Talk:St. Charles Municipal Building

a building should not be controversial
Noticing some back and forth editing here. Hey, please talk stuff out here on Talk page, not just in edit summaries and reversions. :) Uninvolved other editors could help out. --Doncram (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Discussion has been ongoing at my talk, but I'll move that over so that others can more easily participate. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Nikkimaria

I would like to get this worked out. You have never worked on this page before. What is your sudden interest in fighting over one piece of information being on it? I was excited to find this out and get to add it on here because I'm from St. Charles and my town hall being an iconic location in a big video game is freaking cool. I mean, wouldn't you say if you lived in a small town and a building in your town was on the cover of a game you would think that would be worth recording that this inspired this? Isn't that what Wikipedia is for - is for people who are passionate about a subject to share what they know about it in a place bringing together information that isn't on its own well known?

I was looking at the St. Charles Municipal Building one day and thought how similar it looked to the Lighthouse in BioShock. Years later I brought up the similarities on the BioShock Wiki, and they said they couldn't post anything without a developer confirming it. This is in the talk page on that Wiki in the respective article. So I reached out to Dave Flamburis, the artist who designed the BioShock Lighthouse. He responded to my e-mail confirming it as his inspiration and describing how he made the design based on it. I took a screen capture of this e-mail, posted it on the BioShock Wiki and linked to it in the article as the source. I don't know how otherwise I could post an e-mail as a source.

No one has challenged this except you, so I must ask you why? What is the problem? Why this one point on this little page? Anyone can contact Dave Flamburis and ask him the same thing I did and get his response if they want to do some kind of peer review. But you are now leaving notices on the page saying that this is trivia not even worth mentioning and should be removed. That seems bogus. Like where is the Wikipedia law that says the information I have shared should not be allowed on Wikipedia because its not important enough? The flag you put on the page now leads to guidelines that apply to style when discussing creative works. It would appear you are wrongly applying criteria to this because it is related to a video game? Because it uses another Wikipedia page as a source? I mean, I did the work, I got the confirmation and put it out there. For a building that is not well known in a small town, this is a big deal that it influenced a work of popular media. From everything I know, this information should be on the page so that other people interested in St. Charles will learn this. Otherwise they could only know if they knew the Lighthouse in BioShock and looked it up and put the two together.

Based on your edit history, you have not removed every piece of trivia such as this from every page in the world, so what is the issue with this one in particular? As far as I can tell, I went about adding this in the proper way by Wikipedia standards, and the content does not go against any guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerVynck (talk • contribs)


