Talk:Morayshire Railway

the notes section
This section contains footnotes. I beleive for consistency that should be followed in this case. I will be reverting the page back to using "reflist" as the guideline suggests. --Rockfang (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This contradicts Template:reflist which states there is no concensus to use the small font version. There is no reason in this article to use the small font version. In addition FN indicates that small font has some disadvantages and conversely that some editors prefer the smaller font. I do not like the small font. In this article there are only ten referenced items, and I see not advantage for the smaller font. --Stewart (talk)  18:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, Template:reflist is incorrect. If you check the history of FN a lot of stuff has been removed because people edited it without consensus.  The "how to use" section is still on there because it has reached consensus. With regards to your small font point: sometimes small font does have disadvantages.  Some people might have poor eyesight even with glasses and the smaller font could be harder for them to read.  I would prefer to be consistent though.  Even though list isn't extremely long at only 10 items, that number was reached as consensus at the most applicable guideline to follow: FN --Rockfang (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The difficulty I have with this is you have used a template which has its guidance notes and then informed me that the guidance notes are incorrect and superceded by a MoS elsewhere in Wikipedia. I will reluctantly bow to you edit, however it is important that the guidance notes with the   are corrected to reflect WP:FN otherwise others will follow the notes to the template and revert like I did. --Stewart  (talk)  19:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * also posted to Template Talk:Reflist and Wikipedia talk:Footnotes --Stewart (talk)  19:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The foundamental problem is that WP:FOOT is a guideline, a recommendation, and its basic recommendation is that such matters be settled by discussion, or left alone, as trivial. It doesn't give a rule to be deferred to, much less imposed by revert-warring, against which we have a genuine and enforceable rule (see here).


 * So, to set an example, what are the advantages, for this article, of and ? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One advantage to using in this article is that it will decrease the overall length of the article.  The article is long enough as it is already.  The longer a page is, the less likely I beleive a person will be likely to read it.  Changing this article to to use  will also make it more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia.  Isn't this something Wikipedia strives for? --Rockfang (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. We do not strive for "consistency" on details which will be invisible to the reader, especially when there is no likelihood we will attain it. Making 10 footnotes 90% size, and 9 footnotes full size, is as good an example of such a detail as I can imagine. The one line we save may be less an attraction to a reader than the decreased legibility will be a deterent. reflist is common, and often looks well; but switching to it automatically is sillier than the Date Wars, and can be postponed until our deadline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So which do you prefer?  or ? --Rockfang (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For these, I mildly prefer <:references />; on other articles, often reflist - it depends. These footnotes are not citations, but substantive assertions, and should be legible. But let's see what Stewart thinks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As you will have seen I have been working on other parts of the article today. I will sleep on the issue and the above discussion, however I do have a preference for . --Stewart (talk)  00:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I've decided to give up trying to show my side on this matter.  From now on, if I change articles to fit WP:FN and someone reverts it, I'm just gonna leave it. --Rockfang (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Minor British railway companies
This article is listed in the above category. I believe this is incorrect because the category states ''There were a number of British railways that were not grouped into the 'Big Four' in 1923 and continued their independent existence separate from the 'mainline' network. This includes the railway companies that went on to become part of the London Underground network.'' The Morayshire Railway was absorbed by the GNoSR, thus becoming part of the "Big Four", Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is supported by Awdry - Encyclopaedia of British Railway Companies. It amalgamated with the GNoSR 1 Oct 1880.Pyrotec (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Craigellachie Bridge
This article, and certainly the introduction, seems to indicate that the Craigellachie Bridge was built for the railway. As far as I'm aware this is false, and the bridge's date of construction certainly seems to confirm this (1812-14). Can anyone clarify exactly which bridge the railway used to cross the Spey at Craigellachie, or whether it indeed did? If the railway followed the line of the current Spey Way, then, from memory, it would be some distance from the Craigellachie Bridge and the Spey at Craigellachie. Leithp 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The earlier road bridge by Telford was nothing to do with the railway. The railway bridge was to a completely different design, and in a different location. Photographs of it are hard to find, but one has been found and is now included on this page in place of the image of the road bridge. The railway bridge was demolished after the line closure.Lodestar1947 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)