Talk:List of Chicago Landmarks

Featured List Strategy

 * 1) List all Landmarks from the Landmarks list in our table.
 * 2) Add references to each one linking to its individual page.
 * 3) Add NRHP and NHL dates and citations where applicable.
 * 4) Beef up intro.
 * 5) Add a few pix.
 * 6) For any redlinks create very brief stub to make list look good as a WP:FLC.
 * 7) List all new stub creations WikiProject_Chicago page at new pages and stubs in need of work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

List of Registered Historic Places in Chicago
Here's a result of a query of properties on the National Register in Chicago, along with the dates they were listed: Reference:

Some of these names might not agree with the Wikipedia names, especially those that have a person's name in there. The National Register database lists last name first, while Wikipedia articles tend to list the first name first. Also, I don't know how many of these are Chicago Landmarks. I figure this can provide some help toward making the list, though. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you incorporate these into the table on the article page? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

similar article at Landmarks of Chicago
Hi all, dumb question, what will happen to the distinct page Landmarks of Chicago as part of this improvement project? Maybe some of that can be useful...? Thanks... --- User:scbomber (no worries -- only bombs in netrek 05:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I intend to move Chicago Landmark page to List of Chicago landmarks and apply for a WP:FL. This list is exhaustive and Landmarks of Chicago is selective (not completed).  I did not see the other page before starting. They must be merged.  Many of those images will complement this page.  I support a merger of some sort, but will continue with complete listification. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the merger due to exhaustive nature of list and the extensive background and criteria in this article. Will add some pics, but a gallery or link to content on wikicommons could be placed at the bottom.  ChicagoPimp 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The big problem is that this article is about officially-designated landmarks, and the other one is about any old "landmark" including tourist attractions. It might be given a different name rather than merged.--Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, the unofficial list should be deleted per WP:OR and redirected to this page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 13:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article/list is following featured list criteria: inclusive, exhaustive, credible sources, and well referenced.  ChicagoPimp 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about List of notable buildings and structures in Chicago and trim accordingly? There are a number of entries that aren't or can't be "landmarks" nor that fit on the "tallest" list. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The other page should be deleted and the photos and usable info should be added to this article. TheQuandry 14:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Splitting this article?
I note the comments directly above however this article is now almost 100kbs in size and quite unwieldy. Can I suggest we split this article by moving the table List of landmarks to overwrite the list that is at the page List of landmarks in Chicago and pointing in this article (using see main article) to that page - that will overcome the valid point made by ChicagoPimp above and also adjust the size of both articles to be workable? I would be happy to do this for you - let me know your thoughts.-- VS talk 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Most definitely a good move, then the list could be worked up to FL. I would say do it. IvoShandor 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually this could be featured list as it is a list. IvoShandor 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay - have been bold and adjuseted both articles which reduces this one to a workable size and sets up List of landmarks in Chicago for potential featured list status.-- VS talk 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally don't like the changes because the list has no intro and the proper intro is separate here. Now neither the article nor the list is WP:FC caliber.  The list needs the sidebar pics as well to be WP:FC caliber. Also, an article can do no better than WP:GA class with a gallery. Using a gallery is a big backward step and it is against policy. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahmmm that's your call Tony - no offence taken. I was trying to help with some sound decision making relating to the size of the Chicago Landmark article - points to which I note in the following... (1) Gallery was only set up by me to retain the images somewhere for the time being or so that the pictures could be adjusted perhaps in the format shown in this FA article - or they could go to a gallery on commons with a pointer on this page however with respect the area quoted by you as policy is in fact not currently active and is no longer relevant - see top of that page?; (2) I understand the list article did not have a particularly impressive lead but that could be fixed quite easily, and finally but most importantly (3) this article will almost certainly have to be split to reach WP:FA and probably even WP:GA simply because to pass the first (and in most cases the second) editors must follow the WP:MOS.  Part of that Manual of Style includes the policy that articles over 100KB (and this article is already well over that size before the extra details are added) almost certainly should be divided up Cheers!-- VS  talk 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(posting copy of talk page detail here for centralised record) **The intention was always to make this a WP:FL. The text may have trouble at WP:GA. As far as WP:FLC the format is good with sidebar picks and brief intro. WP:FA is a whole other animal. I am inquiring whether the listy article would have a chance at WP:GAC's talk page. If not, it will go straight to WP:FLC where except for preponderent redlinks it probably has a good shot. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. let me know if this reversion is stable or contentious because we should blank the separate list for speedy deletion if so. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing is contentious with me Tony - blank what you need to. However whether you/we are going to FA or FL is not the issue - am I missing the main point or are you? - Tell me how do you/we get past the massive problem of breach of MOS policy with page size if you present this page at WP:FLC?-- VS  talk 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Other info
Not sure where this would go, with this article probably. Obviously, the landmark process in Chicago (as in other major cities) is especially politically charged and often generates significant controversey. Such as:

