Talk:Naperville, Illinois

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Koalafied1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Booster-ish?
With phrases like "globally reknown schools", "enormous growth of high-tech companies", and "the Riverwalk is known as Naperville's 'Crown Jewel' according to the Naperville Riverwalk Foundation", parts of the article seems a little booster-ish. I've tried to tune-down the rhetoric.Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Naperville Content Deleted
How come you deleted my post? I am putting factual information which I compiled as stats as well as listing some of the prominent subdivisionsMikemccurry (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Mikemccurry
 * Well, there's some rather blatent problems with WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:COI. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the picture on the top of the page
Do you think it's a little bland to post a picture of city hall in the wintertime as the first picture that people view when they read the article? What about if there was a picture of downtown Naperville in the summer? It will feature Naperville as the bustling, lively city with people on the streets shopping, that it is. I can definitely take pictures and email them to someone for review? Just my thoughts on it. Svengoolie (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can provide a suitable pic that meets inclusion criteria (and looks nice), by all means be WP:BOLD and add it. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Direction from Chicago
Contrary to the reversion, it technically is west southwest from what is usually considered to be the center of Chicago. But, agreeing with the reversion, I think that simply "west" is a better way to say it. North8000 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a citation that categorizes west-by-southwest suburbs of Chicago as a distinct category. if they do exist, they are rare. Suburbs along the I-88 corridor are typically refereed to as West or Far-West suburbs. Google search for 'west suburbs of Chicago'. As for directionality, downtown Naperville is directly west of the Chicago neighborhoods of Hide Park and Englewood. But we are in agreement over the text so.... Dkriegls (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, simply "west" is the more common and thus the best way to say it. Even though the  north-south center of Naperville is approx 75th street (75 blocks south of the "center" of Chicago)  North8000 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * West 75th in Naperville is directly west of east 75th in the South Shore neighborhood of Chicago. Though, north-south center's are not typically used by map makers to determine directionality of large geographic locations like cities. Imagine someone claiming Wisconsin was north-west of Illinois because of the position of their East-West axis. I also find it curious that you compare Naperville's north-south center to Chicago's downtown. Chicago's north-south center is 37th street, roughly 20 blocks north of downtown Naperville. Anyways, I think we are violating Talk page guidlines now since we are in agreement about the text. Cheers and good chatting with ya :) Dkriegls (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Naperville, Illinois. 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/20101224061904/http://www.napersettlement.org/visitorinfo/naperville_history.htm to http://www.napersettlement.org/visitorinfo/naperville_history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130180028/http://www.cod.edu/RegionalCtrs/Nap_Reg.htm to http://www.cod.edu/regionalctrs/nap_reg.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222234504/http://www.naperville203.org/schools/LinkstoSchools.asp to http://www.naperville203.org/schools/LinkstoSchools.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927220229/http://www.naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=152 to http://www.naperville.il.us/dynamic_content.aspx?id=152

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) 11:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Moved inappropriate content
Moved content about Dexter Graves and his memorial at Graceland Cemetery in Chicago to there; his only connection to this article was traveling on same ship to Chicago. Also moved reference to Spinner 2012 book about train accident to section "Further reading" - it is self-published and thus is not a Reliable Source.Parkwells (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Good move on Graves. But I think it would be better to leave Spinner as a source.  The wiki rule is about presence of the text, there's no rule about presence of the source. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? Are you trying to say that self-published books are reliable sources, or that any old source will do if it verifies the fact? John from Idegon (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying that the rule is that in order for the text to remain (if challenged) it must be supported by a WP:RS.   A source that is not a wp:rs (such as a self-published book) can not be used to fulfill that requirement.     There is no rule that a source that is not a wp:rs  can't be present in an article.  It can be present, it just doesn't /won't fulfill the sourcing requirement if the text is challenged.  North8000 (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Flag Design
As of a January 7th revision to this article there has been a featured flag next to the seal in the Infobox. In the manner that it is presented and without any context this flag is seeming the official flag of the City of Naperville. However this flag is not the official flag and is a community accepted design. Of the many reasons why this community flag was created one was the the official design is Copyrighted by the City of Naperville. What should happen to the community flag? Should it have context or should it be replaced or removed? Koalafied1 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the flag from the article, per the source cited. If it's not the official flag, it shouldn't be in the infobox. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Demographics Overhaul
At present a large portion of the demographic section is uncited. With some searching into prior versions I was able to find the citations to a now nonexistent part of the US census bureau website from 2006. faced with the option to add in citations and present old information or to entirely update the section; I have chosen to update the section. This is being posted since it will be a reasonably significant change. When the information from the 2020 census is available it will be reworked again Koalafied1 (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * within the recently edited demographic section there are three main references 26, 28 and 29 the census bureau, CMAP and a website processing census data. The article prior to my edits took only from the census bureau but was able to extract more data than i was able from similar parts of the bureau website. The CMAP data has the potential to fill in the missing parts from the more recent census information however it would decrease the amount of data coming from the census bureau. presently the updated data takes from source 29 which is a processor of census data. the census bureau is typically the Gold Standard when it comes to demographic data in the US. Should we move away from the bureau in this article to provide a more detailed view of the community? Is it preferred to have the greatest available data come from a first hand source as opposed to a second hand source? Koalafied1 (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted several of your edits. A consensus of editors have agreed that the US Census should be the primary source of demographic data, per WP:USCITIES. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Photo Montage
Hello fellow wikipedians!

