Talk:Wilton Scenic Railroad

Trains Low‑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

Low

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

More information:
/
	This article lacks references.
	It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

United States: New Hampshire 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.
	New Hampshire portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Low-importance).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]