"In Chicago, a lawsuit challenging the city's landmarks ordinance has been filed in response to historic district designations. I believe it is presently known as "Albert C. Hanna and Carol C. Mrowka vs. the City of Chicago, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks,... etc.". It's a lengthy complaint containing many arguments. Among them are the suggestion that historic district designations are a tool for racial segregation. It also claims that historic district designations are being used as an improper substitution for failed downzoning attempts. It also claims that the criteria used to justify proposed landmark status are so broad that they are meaningless and really don't exclude any structure anywhere. This is all of particular concern in a place like Chicago where machine politics and "aldermanic prerogative" have a history of making a mockery of rule of law."

-From Historic district talk page.

This is but one example. To be thorough and NPOV this side of Chicago landmarks should be shown as it is not a fringe minority view or anything. IvoShandor 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

--I do believe this would be excellent material for the yet-to-be-created Commission on Chicago Landmarks page (maybe some of the detail on criteria could be there too, with a "main article" reefer here? User:scbomber (only bombs in netrek) 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions
I see you are aiming for FL status and have been discussing whether to have an article and a list, or keep the current combined one.

The WP:FLC ask for


 * 2c a concise lead section that summarizes the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections

It could be argued that the text before the list constitutes the lead and is neither concise nor a summary. However, there are other FL with longish leads (e.g. List of United States Navy ratings and United States Navy enlisted rates). Do you intend to write more on the subject of Chicago Landmarks? If so, having a separate article will allow for expansion, which I wouldn't recommend if combined with the list. Moving the list out to a dedicated article would currently leave this as a short article but I don't know enough about GA if that concerns you. Certainly, it would be quite acceptable for an FL to have just a paragraph or two of lead, and refer to this article as the "main". If you decide to put forward this article as an FL, then there may be objections to its name not being obviously a list. See also List guideline.

Recent similar FLs include:


 * Grade I listed buildings in Bristol
 * List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 * List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon

The last one (Avon) includes a novel method of compactly listing the sources that all come from one publisher. It doesn't use the numbered footnotes for these but it is still obvious which citation corresponds to which entry in the list. If you are willing to be flexible on exactly how the sources for your list entries are indicated, this might be a compact method you could use. For dynamic lists (such as many lists of people) FL usually requires inline citations for each one since it is too easy for someone to add a duff name. But, since you have a reference that lists all the Landmarks in one place, someone can easily tell if a name should be one the list or not.

You appear to have two main sources:


 * City of Chicago Dept. of Pl. and Devpmt., Landmarks Div.
 * National Park Service.

I think you could use the Avon technique for both of these. It would lead to much shorter article, both in terms of source KB and also final page. You've got several screen's-worth of references that just repeat boring stuff. Doing this would also highlight the individual one-off footnotes that are used for the odd entry or fact.

The FLC 2b suggests a hierarchy, if appropriate. This is a very long list. I suggest you consider breaking it into sections by area as defined in this map?

