Talk:Homer Glen, Illinois

---

NOTE: My apologies for launching the unnecessary RfC. I don't very often partake in discussions on here, so I wasn't sure how to go about starting a discussion...

Now, to re-iterate:

@Magnolia677: is arguing that WP:USCITIES#Government dictates to Avoid listing all city council members. However, the articles for Midlothian, Illinois & Orland Park, Illinois both contain a listing for their current municipality's government. As well, there are several articles about the "Politics of [city name]" (Politics of Houston, for example) that feature similar listings for municipal government, despite WP:USCITIES saying not to. And, since those "Politics of [city name]" articles aren't *just* about the municipality's government, but politics in the municipality overall, I would argue WP:USCITIES *is* relevant.

In defense of the Homer Glen article showing a listing of the current members of the Village government, I have pointed out how the "Government" section for WP:USCITIES begins with: 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. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Politics of Houston isn't a city article, so WP:USCITIES isn't relevant. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

How is that page not a city article? Is Houston not a US city? In fact, just for the sake of it, I asked an AI, & even it states "Politics of Houston" *IS* a city article:

AI Overview:

Yes, the Wikipedia page "Politics of Houston" is considered a "city article". City articles on Wikipedia typically cover various aspects of a city's life, including its history, government, economy, culture, and other relevant topics. The "Politics of Houston" page focuses specifically on the city's political structure, government officials, and electoral processes, fitting squarely within the scope of a city article.

Here's why it's considered a city article:

- The page is dedicated to the politics of Houston, making it a specific topic within the larger context of the city. '

- It delves into the city's government structure (Strong Mayor-Council form), elected officials (Mayor, City Controller, City Council), and how the city is run.

- Wikipedia has other articles about Houston, such as the general "Houston" page and pages about its history, economy, and culture. The "Politics of Houston" page is a specialized piece of that broader coverage. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, from looking at WP:USCITIES#Government, it would appear that the initial paragraph more directs your criticism towards articles for *larger* municipalities, *not* smaller ones like Homer Glen: 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.

Not to mention, I've looked at the edit histories for both Midlothian, Illinois and Orland Park, Illinois, and it seems like you never once objected to the insertion in those article of the information I'm arguing belongs in this article.

So, as a result, I'm not only arguing your logic isn't relevant to the "Government" section for this article, as Homer Glen isn't the size of a *larger* city like, say, Chicago; I'm also arguing that you're inconsistently applying Wikipedia policy to this article for Homer Glen.

And, just to get others' opinions on this, I've invited the users who placed information about Midlothian & Orland Park's elected officials into those articles to offer their opinions on this discussion, as I believe their opinions are relevant & valid. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am the writer of the listings of the Orland Park/Midlothian village representative sections. (I have also updated several other villages and townships in the Chicagoland area).

WP:USCITIES#Government is pretty clear in its desire to include a description of the local city government, including the mayor, city (village) council and city (village) manager.

While the article also makes reference to avoid listing all city council members, I think we need to think about this in perspective. If we are discussing a large metropolitan city, such as Chicago, it would make little sense to include all fifty city council members in the main Chicago article, but rather break it out into its own separate article. In this case with the governments I have made edits to, they are all on the local, township or county level. These smaller levels (ignoring cook county for this point) do not normally necessitate a branch article discussing their city council as it would be somewhat unreasonable to create an article for a six member village board. Therefore I felt I would be most appropriate to include a small table and description in the main article that discusses the elected officials of each entity. This also helps to make the main article more fleshed out and developed, as most of the government information has not been updated for 5+ years prior to my updates.

I hope this conveys my reasoning for including elected officials in the main article. Uraveragejoe (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Like many guidelines on Wikipedia, WP:USCITIES was created through the input of many editors, and a consensus was reached to "Avoid listing all city council members", regardless of city size. I would suggest starting a discussion at WP:USCITIES if you wish the guideline changed. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Magnolia. In cases of large cities where there is enough content and coverage that a separate article is warranted about the city's council or politics and government, the council members are sometimes listed there. These are people who typically represent more than a hundred thousand constituents, whose elections and actions are more widely covered, who are full-time legislators, and who may be notable enough for articles themselves and should be linked. This information should generally be excluded from the main article because it's excessive detail with relatively less big picture significance and reads as a directory that doesn't actually inform readers with either historical or current significance. If a subarticle is not appropriate (and sometimes even when it is), then the non-notable, part-time councilmembers shouldn't be listed at all. Unfortunately councilmember lists often become outdated and we shouldn't have a table of names that doesn't get updated, precisely as you note. The article should state the structure of the council/mayor system and include a reference that may link to the city's website with the most up-to-date information and names. — Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

In general, since most city government officials and workers are "non-notable" (per wikipedia), thus community articles probably should include only the top officials, MAYOR (top official) and CITY MANAGER (if city has one), otherwise all council members / clerks / and other government workers shouldn't be included, because Wikipedia isn't the "YELLOW PAGES". The problem with many city articles is PEOPLE NAMES become out-of-date fairly quickly, because elections happen frequently (every 1 or 2 years), and editors don't come back to swap in newer names, thus is why I delete council members / clerks / and other employee names from community articles, though I keep the mayor and city manager. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

