Talk:Chicago skyline guide

Exceptions

In my edit, I said "With a few exceptions, virtually all of these buildings are all in the Loop, Near North, and Near South." I only said that in case I had overlooked something, though - are any of these buildings anywhere other than those three areas? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 09:44, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

You are right, they are all in our Central Chicago districts. As a matter of fact, though, I think that One Museum Park may be the only one in the Near South, although I'm not feeling up to checking that right now. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:16, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I didn't see any others, so I rephrased that sentence. Also, the Wikimedia Commons page for the West Side view says it's from the Green Line Ashland station near the UC, not the Orange Line Ashland near Chinatown, so I switched that. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 20:55, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

WTP exclusion & ads

My feeling is that this article probably shouldn't go into the printed guidebook, as its format is not particularly well suited. All the same, I think it would be appropriate to add a WTP Chicago ad to this page, as the guidebook would be just as much of interest to a reader of this page as to any of the other pages, although it would not itself appear in the book. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 02:58, 6 November 2007 (EST)

No, the panoramas couldn't be used. Is it conceivable, though, that someone would be interested in it (minus the photos) for the sake of the Tall Buildings, Neatly Listed, Organized, and Described? I'd be interested to hear some opinions. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:07, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps—there is some information in this article that I would like a reader of the book to hear. Some of the more iconic buildings (Smurfit-Stone, Chase Tower, Lake Point Tower, CNA Tower) only get any real mention here. I was thinking of maybe adding them as "see" listings for the Loop, but what I would want to write about them is already in this article :)

Without inclusion of this article, I would want to direct interested readers from the book to here. We'll need to do something with the text of the main article already, as it suggests that readers check out the (not linked in print) skyline guide for more information. Perhaps both the inclusion of information here in the Loop article, and a notification in the book to check out this article for further information, would be doable by way of the {{print only}} and {{web only}} tags? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 01:14, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Refreshing panoramas

The skyline is looking quite different now that the Trump Tower is finally finished. Unfortunately, no CC-licensed nor PD panoramas have cropped up since, so these images are pretty out of date. If anyone knows of new images we could use (or better yet, wants to make them themselves), please put a link up on this talk page! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:25, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I've created a banner from May 2018 for consideration: --Romain.pontida (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Current banner

Very nice, but I prefer the current one. When you propose a new pagebanner, it's polite and helpful to include the one in current use on the page, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Star nomination

I was not planning to nominate this because I felt too unsure of what travel topic stars are supposed to look like. Indeed, I was more worried that it might get voted for deletion as a non-article. But I figure that as long as we're reviewing travel topic star-ification, we might as well have more fuel for discussion.

This topic is fairly narrow, and while it still might be a stretch to say that this article covers the topic "fully," there are certainly no obvious omissions and any more coverage would be over-saturation. Listings match the MoS, but layout? It is not possible nor desirable to try and come up with a layout in the MoS for every type of travel topic. In any rate, this layout makes sense to me.

I'm curious to see what opinions are on this one; in my view there aren't really any changes that could significantly improve it. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Support. In terms of the description of what a star topic should look like, the article appears to cover the topic well enough (although you might need someone with at least some knowledge of Chicago to confirm that though!), the listings match the MoS and the layout used works for this article, which is what matters - travel topics are incredibly diverse so there's no sense in creating a standard layout. The annotated photos of the skyline are the equivalent of the required map. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 13:05, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Support. The article seems to do a great job of covering the subject, at least as far as I can tell having never been to Chicago. All the buildings listed appear in at least once of the pictures, so it looks pretty complete. The only thing I can suggest is to find addresses for the Dirksen Federal Building and the Metropolitan Correctional Center. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 16:47, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Good catch, I've added the addresses. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:26, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Support. I live in Chicago and know this subject reasonably well — and this article covers the topic better than I know it. Good mix of data and trivia, a great idea well-executed. As the article acknowledges, though, there are a lot of new buildings going up right now — the photos will have to be refreshed every so often. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:46, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Support. Great job. It will benefit any visitor (like me). (WT-en) 2old 10:30, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Google rank

I just noticed this page is Google's #1 search result for Chicago skyline! Wikivoyage's score according to PageRank checkers is still 6, but it seems like we've somehow moved up nonetheless—I'm now edging out Sen. Peter Fitzgerald's Wikipedia page... --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 12:31, 23 November 2009 (EST)

Well done Peter :). The back-link register of the article is here (according to Yahoo which is much more forthcoming with such data than is Google) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:37, 23 November 2009 (EST)

Wolf Point

For anyone interested in Wolf Point, this blog piece was a really good read. --Peter ^Talk 07:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Willis Tower

Here, the wording change to reflect the ascendency of 1 WTC unfortunately seems to give the impression that the WTC is the only building in the world to have surpassed the Willis Tower in height. I tried to edit it to indicate this, but failed to come up with a concise wording. LtPowers (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, what building are you talking about? Oh right ;) I've changed it a bit to right this wrong. --05:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As usual, you manage to thread the needle of confusion and sew the correct tone to the article. LtPowers (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "whored out" is a bit strong. We get a lot of people trying to change it. Any chance we could tone it down a smidge? LtPowers (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think whored out is the right meaning, though. Changes are most likely coming from people who just take offense at seeing the word "whore" in print, so a euphemism might take care of concerns. "Pimped out"? Exploited at the expense of the city's history and culture for crass financial gain? It's rightly considered one of the worst, if not the worst, corporate renamings in history. --Peter ^Talk 19:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The worst in what way? Lots of corporate buildings change names. Is it just the iconic stature of the Sears Tower? LtPowers (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. --Peter ^Talk 23:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Article name: Chicago skyline?

The current title, Chicago skyline guide, looks awkwardly self-referential. Shall we drop "guide", and call it Chicago skyline? Compare Talk:Kimono buying guide. /Yvwv (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, and again, I don't understand how it's "self-referential". To me, that would be something like "When I went to Chicago, I saw the Sears Tower, Wrigley Field, etc." Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither destination articles (such as Chicago) nor travel topics (such as Ice hockey in North America) have the word "guide" in them. "Chicago skyline" would be a sufficient article name. /Yvwv (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the word guide in the title is superfluous or self-referential. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)