Talk:Dinnie Apartments

development
This article was just now started in a semi-automated way, and could use more attention, perhaps including use of sources that might be found online. Please help! :) Try ) Try, for National Park Service material: Or develop from the sources already included in the article! Thanks. -- do ncr  am  19:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * An editor removed 3 sourced facts from the article: about the size of the property, about an alternative code/identifier for the property, and about the fact that the listed property includes a noncontributing structure as well as a contributing one. I think those are relevant and am inclined to restore them.  Please discuss.  I wouldn't mind having the identifier moved into the infobox, instead, but there is currently no field for that in the infobox (which could be remedied).  I see no reason to lose the info though. -- do  ncr  am  23:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The items I removed are all administrative details that likely are important to zoning authorities, the local property tax assessor, etc., but lack encyclopedic significance. The numerical code/identifier for the property is included in a reference citation, so it should not need to be recorded elsewhere in the article (similarly, the ISBN number of a book is not normally a subject for text discussion in an article). The business about the size of the lot being less than one acre is presumably related to the legal description of the property (of interest to tax assessor and zoning authority), but it's not awfully informative (we can't tell if it's 0.1 acre or 0.5 acre or 0.95 acre, and in any event it doesn't say anything about the historic building). The information on the nom form about the contributing building and the noncontributing building seems to have to do with the fact that there's a small storage building out back that isn't historic; that's possibly important information for the local historic zoning officer and the tax assessor to have in their records, but it's not of particular interest for an encyclopedia. Not everything that's documented by a reliable source belongs in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The size of the property listed on the NRHP is definitely part of what is relevant to describe. I disagree on all points.


 * I hope that negative discussion here will not keep away prospectively interested local editors. Can any positive comments be made?  Are there any interesting facts about the property which can be taken from the NRHP document, or found elsewhere, to add to this article?  I'd be more interested in discussing those. -- do  ncr  am  14:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are interested in building this article, there's plenty of good content in the source you cited -- and you could do a lot of good work in the time it take to whine that I'm not being positive enough for you. --Orlady (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It has long appeared to me that bot-created content whose purpose is unclear to readers does not encourage new contributors -- rather, it discourages newbies. Better to have just one solid sentence than to have five sentences whose purpose and relevance cannot be discerned.