If that's the case, @Sbmeirow:, then why do articles connected to cities clearly list the names & positions for all government offices? I mean, using your logic, the Wikipedia article for Chicago City Council shouldn't exist (as anyone other than Mayor & City Manager is non-notable, as you yourself just pointed out), and the article for Politics of Houston shouldn't list anyone other than Mayor (as anyone other than those two are non-notable, again, as you just pointed out). ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

So, @Magnolia677:, I see you haven't answered my question about how "Politics of Houston" isn't a city article, despite Google's AI even stating that Wikipedia recognizes it as as such. I also see you haven't responded to why you raised your objection to the content being in Homer Glen's article, despite never having done so for said content in the the articles for Midlothian or Orland Park. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

ClarkKentWannabe, it would be the fourth time I explained it to you today, and I just don't have the time or crayons to explain it to you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to humor me...

Highlight (by bullet point) the three times so far in this section that you've "claimed" to have explained why "Politics of Houston" isn't a city article, because I've looked through your comments, and I don't see *any* kind of explanation. And, just an FYI: simply claiming Politics of Houston isn't a city article doesn't quality as an explanation. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

City articles--including this one--use Template:Infobox settlement. Also, at Talk:Politics of Houston, it isn't included in the "city" Wikiproject. Most important, all city and town articles pretty much start out the same..."Mapleville is a city in..." and every reader just knows--clear as a mud-free river--that that article is about...a city! Politics of Houston is about...the politics of Houston! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

1) From the looks of it, THIS is the FIRST time you've brought ANY of that up. So, no, THIS would be the FIRST time you've explained that to me. Thanks for lying about it would be the fourth time I explained it to you today. Anyone reading this talkpage can see the comment I'm replying to is the FIRST time you've brought ANY of that up.

2) So then, according to YOUR logic, that simply means that the talkpage for the "Politics of Houston" article needs to be fixed so that it's included in the "city" WikiProject. As a result, your exclusion of "Politics of Houston" as a "city article" becomes irrelevant.

Also, how does the article for "Houston" start? Houston is the most populous city in the U.S. state of Texas. So, therefore, that would mean that any article relating at all to Houston should be included in the "city" WikiProject, once again, therefore turning it into a "city article" and making your exclusion irrelevant. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

To @Reywas92 and Sbmeirow: I have been informed of a situation concerning Magnolia677...

It would seem that, according to something I was told, This editor [Magnolia677] seems to have been criticized in the past over his removal of information from local government pages in the past. After doing some brief research, it would seem he has indeed been reprimanded for what looks to be his blatant misuse & misinterpretation of WP:USCITIES, specifically its place as WikiProject guideline (specifically the line at WP:USCITIES that states While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing), rather than Wikipedia guideline. So, in light of this new information, I will wait to hear a response from the two of you before I go ahead & use User talk:Magnolia677#Consensus as clearing the way for the re-insertion of information Magnolia677 has been proven to be wrongly removing. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

No, Magnolia's removal in this instance is appropriate. I believe the WikiProject guideline appropriately applies here: we should not list council members in articles for small cities such as this one. Reinsertion would be inconsistent practice to name-drop non-notable people. I'd suggest removing them from the other Illinois articles you mentioned as well. — Reywas92^Talk 01:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

To repeat what was said at Magnolia677's talkpage:

You realize that WikiProject guidelines areNOT site-wide, unlike Wikipedia guidelines; project guidelines aren't at the same level as the site-wide ones. Not to mention, with the WP:USCITIES#Government specification, the part about avoiding listing all city council members is placed within the guidance for larger cities. There's no mention of such consensus for smaller municipalities. In fact, right before the specification for larger cities, WP:USCITIES does in fact state 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, to repeat what I stated: WP:USCITIES itself states, in the lede section: While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing. So, for Magnolia to state that WP:CITIES is a consensus is looking to be a over-exaggeration of what the main page for WP:CITIES itself actually states.

In fact, just to give you a better understanding, I've even invited the editor who left the reprimand on Magnolia677's page to offer their opinion on this issue. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The views of three editors with significant experience editing community (city / town / village / CDP / unincorporated community / ghost town) articles appears to be different than your view. "Throwing rocks" at Magnolia and WP:USCITIES won't help change my opinion on this subject matter. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

And yet, the views of two other editors also with significant experience editing community articles appears to be different from you three's view. And, trying to make WikiProject guidelines seem more applicable than they are, or even disregarding when the page for a WikiProject actually directly states that there is no actual requirement to follow said WikiProject guidelines in editing won't help change the opinion of myself, or the other two editors it seems that disagree with Magnolia. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@ClarkKentWannabe: Describing myself, User:Reywas92, and User:Sbmeirow as "the three idiot editors" is not appropriate. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit: my apologies. I have since edited the comment, removing the personal attack.

However, the discussion remains closed. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

At this point, there is nothing more to be gained from this discussion. So, I'm walking away from it. Do whatever you may at this point. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)