Talk:Northern Ohio Railway Museum

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Ohio 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.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.

Trains Mid‑importance

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Roster

The detailed roster that has been added today I think is too much detail for Wikipedia. Leave it to the museum's web pages or other sources to give detailed roster information. Here in the Wikipedia article, focus on the key pieces in the collection and their significance. Listing "everything" doesn't make sense since it can change over time. I'm not familiar with the NORM collection or what may be considered significant, so I won't attempt those edits. n2xjk (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latest edits have removed the roster and added other information. However, this new information reads like it's from an internal document from the museum. Unless the membership of the museum has unusual characteristics or people of note, I don't believe the make up of the membership is relevant for Wikipedia. Also, the remainder of the new sections should be pared down to their essence. Concentrate what makes the collection noteworthy or historically significant and how the collection was formed may also be relevant. n2xjk (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

Please do not remove tags unless the problems they have been placed for have been addressed. I'm still a little hesitant to keep the advertisement tag off, but for now it seems to be much less of an ad than before. As for the sources tag, the article doesn't source anything, so until it has some inline citations, the tag needs to stay. Really, this article shouldn't have even been placed on Wikipedia without any sources like that. I also removed a statement "A roster of equipment is enclosed in this package". What "package" is this referring to? Remember, this is an encyclopedic article, not a press release. I am happy to work with editors on improving this article, but please become familiar with Wikipedia policies like What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia Manual of Style, reliable sources, and notablilty. As of right now, notability has not been established. Why is this museum notable? --JonRidinger (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

Please take the time to read Wikipedia policies relating to article ownership and conflict of interest. Remember, this article is about the NORM; it is not owned by, under the direction of, or controlled by the museum in any ways. Even those who have a close connection to the museum have no more rights to edit the article than any other Wikipedia editors (such as myself). In the end, we all have to conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the coverage of any subject. The close connection to an article subject is what drives us to edit it in the first place, but remember, without reliable sources, one's word alone is not sufficient. We have no way to know how accurate one's personal knowledge is if it cannot be sourced, nor can we verify that someone is the expert he/she claims to be. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]