@Nkon21 has changed the infobox photomontage (see:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naperville,_Illinois&oldid=1056697354) to a singular image. If you scroll through this article, you can see it is already filled with illustrations. I have tried to make a compromise with this user, by editing down the # of photos, but he/she is determined to have 1 photo. I kindly disagree with them, as the article already has enough photos throughout. Plus, the large majority of readers only read the lead, so why not also have a selection of images? There is definitely a purpose to having a photomontage in a infobox, and as Illinois's 4th-5th largest city, It's highly deserving on one. Thoughts? Lectrician2 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * IMO those images should be in the article somewhere. I'm near-neutral on multiple images in the infobox. Single is more common and the smaller ones are too small to see unless you zoom in on them. North8000 (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even world-class cities such as San Francisco and Vancouver only have a single image in the infobox; being the 4th or 5th largest city in the state does just mean the article needs to have one. I'll respond to the "most people only read the lede" claim that you made with MOS:LEADIMAGE, which says that It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—that is singular image, not images, meaning that all it takes to satisfy the criteria is one image. Unlike Chicago or NYC where there are multiple widespread recognizable landmarks in the city, Naperville does not have that. That single aerial shot of downtown serves the purpose well enough already for this article. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  03:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly aware of anything that is world-renowned in Naperville. But generally, internally in Naperville, theses are the "widespread recognizable landmarks". I'm not exactly sure what your issue is with having a photo-montage? It doesn't hurt the article in any way, it only enhances it. Lectrician2 (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a bunch of small-sized images in the montage does little to enhance the article, especially if, like you said, the landmarks aren't widely recognized on a larger scale. Images are best used to accompany text in the body where it provides greater detail and explanation to its significance within the community; images in montages does very little to help readers understand why its important. Not to mention that about a half of the article's pageviews come from mobile devices, and having long montages in the infobox can increase page load time and also forces readers to scroll down a lot more. Some articles just don't need montages in their infobox and that's perfectly fine. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  20:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:USCITIES specifically has a photomontage in their guidelines. Plus, lets take Winnipeg as a example, it's a featured article, so it must be pretty good. None of these places I recognize, I have never been to Winnipeg. A lot of people who are reading a article relating to a US city, have not been to the place. Hence they would not recognize it. I don't think any of the images on the Winnipeg article are "known on a wider scale" (correct me if I'm wrong). Locally, to Naperville, these are important. It's all about perspective. If you are going to Naperville, these are the important places. If you are going to Winnipeg, those are the important places. Lectrician2 (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Want to retain readers ......don't make them scroll through image after image to obtain infomation. Only have them for a scroll or two.DATA... Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, but there is something to be said for the purpose of a photomontage. To correct for this, along with other reasons, as soon as this dispute started, I slimmed down the info-box photomontage to 5 pictures instead of the previous 7. Lectrician2 (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A montage is not required for an article to be promoted to FA. Also, keep in mind that Wiki is not a WP:TOURISTGUIDE, and the sole purpose of the infobox lead image is to ensure readers that they have landed on the correct page (which the single aerial shot, in my opinion, does well—but that can always be changed). Also even with 5 images it does not fix that issue. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditch the montage. The images are hard to see, and none of these images are of anything widely known that general readers will recognize. It's irrelevant whether locals will recognize the images, and it's irrelevant whether other articles need or benefit from photo montages. In my opinion this article does not need a photomontage, and it would be better without one. Meters (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm currently typing on a 12 inch screen, and I can make out all of the images myself, except for the carillon, it's a bit too dark. So I could remove that, or replace it. Anyways, I can clearly see a church, a water fountain, and a path.
 * Overall, I don't think the purpose of the infobox photo is for people to "instantly recognize it", it's to give a quick glimpse into the article. The infobox photo in my opinion does it't job better when there are multiple photos, hence a montage. Who cares if it's widely known or not? Those are the main "memorable" places in Naperville, I don't see anywhere that it's a requirement for the photo to be widely known throughout the world in order for it to qualify for placement in a infobox. Lectrician2 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you got the idea that the image is only to " ensure readers that they have landed on the correct page". It was my understanding that it was to provide a quick illustration of the subject. Also, to discuss your point about it being Promoted to FA, I agree, but I was just saying that if one of the best articles in the English Wikipedia has it, what's the harm to having it here? Lectrician2 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEADIMAGE clearly states It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. I also don't see anywhere that says that the infobox needs to encompass many different "memorable" landmarks of the area. Like how other editors have suggested already, there is no need for a montage and a single image works best here. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  02:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The main photo does give visual confirmation, but the photo-montage goes even further by showing other landmarks in the Naperville Area that could be used to give visual confirmation if the main photo is not recognized. Also, along with giving conformation, the photomontage illustrates the city better as I have stated in previous replies. Lectrician2 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, I don't see us reaching a compromise, I'm going to open a RFC. Lectrician2 (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We edit by consensus. You have no support for using a photo montage. Meters (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok . I'l concede. Lectrician2 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)