Regards, Colin°Talk 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GA failed
This is a list and therefore cannot become a Good article. You have to go straight to Featured list if you want it promoted. --Maitch 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC) You could also try a peer review if you want feedback. --Maitch 20:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple things

 * Images aren 't recommended against having designated sizes per this section of the MOS, the exception is a lead image that illustrates the topic well. This might be an issue at WP:FL, and even if not should be corrected.
 * Is the Fort King Site known by any other name? Does anyone know anything about this place?
 * Because of its NRHP reference number: 76000686, I am inclined to believe that the Fort King Site was added to the National Register of Historic Places the same date as its NHL designation. As a note, Fort King doesn't turn up in the NRIS database at all. I will have to pour over HAARGIS to see what I come up with.

IvoShandor 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a message at Tony's talk page regarding Fort King. There is a Fort King in Florida, but I can't find a similarly named place in Chicago. Oddly enough, the NHL's Fort King entry seems to be erronously titled.  I think it's describing the Robert Abbott house, an NHL which is in Chicago (see 1st entry), but is not mentioned anywhere on our page. Zagalejo 00:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The colors!
Are the colors in the list really necessary? In most cases, readers can infer that a landmark is a church, school, etc. I just think the colors are a distraction, and they make the list difficult to read. Zagalejo 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the colors are too intense, especially the red. Aren't there more pastels available? Why don't theaters get a color? Speciate 00:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lose the colors. Why do some rows have multiple colors?  The red squares are completely illegible.  If you need the information the colors include, whatever is, add another column.Shsilver 23:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Red removed and replaced with aqua. It should be clear from the legend that a building might be both a Skyscraper and an Apartment Building for example.  Thus, it gets two colors. In almost every other table where colors help to quickly identify similar table elements it is considered a good thing.  I hope you guys are just against the red.  I have moved the legend for explanatory purposes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it would be more useful, we could switch to something more subtle like List of British Columbia general elections. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that might be a little bit better. Zagalejo 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think something like the BC election example would be excellent. Speciate 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Those colors look pretty bad. It's like a flashback or something. IvoShandor 00:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with IvoShandor. I still think adding an additional column with the information and getting rid of all the colors works better. For instance:

Shsilver 11:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I am not sure what you are suggesting because your example did not seem to work. I am guessing you are saying also make the chart subtle by just having a sample column of the color. I think we are pretty well pressed up against the 100kb suggested page size capacity. I believe adding another column would increase KB usage significantly. Anyone is free to attempt to make changes however. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless the City of Chicago denotes official categories for these landmarks, I think we should drop the classification scheme altogether. If users want to learn more about a particular structure, they can click on the link. Zagalejo 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The colors should definitely go. On top of being aesthetically unpleasing to the eye, it looks like a disco club on acid, it is useless. No one is going to remember the ten colors and what classification (which is seemingly just some made up scheme-read OR) they represent half way down the page. Thus they will have to scroll back up. It's utterly useless. IvoShandor 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see three voices opposing these colors. They should be removed. IvoShandor 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Make that 4. Besides being too garish, there are too many colors to keep track of, the list is too long for easy scrolling to look back at the key to the colors, and the use of two colors for some (high-rise apartments, for example) is not easy for a reader to understand. -- DS1953 talk  21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am certainly willing to nix the colors if it is the right thing to do. I have put in a call to the godfather of lists User:Circeus on what the proper thing to do is.  I am hoping he will post an opinion here or on my talk page and if he wants to keep them, I would fight to keep them and suggest you consider his opinion.  If he thinks they should go since he is the expert on list I will promptly remove them.  --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

