Talk:Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale 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. |
[edit] Still a stub?
Kudos to Slambo, for adding quite a bit of info to this page. I wonder, though, if this should still be considered a stub? -SwissCelt 00:24, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks but I didn't really add content to it, just formatted it and added the infobox. As to whether it should remain labeled as a stub, I think it should. Compare this to New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad (which itself could use some photos). The Big Four was one of the more prominent railroads in the area for its time, and there's still a wealth of information that could be added. slambo 02:23, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Revert comma edit
I reverted to the last edit by User:SPUI. This edit was correct, according to http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm : "Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two." Unfortunately, that means the title of this article is also incorrect; I'll be moving the page to the correct title shortly. SwissCelt 00:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Oops!
Unfortunately, I didn't see Wikipedia:Manual of Style until afterwards. My apologies to the Wikipedian whose edit I reverted: Apparently, you were correct after all. SwissCelt 00:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
