From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
How to help the Wikivoyage Chicago project

The Chicago article is a showcase for Wikivoyage. The coverage is extensive, perhaps more so than for any other city. Updating and refining existing content is still needed, but before adding new content check that the information is not already in the article, and that there aren't already some examples of what you are adding. We want to avoid a guide that is too bloated or crowded, and we don't need to list every hotel, bar or restaurant to have a excellent guide. In addition the maps are so saturated that it may be difficult to add further listings to them.

If you are seeking to help, check the to do list. We need help to keep information current, so if you have current knowledge of a section of town, please scan the appropriate district article for out of date information, e.g., listings for businesses that have closed, outdated contact information, CTA station closures, etc.

If there is something important that is omitted, feel free to raise it on the discussion page, if you have found a hidden gem in your Chicago travels, let us know about it.

But above all, please do join the effort to keep this the best travel guide to Chicago there ever was.


To Do List[edit]

Here's what I think we need:

  • Itineraries for districts outside the city center
  • Improved coverage of Little Village shopping
  • Improved coverage of "do" activities in the Southwest Side
  • Updates. A lot has changed, but not a lot has been updated in the past year or so. Closed businesses need to be removed and replaced with new recommendations.

Suggestion in the Eat section: Add Gyros (ubiquitous in Chicago and our unique version was invented here) if not Greek food in general; and BBQ ribs.


Many suburbs are covered on the Chicagoland page and have only one attraction of note. However, there are a few that deserve fuller coverage as a complement to the Chicago set of articles, and need work accordingly. Post 'em here (but only if you're willing to work on them).

Last updated by (WT-en) Peter Talk 04:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Article status[edit]

Three-Level Streets in Chicago[edit]

Remains a mystery to me what any traveler is supposed to do with this image, which keeps getting reinserted into the article. I'm in that area on a regular basis and can barely picture what it's trying to describe. Gorilla Jones (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me, but I'm not familiar with the area. LtPowers (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not perfect, but I had a good deal of fun with it (which required plenty of extra exploration beyond looking at the map), and explored it with an out-of-town friend who thought it was interesting/bizarre, having seen the map in the article. --Peter Talk 17:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

ToC banner[edit]

I've been really agonizing over what banner image to use for the table of contents. I eventually picked the one now up there, but thought I'd share the other ones I liked from the many that I tried making, in case other people agree that there's a better option. The skyline is the obvious subject, but we already have a nice skyline picture next to the lede, and I figure we could use the skyline banner below for Chicago skyline guide. --Peter Talk 21:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And indeed, I've now added 6 to the Chicago skyline guide, and 8 to the Loop. --Peter Talk 23:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this looks fantastic, here and on the other articles. I'd suggest making a habit of moving the former lead image into 'Understand' for any cases where the lede is more than a line or two — the top of the article is a bit crowded visually. Really cool, though. Gorilla Jones (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What about cropping this one

Victorgrigas (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that would be an improvement over the current banner, File:Chicago-banner7.jpg, which shows the same sign? Powers (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, because it's brighter and more colorful Victorgrigas (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The background is, but surely the lit sign is brighter than the same sign when it's unlit? And what makes the brighter background an improvement? Shouldn't the focus be on the sign? Powers (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons image[edit]

Trump International Hotel and Tower, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 05.jpg

Today's picture of the day on Commons is a Chicago image. Would it be useful here? Pashley (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a nice one. And it fits nicely here. --Peter Talk 21:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]

Chicago Banner.jpg

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the current is great and we have so many skylines. Jjtkk (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I somehow don't love this new banner, because the skyline peters out toward the right and therefore feels unbalanced to me. I could definitely imagine a better banner than the currently-used one, but I'm not feeling that this one is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Hebrew reads right-to-left, so the banner works much better in Hebrew. That said, I cannot begin to fathom a better banner than the one we currently use. Powers (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrs. O'Leary's cow[edit]

Is this really an improvement, considering our policy on tone? Powers (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


@Ikan Kekek: Regarding this edit, I found the sentence somewhat confusing when I read it, so I did my best to rephrase it to keep the lively tone while making it easier to understand. In your edit summary you linked to Wikivoyage:Tone, which recommends avoiding sarcasm—I think it's a good idea to follow that policy in this case. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize it would be difficult to understand. My problem is that your edit made for less engaging writing. Is there a way to make it clearer without losing the color? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
That was what I tried to do, but I guess my rephrasing wasn't as vivid as the original sentence. I've made a smaller adjustment that hopefully will avoid the confusion while preserving the original imagery. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, as a non-native speaker, I've found the older, "sarcastic" versions easier to understand. Vidimian (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
As a matter of style, I'm satisfied with the current phrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Are these itineraries too personal for FTT?[edit]

There are two itineraries in Chicago that have Star status; Loop Art Tour and Along the Magnificent Mile. Personal itineraries aren't allowed as FTT, so are these in your opinion too personal to be considered candidates for Featured Travel Topic? I brought them up in Chicago/Bronzeville's OtBP nomination but nobody commented. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In my reading, we've tacitly backed far off our earlier anti-personal itinerary stance. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Great. It's usually trickier to find good FTT candidates and we have very few Star-rated topics (aside of Peter Southwood's brilliant diving articles), in fact these two are the only ones that come to my mind.
Plus, you recently mentioned next summer is quite heavy on European and North American destinations (well, much of Europe and North America can after all only be featured from May to September...), so we could have either of those itineraries representing Chicago and replace Chicago/Bronzeville with e.g. some destination in the tropics south of the Equator (these tend to have their dry season in the Northern Hemisphere summer) or East Asia to get some variation. Just a suggestion. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The Magnificent Mile, at least, isn't a personal itinerary; it's a recognized route. Powers (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Map criticized[edit]

