This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcities,towns and various othersettlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
This page is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Considering that the referenced discussion has since been closed, the current discussion exists below.
And, I've invited the editors who commented on the ANI about me to comment on the below discussion, in order to help find a resolution to the situation of content in the Homer Glen article.ClarkKentWannabe (talk)21:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance needed with situation concerning disputed content...
There is some content under dispute related to articles about municipalities (Homer Glen,Orland Park,Midlothian, etc.), and so far, discussions opened about the content have reached a stalemate, due to two groups of editors having conflicting opinions.The content under dispute, relating to the "Government" section of articles of some municipalities, is a wikitable listing the current elected members (Mayor, Clerk, Trustees, etc.) of certain smaller municipalities (smaller than cities).
Now, in one discussion last month (July 2025) on the user (@Magnolia677:)'s talk page (here),@Glman: had reprimanded them, stating thatWP:USCITIES guideline is aWikiProject guideline, notWikipedia guideline (as in, USCITIES guideline does not extend to the site as a whole). Magnolia677 was also reminded by glman that the "frontpage" for WP:USCITIES itself statesWhile it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing. And, in another discussion earlier this year (May 2025), also on Magnolia677's talk page (here),@Marcus Markup: had reprimanded them for removing relevant information from the article forDolton, Illinois about the scandal concerning former Dalton Mayor & former Thornton Township Supervisor Tiffany Henyard. As of recently, through engaging in a discussion about the disputed content launched on Homer Glen's talk page (here) by me (where both myself &@Uraveragejoe: proceeded, in a way, to reprimand Magnolia677 a seemingly third time for, apparently, once again misusing & misinterpreting policy on here), Magnolia677 attracted the attention of@Reywas92 andSbmeirow:, who proceeded to agree with Magnolia677's stance on WP:USCITIES guideline.
So, it would seem Magnolia677 insists on engaging in disruptive behavior by blatantly misusing (& therefore, misinterpreting) policy on here to argue, and therefore themself determine, what content does & does not belong in Wikipedia articles.
In fact, on my talk page (here), Magnolia677 has accused me of "plotting" against themself, Sbmeirow, & Reywas92 by simply discussing with Uraveragejoe how to deal with the three of them (here; I admit I wrongly engaged in a personal attack towards Magnolia677 in the discussion on Uraveragejoe's talk page (by referring to Magnolia677, Sbmeirow, & Reywas92 as "the three idiot editors"), and on the request of Magnolia677, I have since removed the personal attack, but I will not apologize for consulting with other Wikipedia editors in order to figure out how to deal with what I consider to be disruptive behavior (misuse of policy) by disruptive editors).
And now, even at the time of this posting, Reywas92 has proceeded to utilize Magnolia677's stance (so far proven to be misuse of WikProject guideline as Wikipedia policy) to remove content similar to what's being disputed from the articles for Midlothian and Orland Park. So now, it's even Reywas92 engaging in the same behavior as Magnolia677.
So, I am asking for help from the WP:USCITIES WikiProject in achieving a resolution to this situation.
NOTE: The link to the discussion on Homer Glen's talk page (here) no longer links to an active discussion, as I, the discussion's creator, chose to close it yesterday.ClarkKentWannabe (talk)23:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you want to ignore everything in this "guideline", yet you want editors that use this same "guideline" to vote in your favor? Also, it takes some real guts to demand that another editor should be reprimanded... right after you called the same editor an improper term. Threats of reprimand against other editors, and long-winded rants about other users past edit history doesn't belong in this talk section. In general, this talk section is meant for the discussion of technical aspects of community articles, thus please stick to that aspect of your concern. Thanks. •Sbmeirow •Talk •13:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I simply stated what the main page for WP:USCITIES states in both the lede section (While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing), and right before the "Government" section specifically talks aboutlarge cities (This section should include a description of the local city government, such as the mayor's office, city council or legislature, city manager (if applicable), and how these entities interact.)
And, to re-iterate what the "Government" section says aboutlarge cities:For larger cities, you might include information on the local government politics as well. Avoid listing all city council members, because this information becomes obsolete fairly quickly since a subset of the members typically changes every 1 or 2 years, wrong information is worse than not having it. Avoid listing the heads of every department, because this section is not the yellow pages. Now, that makes sense because government inlarge cities will tend to be quite sizable, compared to smaller government in villages & possibly towns. Now, Uraveragejoe seems to understand how WP:USCITIES guideline (not policy) works when it comes to content for articles about municipalities, & glman seems to understand that what Magnolia677 did in utilizing WikiProject guideline across the entire site was incorrect.