undent "Godfather of lists"? LOL Ahem. There are several valid points here, and I'm throwing in a personal thought: So, in the end, it comes down to: "Is the 'type' classification official and is it necessary to reflect it in the list?" Circeus 01:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's generally viewed badly on Internet to convey information by colors only. This alone would justify the addition of a column. (see also Guide to writing better articles)
 * However, if the classification scheme is not actually used by the Chicago landmark commission (?), there's no real point in using it in the first place
 * Additionally, adding a columns would be squeezing too much information in the space we have (at least on 1024x800 displays, not to mention smaller resolutions), and would probably require the images to be dropped
 * I too agree the colors could use some toning down (although that can be taken care of with a search/replace).
 * It is unofficial. I will remove colors tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't really want to remove the colors, but will not contest those who want to remove them. Any of you above are free to remove them. I am essentially saying I hope not to have to spend my time undoing something I don't want to see undone. I will not be reverting it tomorrow.  Anyone who thinks it is important to undo is free to undo the colors, however. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling refs
Why are the refs in a scrolling box? Not only would they not print but it looks like we're trying to hide something. Anyone else? IvoShandor 02:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I had gotten rid of these! *goes to undo* Circeus 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated Landmark list
As of 2008-02-17 the landmark commission had not updated the city web page with new listings since Jewelers Row District was designated on 2003-07-09. Thus all promotions starting with Pulaski Park Fieldhouse which was promoted on 2003-07-29 are not included. However, upon request one can obtain a .pdf of the current list of Chicago Landmarks as of 2008-01-01. I have posted this .pdf on my personal webpage. It had been anticipated that the website would be updated in January 2008 according to a November phone call to the commission. However, since it is not clear when such an update will occur, I am going to begin updating our list without an official public release of the update based on documents that are available upon request by the public. At this time, four additional Landmarks have been designated in 2008 and will also be added. Over the next week, I will be adding these landmarks to this page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also posted my excerpted list of New Landmarks, which is merely a Microsoft word documents of Landmarks I saw that were missing from the Wikipedia list. In addition the commission sent me a word document with 2008 landmark designations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please help us fill in the redlinks as they are added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We should start with the Marshall Field Bldg, it should be the easiest to research and photograph (or obtain photographs of). Many of the others are districts, which are more difficult. And all those fire stations? I dunno. Speciate (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to have an article on Humboldt Park, the park. Instead of writing separate articles on the Humboldt Park Boathouse Pavilion and the Humboldt Park Receptory Building and Stable, I think we should start with a general article about the park, and redirect the redlinks there. Thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 03:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Footnoting NRHP and NHL dates
If you are updating the list-article, you might want to consider providing/expanding generic footnotes to the top of NRHP date column and NHL date column, and dropping many footnotes from within those columns that just support one individual date. Specific footnotes do belong in the articles about the individual sites, but I would hope they are not needed in a big list-article like this one. General footnotes along those lines are being used in list-articles such as List of National Historic Landmarks in New York and other list-articles on Registered Historic Places or NHLs, in lieu of separate footnotes (although none of those list-articles are yet Featured Lists). But certainly every NHL date can be supported by just one reference to the National Park Service's PDF list of NHLs nation-wide, which includes every NHL date, and which is used in the NY NHL list-article. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the top of the NHL date column does footnote the NPS's NHL list for Illinois. In NHL list-articles, more common practice now is to cite the nation-wide list in one document which includes that, as the nation-wide list has more clear identifiers of authorship by the Department of the Interior and clear date of preparation.  Anyhow, with either version of this list cited, can't the individual NHL date footnotes be dropped entirely? doncram (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Frihost - Free php hosting - Webhosting with php, ftp and mysql
Is this advertising ? He is everywhere on this page (smile) Lars 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Overhauling page
Does anyone know how to overhaul our page to make it look like List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I like that your page is differently formatted than that Los Angeles one, which i helped to develop recently. But, if you really wanted to make it look more the same you could merge in the new Chicago list-table that i have created within a temporary list-article List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois/Temp.  The Chicago list there was created the same way that the List of RHPs in Los Angeles table was created.  It should cover all the NHLs and other NRHPs that are covered in the current List of Chicago Landmarks article, and would give u a good start.  If you want to keep the scope of this List of Chicago Landmarks article to be just the Chicago-designated landmarks, then you will have to delete some rows out of that table, meaning the ones that are NRHPs in Chicago which are not also Chicago-designated landmarks.  Or, perhaps you could set those aside in a new table, like you have a table for NHLs that are not also Chicago-designated landmarks.


