Template:Did you know nominations/J. Schmuck Block

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

J. Schmuck Block

(

)

The building in 2015.

~~... that a three-story structure in Beatrice, Nebraska was built for a German Schmuck?~~ Jill E. Dolberg (March 21, 2008). "National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: J. Schmuck Block". National Park Service. Retrieved May 31, 2019. With accompanying pictures

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Two Motets, Op. 74 (Brahms)

Created by Zigzig20s (talk). Self-nominated at 23:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC).

Article is new enough and long enough. Source #1 seems to be broken. I am not seeing "asphalt and slate", "another couple" and "rented" in #2, but that's probably just the the nonreadable PDF. Who is "Judge Walden"? AGFing on the stuff sourced to newspapers.com. Article seems neutral, didn't see any copyvio or plagiarism. That hook is playing for humour and sourced to the AGF'ed source, I am wondering if the link should be put elsewhere though. Regarding the QPQ, I am wondering if text-source integrity was checked. Image licensing is also OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who Judge Waldren was--not sure which court he served on. Beatrice is the county seat of Gage County, so perhaps a county court. Yes, the PDF does mention asphalt and slate. What do you mean by 'nonreadable' please? I can read it fine. The QPQ is pending.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

We could move "German Schmuck" to the beginning of the sentence, "DYK that a German Schmuck built...".Zigzig20s (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I as thinking more that the link could be moved up, while leaving the hook unchanged. Regarding link #1, could it be changed to use a direct one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Source #1 points to this page, which says nothing about the building. If there is a webpage specifically about the building, there should be a direct link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Source 1 is just how WikiProject NRHP has decided to cite NRHP references in infoboxes.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be better though to make a proper link. In the infobox it's not so much a problem as the link is a reference for itself, but in the rest of the article it's confusing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The content/format of the standard {{NRISref}} footnote could well be improved. There have been repeated suggestions (including by me) to drop the confusing-to-readers link to a technical webpage at NPS where the entire NRIS database can be downloaded. Several past participants at its talk page and at related discussions (i.e. opponents to improvement) quit wikipedia years ago. However a potential change has nothing to do with this DYK. The existing standard reference is used in about 50,000 wikipedia articles and, despite ur and my complaints, is not all that bad. The NRIS database is in fact the source for most or all of the infobox data, and it is the source for some info in the text, so it must be cited. I would oppose an ad hoc requirement at this DYK to temporarily drop the citation this time. Perhaps Jo-Jo Emerus or other DYK reviewers have disliked the citation before, but there have been many (hundreds at least) of past DYKs that went thru for articles having this citation.

User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, if u would open a new discussion/proposal/complaint at Template talk:NRISref i would help towards changing it, even try to take a lead in improving it. Again that should not derail this specific DYK. --Doncram (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You could also use a regular {{Cite web}} template if the NRIS one doesn't have a good link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I am a bit lost now. If it is easy to do, perhaps you could do it? I often correct typos etc. when I am reviewing a DYK.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

OK; that's now done. Any opinion about moving the link in the hook into the earlier "three-story structure" string? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I think our readers are more likely to click on Schmuck.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but we can't have the bolded link talking about a person and piping to a house, which is mentioned in the beginning of the hook. Perhaps you could reword the hook? Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you think the wikilink should be over "three-story structure"? I feel our readers are more likely to click on "German schmuck" though.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I read that comment, and yes, people will click on the Schmuck if it's not part of the bolded link. You could start the hook: ... that a German Schmuck built a house ... and say something hooky about it. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It could be as simple as ... that a German Schmuck built a three-story structure in Beatrice, Nebraska in 1887?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm? I can't find any rule saying we can't have the bolded link talking about a person and piping to a house, which is mentioned in the beginning of the hook anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of common sense. BTW I personally find the hook fact "a German Schmuck" stupid and probably offensive. Perhaps more should be added to the article so you can find a better hook. There's a whole NRHP file that has barely been tapped for details. Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a pun. His name was Schmuck and he was from Germany.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm missing the pun. According to Wiktionary, "schmuck" is a dick or a prick; in American colloquial speech, a jerk; an unpleasant or detestable person. Yoninah (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

In their assessment, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus wrote "That hook is playing for humour."Zigzig20s (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Racially offensive. German Schmuck? I know nothing about the nominator's age or background, but I have German American family members who were the object of such racial offensives after WWII. Schmuck is bad enough. As used, it comes across as a derisive insult hurled on sitcom TV- or the kind of insults hurled in a school yard - but can't be on Wikipedia's main page. — Maile (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Schmuck is a strong word, but I apologize if I hurt your feelings.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Zigzig20s no apology is necessary, and you didn't hurt my feelings. If you read Jehochman's explainer below, whether or not it's an insult depends on the background of the reader. I just don't think we should take the chance of that hook on the main page. — Maile (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Schmuck simply means jewelry in German. It means pecker in Yiddish. In English it means a fool. How about the following hook?

ALT1 ... that a three-story structure in Beatrice, Nebraska was built for a Schmuck?

Does that work? Jehochman ^Talk 19:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with your rewrite Jehochman. That one would be fine with me for the main page. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with it too.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'll confess I've never heard of "Schmuck" being racially offensive and I grew up in Germany. Jehochman's hook is OK I suppose. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an old vaudeville insult hurled by American comedians, and the term spilled over as an insult in the early decades of American television. It becomes racially offensive only when you attach an ethnicity to the term. Without the ethnicity, it's a one-size-fits-all insult.— Maile (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware that "Schmuck" was a pejorative prior to this discussion and the related talk over at WT:DYK. Would it be possible for another hook fact to be used that doesn't use that word, or does Jehochman's suggestion satisfy Maile66's concerns? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As I stated above, I am fine with Jehochman's suggestion (ALT1). Once you take the ethnicity out of the hook, it's pretty harmless. I think it's a good hook. But others might see it differently. @Yoninah: you initially brought this up at WT:DYK. I think it's the word "schmuck" that is your concern. Perhaps you would like to say something here??? — Maile (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

German is not an 'ethnicity.' Germany a very diverse country.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can now see how you meant the word in the hook. But I pretty much think that most people who see that word will think of Germans as an ethnic group of people. — Maile (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

ALT1 is funny, because it can be read as either a plain statement of fact or a disparaging comment. The other hooks are just clunky, so assuming the statement is sourced, this is the one to go with IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC).

I agree with Maile's explanation. I immediately thought: Would we write "an Italian Schmuck"? "a Korean schmuck"? The ethnicity is the problem. Thanks for your input, Gatoclass. Restoring the tick for ALT1 per Jo-Jo Eumerus' review. Yoninah (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)