Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St. Wenceslaus (New Prague, Minnesota)
The following is an archived discussion of Church of St. Wenceslaus (New Prague, Minnesota)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Mentoz86 (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Church of St. Wenceslaus (New Prague, Minnesota)
edit
- ... that the architecture of the Church of St. Wenceslaus (pictured) in New Prague, Minnesota, is based on a church in Prague, Czech Republic?
5x expanded by Elkman (talk). Nominated by Orlady (talk) at 16:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC).
This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The hook is sourced to a book and is accepted in good faith and the image is appropriately licensed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
[Edit conflict.] I'm rather dubious about this; much of the added material relates to the community and is largely irrelevant to the church. If that is moved or slimmed down the article is very stubby, with only a few sentences about the existing church architecture. Which Prague church is it based on? As technical points, it is marked as a stub (and I'm not minded to upgrade it) and the date of inclusion in the register needs to be cited. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The book by Alan Lathrop doesn't say which church in Prague it's based on, and I haven't found any material that indicates which church it might be. As far as the establishment of New Prague is concerned, I think the writer was implying that the Czech settlement of New Prague was interrelated with the history of the church. That seems to be the case with churches in a lot of other small towns in Minnesota: the first and/or largest church in a community was often established by whatever ethnic group immigrated to the town. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've added to the article. Most of the new content is about the recent consolidation of parishes in the area. I also did some rewording to clarify that the first settlers of New Prague were Catholics (which is, as Elkman indicates, why the history of New Prague is the history of this church). See how it looks now. --Orlady (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is an improvement. I still think the entire 2nd paragraph ("The group of immigrants who settled New Prague...") should be relocated under the town of New Prague; everything that's relevant is adequately stated in the first sentence. However, a back-of-the-envelope character count suggests the 5-fold expansion is now met without it, so that seems ok for DYK purposes. The reference for the register inclusion still needs adding, and now the first sentence is broken out as a paragraph, that also needs a citation. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I had overlooked the question about the citation for the National Register date; the citation was in the infobox, and BlueMoonset copied it to the text. (Thanks, BlueMoonset!)
- I think the paragraph about the immigrants who settled New Prague is relevant to this article, since these were Catholic immigrants, they got advice on where to resettle from Catholic leaders in Minnesota, and establishment of the parish appears to be one of the first things they did upon arrival. The same information could be added to the New Prague article, but I don't see a reason to insist that it be excised from this article. Time for a new review, methinks. --Orlady (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC) unrelated to this building.
- I'm not insisting that the information be removed, merely that it not count in the expansion -- which is now adequate for DYK without it. However I checked the reference in the infobox when I reviewed the article, and it appears to just be a general reference unrelated to the building, which doesn't support the date. I tried searching using the search box, but came up with no records. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- The source cited in the reference citation is the National Register Information System database. It's not an online-searchable database, so it's not possible to link to database output for a specific property. However, the database can be downloaded for installation and use on one's own computer; the page that is linked in the reference citation explains that. Think of this as being like a citation to a printed book -- it's a valid citation to a published work, but there's no URL that takes you directly to the content. (There are some commercial websites, such as nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, that provide online access to some or all of the contents of the database, but aren't cited in Wikipedia for a variety of reasons.) --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. It looks as if it is online searchable for a summary, you just can't link to the results! The date seems to check out. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
