Talk:Oxford House (Grand Forks, North Dakota)

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  23:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * An editor removed info from the article with edit summary suggesting it wasn't "meaningful", which I do not understand. I restored it.  It is meaningful and sourced. -- do  ncr  am  23:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As for your restoring the word "located" in the lead, that word adds nothing but wordiness. I removed it for economy of expression. --Orlady (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the rationale I posted at Talk:Dinnie Apartments and at User talk:Orlady. I hope not to have to carry on the same conversation in four places.


 * I don't particularly agree that removing the word "located" is an improvement, but I just implemented that removal to remove any need to discuss it further. Orlady, are you seriously interested in developing this Oxford House article?  From your statements elsewhere, I don't believe you are.  If not, why are you commenting here?  I also don't see much use to carrying on a discussion about facts of Oxford House in several places either.  If you have general belief that articles about NRHP-listed places should not identify the area of their properties, I agree you should bring it up for some general, objective discussion somewhere else.  I'll watch here, however. -- do  ncr  am  14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I notice that in this edit Orlady re-removed a statement in the article. Her edit summary included "The article is about a building that was listed, so there's no reason to think that it might include more than one building."  That is a factually incorrect assertion.  There are many NRHP listings, perhaps even most listings, which have more than one building on a property.  It is relevant to mention and to describe the additional contributing and non-contributing buildings on a property, and to clarify that there are none if that is the case.  It is quite common in NRHP articles to describe these facts.  What is stated is supported by reference, even.  So I undid the removal edit.  I would welcome positive development of the article. -- do  ncr  am  14:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My only interests in this article are related to eliminating content that I consider to be an embarrassment to Wikipedia and a poor example for prospective new contributors. The first sentence in the article says the article topic is a building. Therefore, there is no particular purpose for the fourth (and last) sentence to say "The listing was for an area of less than one acre with just the one contributing building." Similarly, considering that there is no indication of whether and how the grounds contribute to the historic character, and "less than one acre" could be anything from a tiny plot to 0.99 acres, my revision that said "The listing includes less than one acre of land" is not particularly informative. As discussed in my comments at Talk:Dinnie Apartments, not everything that is documented in a reliable source belongs in Wikipedia, and often it is better to say nothing than to include "information" that makes no sense to the reader. Accordingly, I'm deleting that entire sentence. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)