Talk:Oxford House (Grand Forks, North Dakota)

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: North Dakota Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Dakota portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Dakota (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that an image or photograph of Oxford House (Grand Forks, North Dakota) be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in North Dakota may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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 Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Try, for National Park Service material: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Or develop from the sources already included in the article! Thanks. --do ncr am 23:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]