 * Hi VerVynck, there are a few issues with this piece. First off, while I appreciate you putting in that effort, a screenshot of a personal email posted on another wiki really doesn't meet our standards as to what constitutes a reliable source. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is meant to be built on published reliable secondary sources. Second, as per this discussion, "in popular culture" content should include sources that prove not only that the content exists - in this case, that the video game design is based on this building - but that this detail is somehow significant to a reader's understanding of the topic. It does not appear that such sourcing exists, although of course if it did you'd be welcome to bring it forward. Third, the fact that I've not removed "every piece of trivia such as this from every page in the world" in no way means that this piece of trivia must be retained. You added some content and your addition was reverted - that means that the burden is on you to find reliable secondary sources for this content and gain consensus for its addition. There's also no reason to remove the tag - the disputed source does nothing to address the issues that it flags. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh my gosh why would anyone want to be a part of Wikipedia if you did this to everyone. You keep posting links to guide pages that don't back up what you're saying. You've contributed nothing to the page or to the research or to the sources, and you provided no help to improve it to meet your opinion of what it should be. You removed the link to the source and then used a tag that claims pop culture information without sources will be challenged and removed. What's that about? Did you even read the source? Did you see the history of discussion on this topic on the BioShock Wiki? It was accepted there and has consensus of two others that spoke on the matter. I want people to be able to learn something that almost no one knows. What kind of battle are you fighting for nothing and no one but your own satisfaction? On a subject you have no association or even familiarity with? You remark that I need to procure additional sources that confirm this piece of information is important. But what makes anything significant but our perception of it? I just don't understand why you have to pick on this and challenge it, out of all the things in the world that are better known or more visited, why are you spending your time fighting over this when I have made an effort and gotten a source, you say I have to get more sources for it to be included? Then by that standard, shouldn't everything on every article on Wikipedia have multiple sources corroborating every single statement in every article? It is clear you are twisting what the guidelines say and what the policy actually is. It is entirely unreasonable to expect what you are stating from every user for every piece of information or trivia added to Wikipedia. I can only ask that you would respectfully withdraw your attacks against this subject because I must ask, what is the goal being achieved by removing this fact? In a broader sense, how are we to look at things if the standard by which you are suggesting must be applied to all content on Wikipedia is not as such.VerVynck (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi VerVynck, I understand that you're upset at having your work challenged, but I'd appreciate it if you kept your commentary focused on the content rather than attacking me personally. Discussion and consensus at BioShock Wiki is relevant to what is posted and accepted there, but not here. What is needed here is a reliable secondary source for this content, as is indicated by the tag you removed. BioShock Wiki and a personal email posted there are not that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You ignored what I asked by dismissing it by implying that I am making personal attacks. I stated my point. I refuted your claims. It seems as such you simply wish to deny the source. Are you questioning the validity of it? Do you think I have fabricated all of this information? If so, for what personal gain or reasoning would I have to do so? Is there reasonable information to prove that this source is not credible? The BioShock Wiki has standards as such does Wikipedia. You can not simply dismiss all information because it is not from "here." When one thinks about what you are saying, it really makes no sense. About as much sense as me spending the time trying to fight this injustice. I stated a fact, despite your attempts to censor it, it is a fact, and there are people that find it interesting, even though you don't deem it as such. I would say, based on the standards enforced on the BioShock Wiki and the discussion behind the decision to include this information there, that it is a more reliable source than a link to a website without a community as such as is found there. To further defend my point, another source in this same article you are attacking is a personal letter that someone scanned and uploaded to a website. By your principle, shouldn't you attack that source also because the source is a image of a personal correspondence without additional sources corroborating it? You are using Wikipedia's guidelines to give yourself credibility, but you are not being frank with the facts here regarding the information.VerVynck (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not believe this source meets our standards to be considered a reliable secondary source. If you disagree, you're welcome to start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard to seek other opinions on the matter.
 * A consensus on BioShock Wiki is not the same as a consensus here, and has no relevance to this discussion.
 * That other sources may not be reliable, or that other articles may also have questionably sourced content, also has no relevance to whether this source and this content ought to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You said that you "believe" this source does not meet standards. Since when is your opinion the standard by which this website is operated? You have no source to prove your statement that Wikipedia does not accept sources from other Wikis. Therefore, you must admit the hypocrisy of your actions. You do not have a reliable source for the policy you are stating allowing you to remove and/or flag content from an article that does in fact have corroboration you have not acknowledged. Your statement that ignoring unreliable sources elsewhere has no relevance to this source implies that Wikipedia practices a policy of enforcing double standards. Based upon these facts, you are not a credible representative of Wikipedia. What authority do you have over others who believe this content should be on this page?VerVynck (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, please cut out the personal attacks
 * I have already linked to WP:RS above - if you consult specifically the section about user-generated content, you will note that wikis are listed as generally unacceptable. See also the WP:RSP entry for Wikia.
 * You added content and that addition was disputed. As per WP:NOCON in the absence of consensus for the addition, it stays out. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Currently, I feel our combined edits have helped to improve the page as it is now. Thank you for the statement on it being identified as Moderne - it is a good way of phrasing it. There are a number of issues with the building being identified as Moderne though it has been referred to in this way often. I always feel that there is a good reason that may come of every bad situation. I am content with the article as it is now. If there is no further issue, it is nice if this is resolved. As I find more information and better sources, I will continue to update this page to improve it.VerVynck (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There is in fact a further issue: an IPC section that lacks reliable secondary sourcing indicating its significance. If none can be found - I've looked and not found any - that section will need to be re-removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

, regarding this edit:
 * For our purposes, it does not matter what consensus exists at BioShock Wiki regarding this content; this site is not that site, and there is no consensus here for it to be included. You're welcome to start a RfC or a 3O to attempt to seek that consensus, but until then, this content should not be included.