Now, as far as what I believe should happen to you & Magnolia677 as a result of your behavior isn't a part of this discussion, so you trying to insert that here is irrelevant & inappropriate.
However, as I stated both here, as well as in the edit summary for Uraveragejoe's talkpage, I apologized for what I called the three of you & stated that what I did was wrong, while also removing the personal attack.
A major problem for Wikipedia and other websites is "information rot", such as "link rot" where webpages get deleted or moved. On Wikipedia, "name rot" (wrong name for a job) is a major problem for school & community articles, and one of the biggest reasons that we should strive to thin down the use of current-names as much as possible. When I edit community articles: 1) For INFOBOX, I only include "Mayor" (or similar) and "City Manager" (or similar). If I see any council or other employees, I delete them. 2A) For GOVERNMENT SECTION, similar as the infobox, if I see any council or other employees, I delete them. If there is a historical list of mayor names, and if I have the time, then I might add the latest name to this list. •Sbmeirow •Talk •11:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, as it's been pointed with the USCITIES WikiProject:
1. What takes priority above everything in WP:USCITIES (meaning what content WP:USCITIES allows in articles about municipalities) is how, in the main USCITIES article atWP:USCITIES, the lede section states (and I quote): "While it is just a guideline and there areno requirements to follow it in editing" (my emphasis added). So, right away, *any* argument about it being necessary/required/etc. to abide by what WP:USCITIES states in the body of the article is already neutralized by the direct wording of the lede section of USCITIES itself. So, Magnolia677 stating that WP:USCITIES *must* be adhered to is already wrong; the main article itself actually directly states otherwise. And, to make the additional point that USCITIES is a *WikiProject*, and therefore, any guideline stated in the USCITIES article is a *project* guideline; that means it is applicable *only* to the particular project, not to the entire website (meaning anything outside of WP:USCITIES is outside of WP:USCITIES's jurisdiction). That was what glman pointed out to Magnolia677 in the reprimand on Magnolia's talk page that I referenced.
2. WP:USCITIES#Government states:This section should include a description of the local city government,such as the mayor's office, city council or legislature, city manager (if applicable), and how these entities interact. For larger cities, you might include information on the local government politics as well. Avoid listing all city council members. Now, if you notice, the recommendation/suggestion about *not* listing *all city council members* comes *after* WP:USCITIES#Government starts talking about *larger* cities (like New York City, Los Angeles, & Chicago, for example), and that makes sense, because large cities (like those I referenced) will tend to have a large city council (NYC has 51 council districts, LA 15 city council districts, & Chicago 50 wards). But, nowhere else other than in referencing *larger cities* does that recommendation/suggestion about not listing all members of a municipality's legislature appear. And, the sizes of the legislatures that I pointed out for NYC, LA, & Chicago is likely why.ClarkKentWannabe (talk)03:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of what the discussion about the content entails (related to WikiProject & Wikipedia guideline), I believe it should be addressed here, so that a consensus can be reached about Magnolia677's stance.ClarkKentWannabe (talk)21:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In support of my stance that Magnolia677 is wrong in their interpretation of the USCITIES WikiProject policy & guideline, and due to an unintentional CANVASS attempt that resulted in them declining to re-iterate their stance here, I will reference a comment Simonm233 made in theANI about me (and I quote): "I personally find the local consensuses of wikiprojects often become vexing when they assume that editors editing within the scope of a project but outside its auspices say, "no that's silly." See also the wikiproject that declared that certain sources found at RS/N to determine box office totals reliable ran afoul of RS/N participants saying these same sources seemed unreliable for anything. Generally the consensus of a wikiproject is useful right up until it encounters editors who are not members to that project and then consensus should be based around policies and guidelines and around the local consensus of editors at that page."ClarkKentWannabe (talk)00:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Avoid listing all city council members, because this information becomes obsolete fairly quickly since a subset of the members typically changes every 1 or 2 years, wrong information is worse than not having it. Avoid listing the heads of every department, because this section is not the yellow pages."
to the government section in December 2022. @Magnolia677 suggested that we discuss the policy here to see if this policy should stay the same, become stricter, or be reverted. Clarifying what the policy should be would benefit the dispute on theMobile, Alabama article and potentially help make other city articles better. Are there any suggestions on how this policy should be worded better or be changed?EulerianTrail (talk)02:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My stance on the guideline highlights two main points from the project's page:
1. In the lede section, it clearly states, "While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing...". And, in the past, with discussions amongst Sbmeirow, Magnolia677, myself, & other editors, that particular point has been brought up by myself & another editor to Sbmeirow & Magnolia677, as well as the point brought up by another editor to Magnolia677 that WikiProject guidelines do not apply site-wide on here.
