Talk:Wilton Scenic Railroad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the Mapneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this map request.
	An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Please work with the Images task force to add a suitable image to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the Imageneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this image request.

	This article is part of Project New Hampshire; an effort to create, expand, and improve New Hampshire-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-priority on the priority scale.

[edit] stub?

I removed the "stub" labels. Personally, I feel they should only exist on articles which have so little information that they are of little or no value - not on any article which is short and could conceivably be expanded. This article is a coherent whole; it could be expanded with, say, links to various place the trains go by - but that hardly (IMHO) means it should get a label that implies it is defective, which is what "stub" should mean. - DavidWBrooks 12:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I put them back because I felt the text gave little more than a definition of the article name. Personally, I have no strong feelings either way on this one. The article should be expanded, and there are plenty of ways to do so (additional details on the history, operations and equipment used, for example), I just don't have the references handy right now to cite for such an expansion. Slambo (Speak) 12:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If "stub" is regarded as a placeholder to remind people that a given article is capable of expansion without too much effort, then it's fine here. If it's regarded as a sort of low-level mark of shame, then it's not. I guess it depends on point of view - and I agree that this is not a topic on which strong feelings or a great deal of time should be expended! - DavidWBrooks 14:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)