The "districts map" used was heavily criticized in this Chicago Tribune article November 30, 2018: Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That map seems to be slightly different from the one used in this article, and anyway a T-shirt is a different medium from a travel guide – the first should probably use official neighborhoods, whereas the second should sometimes lump together neighborhoods with few attractions. If our districts aren't good, though, we can certainly change them. That would mean restructuring all the district articles – we can't substantively change the map without changing the articles too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Seconded. Even if the article in question were pointed squarely at WV, which it's not, it would be an unfair and unwanted complaint. WV creates "districts" according to its own rules, foremost of which is The traveller comes first. The official name ordinance they link to defines 77 "community areas" and 178 "neighborhoods". That may be useful for locals, but it's a very bad fit for WV or any other travel guide. There's a big difference between a T-shirt design intended for locals, and a travel guide intended for visitors. --Bigpeteb (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
A travel guide is not meant to make up fiction -- unless it is a crappy travel guide The map I changed to did lump together, and the map that was reverted to, the map that's in the article now, does not match the text of the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
That's certainly a problem. Could you please point out where our map doesn't match the text and where the guide makes up fiction? Those are things we should fix as soon as possible. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

destar Chicago districts[edit]

Has been some time since this was made star status; what is required of an article has changed in particular coordinates of listings. Also on updating Chicago/Uptown a number of business were identified as closed. Time for review of the articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Following articles need coordinates for eat and sleep listings: Chicago/Hyde Park, Chicago/Lakeview-North Center, Chicago/Lincoln Park-Old Town, Chicago/Near South, Chicago/North Lincoln, Chicago/Southwest Side, Chicago/Bridgeport-Chinatown. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The district I saw didn't look like star status to me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Richard J. Daley[edit]

Let's discuss this edit. The older Mr. Daley was known for not brooking opposition, and was famous around the country for his direction to the Chicago police to brutalize demonstrators at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. So I have the feeling that edit is not really in keeping with Wikivoyage:Be fair but whitewashes history in important ways. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


Interstate 80 technically doesn’t go into Chicago. It gets closer to New York then Chicago. Interstate 88 here is comparable to Interstate 84 with NYC, Interstate 41 is comparable to Future Interstate 86 and Interstate 91 is comparable to Interstate 65. I was told from User talk: Bigpeteb to come here. It is really just as much of a lie as this as saying that US Route 6 goes into New York City, Interstate 30 ends in Fort Worth or Interstate 88(New York)goes into Binghamton or Albany. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:8A 21:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As discussed on Bigpeteb's user talk page, the only thing that matters is whether a road is of practical use in getting to a city. Technical facts not bearing on that aren't very important in a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: in that case Interstate 80 should be mentioned in New York City and Cleavland, Interstate 29 should be mentioned in Omaha, Interstate 59 should be mentioned in Chattenoga and Interstate 95 should be mentioned in Washington DC and Boston! The reason is 80 is within sixteen kilometers of the two cities and provides access to other cities like Chicago(almost)and as well as throughout central Pennsylvania. Interstate 29 is a major highway from Kansas City to Porter, ND, and is on the other side of the Missouri River. Interstate 59 is only a couple miles from Chattenoga, TN(despite ending in a completely different state, Georgia, at Willwood), and provides access to Birmingham and Tuscaloosa, and Interstate 95 is technically in DC(but no access to the rest of the city)and while not directly in Boston connects it to Providence and New York, as well as Portsmouth, NH. A lot of times interstates get very close to cities. Another example is Interstate 86 and 88-they both get very close to Binghamton, NY, and Interstate 88 is also close to Albany, NY(though these cities, at under 100,000 residents, are not major). Interstate 88 is in the same county as the city!
However, then we get too close to cut. Interstate 57 goes cross the state and intersects Interstate 24 over 300 miles, though it does make up part of the connector from St Louis to Atlanta. It intersects Interstate 64 nearly 300 miles away, Interstate 70 at over 200, and sill, Interstate 72 and 74 intersect it 150 miles away! It is like saying Interstate 91 goes into NYC. Anyway, I am leaving for now. Bye! 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:8A 8:22 PM, 29 June 2020 (UTC-4)
Route 80 could be mentioned in New York City#Get in if we decided to go into more detail about how to drive to New York. Interstates that are used to drive between major cities are worth mentioning for practical reasons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Anonymous: I guess you didn't check the examples that you listed. Omaha is missing a "Get in - By car" section, which is an oversight, but Cleveland does mention I-80, Chattanooga does mention I-59, DC and Boston do mention I-95, Binghamton does mention I-86 and I-88, and Albany (New York) does mention I-88. (NYC omits I-80, but that's because it's a huge article with a tendency to bloat, and it's already enough work explaining how to get into the city proper. It's assumed that readers will use a map of some kind to figure out how to get close, as there are far too many options to list them all while keeping the article brief.)
This really ought to indicate that the inclusion of I-80 in Chicago is not a mistake but is a deliberate choice. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Od I see. I would resolve the section if we had that template. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:4B 23:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [unindent] What template? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)