Talk:4th ward, Chicago

PROD

(Copied from User talk:TonyTheTiger) Hi Tony, I'm puzzled as to why you nommed a Chicago ward for deletion [1]. (I found this at the Article Rescue project page). I think all the wards have significant coverage in the book Chicago politics, ward by ward [2] apart from all the city-based info and local paper coverage. Could you explain? (My preference would be at the article's talk page, more centralized point). Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I got the message that you left on my talk page. It is copied above. I did not know that WP:PROD's show up at WP:ARS. I did not nominate this for deletions (WP:AFD). I am just not that keen on Municipal wards as encyclopedic electoral districts. Even in Chicago, which is and internationally important city, these are a notch down the importance scale from Community areas of Chicago, which have permanence. Wards move around every 10 years just like state and federal legislative districts. Although there seems to be some agreement that federal legislative districts such as Illinois's 2nd congressional district (where I live) are encyclopedic, there does not even seem to be precedent for state level legislative districts to have pages. Not even the state districts that Barack Obama served have been created. I have done a lot of politician articles and am not familiar with any state districts having been created. Even districts that get national press. E.g., whatever district the new Yankee Stadium is in probably received a lot of widespread press about funding battles and such, but I don't even think NYC state legislative districts have page. Chicago could use better coverage of neighborhoods that have stubs. I don't see the effort to create 50 ward pages as worthwhile. Whereas, the Encyclopedia of Chicago has extensive articles for each community area, it does not have articles for wards, which to me says that they are not encyclopedic in the right way. Yes there are articles about wards in the press. However wards keep moving which makes them less important. I just don't see this as a worthwhile effort, but I do not make a consensus. Feel free to pursue consensus and to argue via WP:GNG. I think this is a case where GNG may lead to the wrong conclusion, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Boy, I would've thought I've been here long enough to stop being surprised. I'm sure we both know Chicago politics junkies who could talk for half an hour nonstop about any given ward and its history and how/why its borders shifted. (With only about half of it being their interpretations.) But I'm not really willing to do the work that sounds necessary. Thanks for the reply, Novickas (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 4th Ward, 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/20170403002828/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160201/kenwood/ald-will-burns-resigns-leaves-4th-ward-seat-vacant-goes-airbnb to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160201/kenwood/ald-will-burns-resigns-leaves-4th-ward-seat-vacant-goes-airbnb

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) 06:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)