 * As mentioned above, wikis aren't generally considered reliable. I've already suggested raising this at WP:RSN if you disagree.


 * Edits that you happen to disagree with are not vandalism. There's no reason to repeatedly remove tags when the matter is under discussion, particularly when you've not presented any policies or guidelines that support your view of the content. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User Nikkimaria has changed the rationale behind why the point of trivia has been removed. Originally it was insignificant in their opinion. That has changed to the source being located on the BioShock Wikia. User Nikkimaria stated the source needs to have a consensus despite "The Lighthouse" talk page on the BioShock Wiki showing a consensus of criteria needing to be met to include the information there. The source therefore has a consensus and was uploaded by recipient of the statement from the artist who designed the Lighthouse based on the St. Charles Municipal Building.

User Nikkimaria had edited the page in a way that I responded on their talk page seemed like a compromise I was okay with (after I removed incorrect information that contradicted other sources in the article which was noted). I reverted the page back to that edit as of now because for some reason after I said that I felt like it was a resolution, user Nikkimaria changed it again to go back to an earlier version they made flagging the trivia point about BioShock needing to be removed. Nikkimaria's edits seem antagonistic and disruptive to the page at this point. I feel like the revision at 05:20, 16 September 2019, is a satisfactory compromise to the issues Nikkimaria has raised against the page.VerVynck (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * User Nikkimaria has changed the rationale behind why the point of trivia has been removed. My concern is and has always been that the point of trivia lacks a reliable secondary source indicating its significance to the topic.


 * "The Lighthouse" talk page on the BioShock Wiki showing a consensus of criteria needing to be met to include the information there. This is not the BioShock Wiki, and whatever consensus might exist there has no bearing on what we do here. I've explained this several times already so I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. There is no consensus here that the content and source are valid.


 * The revision referenced is in no way a compromise regarding the section at issue, which remains lacking reliable secondary sourcing or a consensus for inclusion. That is why I added the tag, and why if neither is forthcoming the section ought to be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

In the revision referenced I did not alter the way you had edited the section regarding BioShock, which is the section you take issue with. It was left how you had edited it. Therefore, I do not see why after I thanked you for your contribution and hoped it was a resolution that you decided to change it back to having it flagged for removal and now are continuing to argue about it. Like user Doncram pointed out, why is this controversial to you to continue to fight over a point of trivia on a page about a obscure historic building? I was excited that resolution had been made and a compromise, but now you have raised issue again and continue to fight over it. You state that the source is unreliable because it is located on another Wiki. That disregards the fact that on that other Wiki a community of editors discussed how it would need to be properly sourced to be added to the main page, and that was done there. Content should not be removed based on where it comes from but rather the content itself.VerVynck (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I mostly write articles about historic places listed on the National Register, and I would gladly add a section on coverage in popular culture if I ever had info to do that. The only time i can recall doing so is for Oliver Bronson House in New York State, which is a place very hard to get to (on prison grounds, you have to drive past signs saying you cannot enter), which later I realized, when seeing the movie, was a major setting in a movie. I was able to round up a local news mention of that fact; I am pretty sure I would have put it in, anyhow, perhaps with a citation needed tag, if I couldn't have found that. I think I put in more than remains now in the article, but it is still helpful. Honestly i did not read all of the above discussion. But the current section"The Rapture Lighthouse, entrance to and symbol of the underwater city of Rapture, featured in BioShock, is directly based on the St. Charles Municipal Building. Artist Dave Flamburis, who designed the Lighthouse, described the St. Charles Municipal Building as a 'striking and amazing piece of Art Deco architecture.' When he saw the building he got this immediate feeling in his gut. 'Like – wham! That was it. Everything settled around that core design.'"

seems good and interesting to me. Its wording is backwards from how I would put it; it assumes that the reader knows about the city of Rapture and all that....I would reverse it and say the building is the basis for a major setting in an online game, Bioshock;  it was the model for the Rapture Lighthouse in that game (or whatever). This is not stuff that would be very helpful in establishing notability of the topic, but notability is not an issue here. It is extra and interesting info and seems obviously true. And, we are allowed to use primary sources (with care) in articles, again not usually for establishing notability, and if there exists an uploaded permanent record/copy of a letter from the writer/artist/producer/whomever verifying about it, I think that is good.