 * My general intention for the List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois/Temp article would be to spin off a separate list-article on RHPs in Chicago (unless you want to integrate it into this List of Chicago Landmarks), spin off a list-article on RHPs in Evanston, and use the remainder table to replace the current List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois article. Before doing so, all the neighborhood info and other info in the current article would need to be translated over.  Please discuss at the Talk page to the current RHPs in Cook County article. doncram (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What I really want is to know if you can add all the coordinates to the Chicago Landmark list. Also one of your NRHP coordinates is off based on looking at the map of all coordinates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for liking the coordinates map attached to the List of RHPs in Chicago. I actually didn't yet know the map was displaying at all, it must have just been processed and/or approved by Google Maps, after 4-5 days.  I was concerned that it was over some unstated size limit, with having towards 300 locations mapped, more than any other Google map that i've worked with.  Anyhow, i am thrilled it is now displaying!
 * Thanks also for the tip that some coordinates appear incorrect. The coordinates data for that map is from the National Register Information System (NRIS), which has some errors but is pretty good overall.  I just deleted coordinates for three of the 290 or so: NRIS coordinates had placed Old Colony Buildings out in the lake, and had put Chicago Board of Trade and Mies van der Rohe's Buildings at 860-880 Lake Shore Drive far out in Illinois, perhaps a hundred miles off.  It will take Google Maps a few days again, probably, to no longer show those.
 * It certainly would be possible to create a similar map for the Chicago Landmarks, since it seems to be established that Google Maps will accept this many locations. There seem to be 292 Chicago Landmarks, slightly fewer than 296 Chicago NRHPs.  One difficulty, by the way, is choosing a single location to use to identify any large park or other Historic District.
 * There may be better ways to do this, but one way to proceed would be to cut-and-paste the coordinates from the List of RHPs in Chicago for the 100 or so sites that are both NRHPs and Chicago Landmarks, into this List of Chicago Landmarks. And then you could manually collect coordinates for the other Chicago Landmarks.  You can get the precise latitude and longitude numbers needed from Google map looking at a specified address.  Conversion to/from decimal format to days-minutes-seconds format of numbers may be needed, but there are converter tools available (including one that i linked from wp:NRHPMOS).  With a list-article that includes coordinates in  a table or anywhere else, the map is generated by simply adding  to the list-article where you want "Map of all coordinates" link to appear.  So it is very doable.  You might want to check with the Chicago Landmarks Commission, if they have a spreadsheet or other file with the latitude and longitude info already.  And you may want to post at WT:NRHP to reach others more focused on this stuff, about what tools to use to do this more efficiently.
 * However, perhaps you could start by helping to add coordinates for the relatively few sites that are missing them, in List of RHPs in Chicago? That might make more sense, to clean one list-article up with respect to this, first, and your help there would certainly be appreciated.  Thanks again, and hope this helps, anyhow! doncram (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We now have a nightmare. Instead of overhauling their old website, they have created a http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarks.jsp new website].  Now, we not only need to add dozens of website, but also redo all the old so that everything is referencing the new website.  I am not a coordinates guy.  Usually my co-authors get them for me.  I will come spend some time with your page and see how I can help, though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As to "Google Earth/Maps processing", using template GeoGroupTemplate; When the user selects "Map of all coordinates", Wiki tools dynamically creates the KML/KMZ which is read by Google Maps or imported into Google Earth. So no batch processing is performed, and there is no "delay".  This is different than template Coord | display=title or Location | display=title Google Earth/Maps processing where they (Google) "data mine" through Wiki articles to find those articles with a primary "title" coordinate defined for the page, which they do periodically, but I am not sure how often (I notice some "old" articles which I updated (months ago) now appearing on Google Earth/Maps, but not articles which I updated relatively recently (days/weeks).  Some template InfoBox(es) automatically set the display=title parameter.  Which column/field do you want coordinates in?  the Location column or a new Coordinates column? LeheckaG (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