2. In the section on "Government", it clearly states, "This section should include a description of the local city government, such as the mayor's office, city council or legislature, city manager (if applicable), and how these entities interact. For larger cities, you might include information on the local government politics as well. Avoid listing all city council members, because this information becomes obsolete fairly quickly since a subset of the members typically changes every 1 or 2 years..." As I've pointed out to Sbmeirow & Magnolia677 in the past, the section clearly directs the note aboutAvoid listing all city council members towardslarger cities, due to the statement's placement in that section (due to larger cities tending to havelarge city councils); in other words, it's not meant for articles aboutsmaller municipalities, as smaller municipalities will tend to havesmaller legislative bodies, like a "Board of Trustees" (which often tends to consist of around 6 members) or such.
All content in Wikipedia must be notable. Therefore, having the word "notable" in the section title is redundant. It implies that non-notable people could be in the article.Blainster (talk)11:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think "notable people" is clearer. "people" implies it just lists people in the city. I'm also interested why a user recently added that it should not be renamed "notable person" when there is only one. I don't see any discussion of that change.glman (talk)12:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Notable" is helpful to the the reader rather than editors who should know better. Most section headings per guidelines are plural even if only one item so far.〜Adflatuss •talk13:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Blainster has already started changing it to "people" (seeRock Springs, Wyoming). I support keeping this section heading "notable people", so readers and editors alike can be assured all names listed are peoplewith articles, and not garage bands, redirects to lists of contestants onAmericas Most Whatever, and favorite high school teachers.Magnolia677 (talk)16:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section name is "Notable people", even if only one person is listed in the section. Section names were established before I arrived and started editing in 2010. There are likely thousands or tens of thousands of articles with this section name, thus there needs to be an extremely good reason to change any section name at this point in time. There really isn't anything critically wrong with using "Notable people". Though I don't have any proof, the word "Notable" may even help stop or slow down drive-by vandalism too. If it was just "People", than random fools & trolls may think they should be able to add their name too. •Sbmeirow •Talk •18:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping it "Notable people", just for the sake of how many non-notable people are already adding themselves to such lists on a regular basis. I believe that number would only increase if we removed the "Notable" part from the section title. At least this way there is an obvious reason when they get reverted for being non-notable, and they don't have the argument that "it didn't say notable". -Adolphus79 (talk)18:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677 While I appreciate your having put this here, it's frankly a bit disrespectful that you didn't feel the need to actually respond to my message yourself, or even acknowledge it, for that matter. Could you? You're otherwise consistently breakingGood Faith andFriendly conduct principles, which evidently doesn't appear very much in line with your self-identification as aWikiFairy.
To whomever responds to this dispute, it would be greatly appreciated if you weighed in on the larger dispute regarding user conduct that the two of us have been engaged in recently. To maintain such a third party's neutrality, I will not provide additional details.
Though recognizing that I am not 100% in the right in this regard either, and accepting the criticism that may accompany that judgement, I would greatly appreciate some acknowledgement of or means of recourse in relation to the other user's behavior and engagement with other editors, if investigation leads to the conclusion that it's necessary. My point is that I'm not wholly confident that such behavior won't persist when our disagreement has been settled, and would like to leave this dispute with reasonable confidence that there will be a change in the editor's behavior moving forward.
Noticed this morning that theWP:USCITIES shortcut at the top of the guideline page was changed in this diff -1337061825 - and now is justWP:SHORTCUT. The old redirect still works.
Since I'm not officially part of the project and may be unaware of background discussions, perhaps this was done for a coding or some future deprecation reason? Either way, I do think the old redirect should be added back.
You are invited to join the discussion atTemplate talk:Infobox settlement § Rfc: Deprecation of the state and county name in U.S. settlement articles.2600:1700:6180:6290:E53B:9874:8B16:1C3D (talk)16:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