By the way I expanded the NRHP document reference and added just a little to the article. That source has more which could/should be used. The article is short on any description of the building. Perhaps some energy could be put into remedying that? --Doncram (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I get the feeling that user Nikkimaria is repeatedly editing the page not out of a passion for a the subject or desire to expand on the historical information presented, but rather, this user is editing the page in an attack-type fashion to have the last say, so to speak, in an attempt to feed some bizarre sense of pride or ego of winning or being right. The user is repeatedly flagging the BioShock trivia point as needing better sourcing despite policy and community contradicting this individual user's opinion regarding this point and source. I do not see the value of this user repeatedly editing the Popular Culture section by taking away from it rather than adding to it. As well as removing Kane County from the page and adding United States into the first sentence? United States has been in the info box. Because it is more well known that Illinois is in the United States than it is that people are familiar with Kane County, it seems bizarre to repeatedly delete Kane County from the page and add multiple indications that Illinois is in the United States. User's rational "not everyone is American" has no connection to any information on the page stating otherwise to this point. This user's edits seem to be unconstructive and of questionable motive. Despite a lack of association to the subject or the St. Charles historical society, any attempt by us to refute Nikkimaria's claims are met with hostility, no sense of teamwork or compromise, and their "evidence" has proven to be misconceptions of Wikipedia policy. This page is suffering because of Nikkimaria's attempts to drag it into an edit war. It is pointless to attempt to defend any logical reasoning against claims made by someone whose involvement in a page is rooted in harassing people over the internet.VerVynck (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * VerVynck, you have provided no rationale other than a personal attack for reverting all of my recent edits, some of which were entirely uncontroversial and an improvement to the article. No policy disallows flagging a personal email posted on an external wiki as needing a better source, because it does. No policy disallows informing the reader that St Charles is in the United States because it is, and providing that context in the lead is entirely appropriate to assist readers who may not be familiar with the area. I have asked you several times to keep your commentary focused on the content rather than on me personally, and yet you continue to provide no policy-based reasoning for your edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your response ignores what I wrote and reasoning discussed. You repeated again flagging the popular culture section as needing better sources despite discussion on this page not supporting that. As I stated in closing before, it is pointless to attempt to defend any logical reasoning against claims made by someone whose involvement in a page is rooted in harassing people over the internet.VerVynck (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Disagreeing with your vision for the article does not constitute harassment, and it is inappropriate for you to continue making such accusations. Again I request that you focus your posts here on the article's content and applicable guidelines/policies/etc rather than making baseless personal comments.
 * To address the content-related points above and in your reverts:
 * The user is repeatedly flagging the BioShock trivia point as needing better sourcing. As mentioned previously this RfC concluded with the consensus that "in popular culture" content should be supported by a reliable secondary source indicating the significance of the content. The current source does not meet that bar. I have looked for a more appropriate source to support this content and so far have not found one - thus the tag.
 * With regards to the location: the infobox now presents the location three times, the first two using an abbreviation which needs changing per MOS:POSTABBR and no country, the third using a linking style that conflicts with MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Having the same information three times is redundant and conflicts with MOS:INFOBOX. The country is now not visible without significant scrolling, which does not provide appropriate context for our readers, not all of whom will know where Illinois happens to be. WP:LEAD indicates that the lead section is an appropriate place to provide that context.
 * With regards to the reversion of this edit, that link does not meet the external links guideline for inclusion in this article. Additionally, as per WP:ELBURDEN, in the case that an external link is disputed it should be excluded until such time as positive consensus is established for its inclusion, for instance at the external links noticeboard.
 * With regards to the reversion of this edit, in addition to being an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia article, this is a close paraphrasing of the source.
 * With regards to the reversion of this edit, see WP:SHORTDESC. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Deco vs Moderne
Doncram, Thank you for your help, input, and good advice. I will focus my research on this subject into the design and architecture for improvement of the article. The building's design seems to fit the criteria of Deco more than Moderne. The architect referred to it as Deco. The nomination form may have misattributed and overemphasized Streamline Moderne being an influence to the architect.VerVynck (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)