more Chicago landmarks than listed?
I was counting the number of Chicago landmarks to mention elsewhere, and notice an apparent discrepancy. From this listing at Chicago Landmarks Commission, i figure there are 292 city-designated landmarks: (My quick count, which should be checked, is tallied as: Numbered sites:4 (cumulative: 4) A:14 (cumulative: 18) B:13 (31) C:29 (60) D:9 E:20 (89) f:13 g:8 (110) h:15 i:6 (131) j:8 K:8 (147) L:11 (158) m:25 (183) n:8 (191) o:11 (202) p:15 q:1 (218) r:13 (231) S:27 (258) t:9  u:5 (272) v:2 w:16 (290) y:2 (cumulative total: 292) ). In this list-article, though, while there is pretty much one footnote per landmark, there are only 280 footnotes. So the list-article is missing some, n'est-ce pas? doncram (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The list on this page was based on updated designations as of January 2008. See current ref #16.  It seems that the city has added about 4 years of pages to their list to October or November 2007.  At some point someone needs to change all the citations to the city pages like the rest of the listings.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

adding coordinates
With the "GeoGroupTemplate" that displays "Map of all coordinates" in place, just added by LeheckaG, we could start adding latitude and longitude locations of all the Chicago landmarks listed here. Earlier, elsewhere, I commented to LeheckaG that we should practice on a separate copy of this article, but actually i see no problem with adding coordinate tags in here directly, right with the addresses. As was done with List of octagon houses, and List of RHPs in LA recently. I don't think it would cause any big problem with the current layout, so why not? doncram (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact i just tried adding coordinates for a couple sites. It may take a day or two before the "Map of all coordinates" shows them, there seems to be some delay at Google, maybe there is a manual check that applies for some kinds of usage (while for other examples i have found the Google map to be created instantly). doncram (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Reposting (from section above): As to "Google Earth/Maps processing", using template GeoGroupTemplate; When the user selects "Map of all coordinates", Wiki tools dynamically creates the KML/KMZ which is read by Google Maps or imported into Google Earth. So no batch processing is performed, and there is no "delay".  This is different than template Coord | display=title or Location | display=title Google Earth/Maps processing where they (Google) "data mine" through Wiki articles to find those articles with a primary "title" coordinate defined for the page, which they do periodically, but I am not sure how often (I notice some "old" articles which I updated (months ago) now appearing on Google Earth/Maps, but not articles which I updated relatively recently (days/weeks).  Some template InfoBox(es) automatically set the display=title parameter.  Which column/field do you want coordinates in?  the Location column or a new Coordinates column?

Neighborhoods
I think it might be useful to add a column to the table which lists the neighborhood the Landmark is found in, I know I personally use the neighborhood designations to hunt down and visit properties on the National Register. Those lists include the neighborhood, such as: National Register of Historic Places listings in North Side Chicago. Thoughts? IvoShandor (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Reorganize list by type?
Right now there are several Chicago Landmark templates that link to other templates in the last row of links. This doesn't seem like the best way of doing things. The long list of landmarks on this page is broken apart alphabetically, which also seems a little unwieldy. One could kill two birds with one stone by reorganizing this list by type of landmark (Apartments, Culture, Education, Districts, Houses, Memorials and monuments, Municipal buildings, Skyscrapers, Transportation, Worship). Then the templates could link to the appropriate sub section of this list. Thoughts? Fitnr (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Need to add to list
There are several Schlitz Brewery buildings which need to be added to the list. Anyone up to the task, we appreciate your help! Funandtrvl (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Added them! Just 10 years late on your request. Of course, we still need to turn those red links to blue but I will get to that later. IntegrityPen (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 60 external links on List of Chicago Landmarks. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/web/ordinance.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hydeparkhistory.org/cornellaward.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009042000/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=915&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=915&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060222/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=-684823132&ResourceType=District to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=-684823132&ResourceType=District
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305023711/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=916&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=916&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071207154927/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1796&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1796&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605215530/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1989164123&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1989164123&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060556/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=917&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=917&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060417/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1818611782&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1818611782&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060344/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1615&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1615&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303145201/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1752&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1752&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150405180502/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=204&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=204&ResourceType=Site
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1393
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=12151
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1397
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1398
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1527
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1399
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1401
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/districtDetail.do?disID=26
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=11383
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1406
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1407
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1408
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1410
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1413
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010025846/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=206&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=206&ResourceType=Building
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=11391
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1415
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605225900/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=919&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=919&ResourceType=Building
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1362
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1419
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1420
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1421
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1525
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/zlup/provdrs/hist/news/2010/jul/landmark_commissionrecommendsshorelandhotelfor.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1524
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1526
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1429
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1526
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1431
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606203421/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=207&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=207&ResourceType=Building
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1434
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1435
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1436
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1437
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1438
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1438
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1444
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1448
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=11394
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1449
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1453
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1522
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/districtDetail.do?disID=36
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1458
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1460
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060434/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1983&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1983&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212012307/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1613&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1613&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060349/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1616&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1616&ResourceType=Building

