User talk:Welsh/Archives/2015/November

Stubs
Trying to understand your decision to remove the stub notice from Lostock Lane railway station. The article has only 91 words spread over just six sentences—the rest is boilerplate. I guess maybe I don't see what you see? Just trying to understand your reasoning, as I think an article about this place could be expanded, probably considerably, from what it is now; and I often place stub tags when copy editing very short articles such as this one. Regards, GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 14:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My thinking was that the article is well formed - has infobox, references, external links, categories, coords, adjacent stations. To my way of thinking it doesn't fit into the stub description "Provides very little meaningful content". Of course it is not perfect, but for an average disused station the amount of information in a good article would be relatively small, so I think start is fair. welsh (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the insight.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 02:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)