Daley Passed (4 for, 0 against).

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill Passed (3 for, 0 against).

Allstate Failed (1 for, 2 against). --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field Museum of Natural History

Definitely the most prestigious museum of its kind in the Midwest; arguably the second-most important natural history museum in the US (behind the American Museum of Natural History.) Zagalejo 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Shsilver 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Speciate 05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's Columbian Exposition

One of the highlights of Chicago history. From the article: "The fair had a profound effect on architecture, the arts, Chicago's self image and American industrial optimism." Zagalejo 20:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Shsilver 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold and Loeb

One of the most famous murder cases of the 2oth century. Trial occurred at Courthouse Place and most of the principle figures were Chicagoans. Zagalejo 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Shsilver 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Speciate 05:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Daley

Nomination by User:Speciate moved here for discussion. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daley's article could use a lot of improvement. His powerful machine (and ghost voters, some will say--with good evidence) won/stole the 1960 Presidential election for JFK. He was responsible for the 1968 Democratic Convention/Police Riot, which likely caused the loss of the White House for the Dems, allowing "Tricky Dick" Nixon to win. He first was elected by the African-American vote, but later resisted desegregation and Martin Luther King, Jr. He built the horrendous high-rise public housing projects that his son has spent a decade knocking down. He ruled over Chicago (and Cook County) with an iron fist for two decades, and had something to do with just about every feature of the current city, good and bad. Speciate 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I am a little unsure about his importance to non-Chicagoans. I am not sure if it rises to top status. However, I think he is an important enough subject to be a nominee. I will certainly have trouble voting for him as a nominee over more nationally prominent individuals, but do believe he may warrant consideration. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support For years, Daley was the face of Chicago. Even today, if you ask people about Chicago, they'll mention Capone, Jordan, and Daley, probably mentioning the 1968 DNC in the bargain. Shsilver 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think he's famous enough outside of the Chicago area. The 1968 DNC is still discussed in history classes. Zagalejo 21:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill

Possibly Chicago's most important current Architectural firm. They build world class buildings in world class cities. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, because of all the work they do outside of Chicago, and the controversy[3] associated with the Freedom Tower at Ground Zero, which is ongoing. Speciate 04:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Shsilver 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allstate

Another important company that impacts everyday life for many Chicagoans and non-Chicagoans. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object Located in Northbrook, and not in the most exciting line of business. Blue Cross Blue Shield has a huge headquarters building at the north end of Grant Park. Speciate 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object as Speciate notes. Shsilver 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

June 2007 nomination debates

The following discussion is a concluded nomination debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was the nomination Failed (1 for, 2 against). I would suggest if parties remain displeased with the priority rating one year from now, they renominate this article for top priority. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Portage National Historic Site

Chicago Portage National Historic Site - I have nominated this page to either be of High or Top priority. The reason being, this is the "Plymouth Rock" of Chicago. As its own site states "Chicago owes its very existence as a city to the location of the Chicago Portage."[4]. So, I will leave it open for more discussion.--Kranar drogin 19:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rate this until there is more info in the article, official websites often inflate the importance of its subject. IvoShandor 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why a redlink or stub would be excluded from top importance. This is not a quality rating. However, I do not see why International Wikipedians would consider this a must article yet. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.