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of Chicago Landmarks. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/designations/Lists/IL01.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060233/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=-814529574&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=-814529574&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010085453/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1618&ResourceType=District to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1618&ResourceType=District
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606051600/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1755&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1755&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528154217/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceID=1223&resourceType=Structure to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceID=1223&resourceType=Structure
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preservation/Minutes/CCLSep2013Minutes.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605223418/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1434&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1434&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060458/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=209115252&ResourceType=District to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=209115252&ResourceType=District
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123084531/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1614&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1614&ResourceType=Site
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605215321/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1754&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1754&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628070526/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1984&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1984&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212012351/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2065&ResourceType=Structure to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=2065&ResourceType=Structure
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605224427/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1537&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1537&ResourceType=Building

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Chicago Landmarks. 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/20080303145121/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1536&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1536&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303145151/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1617&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1617&ResourceType=Building

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Chicago Landmarks. 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/20071114222659/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceID=205&resourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceID=205&resourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060309/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1328&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceID=1328&resourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060409/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1753&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1753&ResourceType=Building
 * Added tag to http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/084_June_2009_LM_Agenda,pdf.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605223556/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=817&ResourceType=District to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=817&ResourceType=District
 * Added tag to http://egov.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/pdf/LandmarksBooklet,pdf.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/U/UnityHall.htmlhttp%3A//webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=1442
 * Added tag to http://egov.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/pdf/2009_Annual_Report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060329/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1612&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1612&ResourceType=Building

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Buckingham Fountain in Chicago, USA.jpg

Two suggestions for improvement that I am happy to implement
I'm in the process of cleaning up this page, and you can see my to-do list on my user page. Already, I've found many Chicago landmarks that were not on the list. I'm adding them, but as I get deep into this and am thinking ahead, I have a couple of suggestions that I'm going to implement unless somebody objects:

1. Landmark districts are different from landmarks. Having them in the same table makes it harder to see them, and, from an end-user experience, I believe the commingling works against the page's usefulness, rather than for it. So I intend to create a separate section for landmark districts, explain what they are, and then put the districts in their own table.

2. Related to the above, it's not widely understood but a notable building that is in a landmark district is not necessarily itself a Chicago landmark. For example, consider the Chicago Bee Building. It is called out as notable in the Black Metropolis District landmark district documentation and it gets protection from being in the district. But it's not actually a Chicago landmark, and yet it is listed on this page as if it were. There are several others that are, to my mind, incorrectly listed here as landmarks, and yet at the same time there are many buildings called out in the districts' documentation that are not in this page's list of landmarks. Again, I would propose pulling out the non-landmark buildings into a new section with a new table; maybe the section is "Noteworthy landmark district buildings" or something like that.

I realize some people, mostly years ago, have spent a ton of time on this page. Thank you for all that work. If you are still around and interested in this page, pleaes let me know what you think of the above. I think both of these steps, 1 and 2, will make the page stronger. But I don't want to mess with your masterpiece too much without your blessing. If I don't hear from anyone, I'll make the changes above although it could be a couple weeks before I get it done. IntegrityPen (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your improvements.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)